Upload
centro-latinoamericano-para-la-competitividad-y-el-desarrollo-sostenible-del-incae
View
108
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
El material aquí presentado les ayudará identificar los factores que afectan las ID en negocios forestales sostenibles y sus importancias relativas; pre-identificar países con las condiciones más favorables para el éxito de las ID forestales; identificar factores prioritarios para intervención con el propósito de hacerlos más favorables al inversionista; monitorear y comparar el desempeño o las tendencias del IAIF, subíndices, indicadores entre países, subregiones, años, etc.; medir el resultado de acciones que buscan mejorar el clima de negocios; y facilitar la investigación, debate, diálogo y aprendizaje.
Citation preview
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
ii
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
vi
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
viii
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
Country IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
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
El Salvador 43 33 +10
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
Trinidad y Tobago 36 33 +1
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
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
xvii
IAIF – Posições relativas em 2006 e 2004
Country IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
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
xx
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.8: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 64
Table IV.9: IAIF Results in Costa Rica64
Table IV.10: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 66
Table IV.11: IAIF Results in El Salvador 67
Table IV.12: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 69
Table IV.13: IAIF Results in Guatemala 70
Table IV.14: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 71
Table IV.15: IAIF Results in Honduras72
Table IV.16: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 74
Table IV.17: IAIF Results in Nicaragua 75
Table IV.18: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 77
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.25: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 86
Table IV.26: IAIF Results in Belize 86
Table IV.27: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 88
Table IV.28: IAIF Results in Dominican Republic89
Table IV.29: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 91
Table IV.30: IAIF Results in Haiti 92
Table IV.31: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 94
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.42: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 106
Table IV.43: IAIF Results in Argentina106
Table IV.44: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 107
Table IV.45: IAIF Results in Brazil 108
Table IV.46: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 109
Table IV.47: IAIF Results in Chile110
Table IV.48: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 111
Table IV.49: IAIF Results in Paraguay 112
Table IV.50: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 113
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.61: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 126
Table IV.62: IAIF Results in Bolivia 126
Table IV.63: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 127
Table IV.64: IAIF Results in Colombia 128
Table IV.65: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 129
Table IV.66: IAIF Results in Ecuador 130
Table IV.67: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 131
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.71: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 135
Table IV.72: IAIF Results in Suriname 136
Table IV.73: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006 137
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
8
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
10
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
14
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)
Potential improvement
(%)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
Country IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
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
Dominican Republic 32 32 0
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
Country IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
Country IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
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
22
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)
Potential improvement
(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)
Potential improvement
(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
Potential improvement
(%)
Current Contribution
Differential contribution
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
Potential improvement (in %)
Current contribution
Differential 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
ResultsInverted Scores
Max. scores DifferentialPotential
improvement (in %)Current
ContributionDifferential contribution
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
32
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
Potential improvement
(in scores)
Potential improvement (in %)
Actual contribution to the IAIF
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
%)
Current Contribution
Differential contribution
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
Country ResultsNormalized
ResultsInverted Scores
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 %)
Current Contribution
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
Current Contribution
Differential Contribution
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
Country ResultsNormalized
ResultsInverted Scores
Max. Scores
DifferentialPotential
improvement (in %)
Current Contribution
Differential 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 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
Country ResultsNormalized
resultsInverted Scores
Max. scores
DifferentialPotential im-
provement (in %)Current
ContributionDifferential contribution
Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 11 9 91 100 9 10 2.9 0.3Belize 45 62 38 100 62 160 1.2 2.0Bolivia 39 53 47 100 53 112 1.5 1.7Brazil 33 43 57 100 43 76 1.8 1.4Chile 13 12 88 100 12 13 2.8 0.4Colombia 24 30 70 100 30 42 2.2 0.9Costa Rica 32 42 58 100 42 71 1.9 1.3Dominican Rep. 56 78 22 100 78 364 0.7 2.5Ecuador 36 47 53 100 47 90 1.7 1.5El Salvador 32 42 58 100 42 71 1.9 1.3Guatemala 38 51 49 100 51 103 1.6 1.6Guyana 51 71 29 100 71 242 0.9 2.2Haiti 35 46 54 100 46 86 1.7 1.5Honduras 51 70 30 100 70 239 0.9 2.2Mexico 42 57 43 100 57 132 1.4 1.8Nicaragua 53 74 26 100 74 282 0.8 2.3Panama 34 45 55 100 45 82 1.7 1.4Paraguay 48 67 33 100 67 200 1.1 2.1Peru 44 61 39 100 61 154 1.3 1.9Suriname 15 15 85 100 15 18 2.7 0.5Trinidad and Tobago 49 68 32 100 68 210 1.0 2.1Uruguay 5 0 100 100 0 0 3.2 0.0Venezuela 39 52 48 100 52 108 1.5 1.6
* Results based on data from 2004
44
Table III.21: Planting and Harvesting Restrictions
Country ResultsNormalized
ResultsInverted Scores
Max. scores
DifferentialPotential
improvement (in %)
Current Contribution
Differential Contribution
Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 129 15 85 100 15 18 2.7 0.5Belize 399 51 49 100 51 102 1.6 1.6Bolivia 211 26 74 100 26 35 2.3 0.8Brazil 376 48 52 100 48 91 1.7 1.5Chile 143 17 83 100 17 21 2.6 0.5Colombia 149 18 82 100 18 22 2.6 0.6Costa Rica 528 67 33 100 67 206 1.0 2.1Dominican Rep. 526 67 33 100 67 203 1.0 2.1Ecuador 467 59 41 100 59 146 1.3 1.9El Salvador 263 33 67 100 33 49 2.1 1.0Guatemala 338 43 57 100 43 74 1.8 1.4Guyana 267 33 67 100 33 50 2.1 1.1Haiti 80 9 91 100 9 10 2.9 0.3Honduras 306 38 62 100 38 63 2.0 1.2Mexico 449 57 43 100 57 132 1.4 1.8Nicaragua 379 48 52 100 48 92 1.7 1.5Panama 132 16 84 100 16 19 2.7 0.5Paraguay 417 53 47 100 53 112 1.5 1.7Peru 404 51 49 100 51 105 1.6 1.6Suriname 115 14 86 100 14 16 2.7 0.4Trinidad and Tobago 430 55 45 100 55 120 1.4 1.7Uruguay 215 27 73 100 27 36 2.3 0.8Venezuela 385 49 51 100 49 95 1.6 1.5
* Results based on data from 2004
45
46
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
Potential improvement
(in scores)
Potential improvement
(in %)
Actual contribution to the IAIF
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
Country ResultsNormalized
scoresMax.
scoresDifferential
Potential improvement (in %)
Current Contribution
Differential contribution
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
Potential improvement
(in %)
Current Contribution
Differential contribution
(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
Country ResultsNormalized
resultsInverted Scores
Max. scores
DifferentialPotential
improvement (in %)
Current Contribution
Differential contribution
Vi Ii Iii Pi Pii PC CA CDArgentina 369 40 60 100 40 66 6.9 4.5Belize 522 57 43 100 57 130 5.0 6.5Bolivia 369 40 60 100 40 66 6.9 4.5Brazil 533 58 42 100 58 137 4.8 6.6Chile 273 29 71 100 29 41 8.1 3.3Colombia 380 41 59 100 41 69 6.8 4.7Costa Rica 526 57 43 100 57 132 4.9 6.5Dominican Rep. 607 66 34 100 66 194 3.9 7.5Ecuador 495 54 46 100 54 116 5.3 6.1El Salvador 289 31 69 100 31 45 7.9 3.5Guatemala 398 43 57 100 43 75 6.5 4.9Guyana 653 71 29 100 71 245 3.3 8.1Haiti 218 23 77 100 23 30 8.8 2.6Honduras 523 57 43 100 57 131 4.9 6.5Mexico 474 51 49 100 51 105 5.6 5.9Nicaragua 525 57 43 100 57 132 4.9 6.5Panama 309 33 67 100 33 49 7.7 3.8Paraguay 520 56 44 100 56 129 5.0 6.4Peru 457 49 51 100 49 98 5.8 5.7Suriname 560 61 39 100 61 155 4.5 6.9Trinidad and Tobago 523 57 43 100 57 131 5.0 6.5Uruguay 246 26 74 100 26 35 8.4 3.0Venezuela 561 61 39 100 61 155 4.5 7.0
*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
El Salvador 43 3 33 5
Costa Rica 39 4 41 2
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
Costa Rica 79 2 77 1
El Salvador 78 3 77 2
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
Country Score Position Score Position
El Salvador 60 1 61 1
Panama 59 2 54 2
Mexico 52 3 51 3
Costa Rica 52 4 51 4
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
Country Score Position Score Position
Mexico 32 1 27 1
Panama 27 2 20 4
El Salvador 25 3 9 7
Guatemala 25 4 15 6
Honduras 24 5 16 5
Costa Rica 24 6 27 2
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
60
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.
Table IV.8: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 39 41 -2
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 11th 5th 6
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.
Table IV.10: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 43 33 +10
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 8th 13th 5
66
Table IV.11: IAIF Results in El Salvador
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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.
Table IV.12: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 38 30 +8
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 12th 21th 9
69
Table IV.13: IAIF Results in Guatemala
GuatemalaRating in
2004Rating in
2006Max. rating
possiblePotential
growth in %GDP Growth Rate 60 73 100 37Passive Real Interest Rate 92 99 100 1Exchange Rate Stability 100 100 100 0Trade Openness 54 52 100 92Political Risk 63 66 100 53Tax Share of GDP 81 80 100 24SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 75 78 100 27Economic infrastructure 45 51 100 96Social Infrastructure 65 67 100 49Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 34 35 100 183Capital Market 21 39 100 154Property Rights 25 30 100 233Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 25 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 53 49 100 103Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 49 57 100 75INTER Sectorial Subindex 38 45 100 122Forest Resource 11 11 47 327Favorable Support 16 44 100 127Domestic Market 8 8 15 100FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 34 57 100 75INTRA Sectorial Subindex 15 25 47 88IAIF 30 38 70 84
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.
Table IV.14: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 34 31 +3
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 19th 20th 1
71
Table IV.15: IAIF Results in Honduras
HondurasRating in
2004Rating in
2006Max. rating
possiblePotential
growth in %GDP Growth Rate 50 78 100 28Passive Real Interest Rate 78 77 100 30Exchange Rate Stability 95 95 100 5Trade Openness 68 64 100 55Political Risk 61 59 100 71Tax Share of GDP 61 65 100 53SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 69 73 100 36Economic infrastructure 37 41 100 144Social Infrastructure 67 68 100 46Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 34 33 100 204Capital Market 21 28 100 260Property Rights 25 30 100 233Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 25 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 65 30 100 239Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 70 62 100 63INTER Sectorial Subindex 41 41 100 144Forest Resource 37 21 53 152Favorable Support 24 29 100 250Domestic Market 5 5 8 60FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 11 43 100 131INTRA Sectorial Subindex 16 21 53 152IAIF 31 34 73 115
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.
Table IV.16: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 36 34 +2
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 14th 12th 2
74
Table IV.17: IAIF Results in Nicaragua
NicaraguaRating in
2004Rating in
2006Max. rating
possiblePotential
growth in %GDP Growth Rate 57 69 100 46Passive Real Interest Rate 96 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 95 95 100 5Trade Openness 71 64 100 55Political Risk 60 64 100 56Tax Share of GDP 46 68 100 46SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 71 77 100 30Economic infrastructure 33 36 100 178Social Infrastructure 67 70 100 43Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 29 36 100 178Capital Market 28 33 100 205Property Rights 25 30 100 233Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 70 100 43Agricultural Policies 43 26 100 282Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 68 52 100 92INTER Sectorial Subindex 41 42 100 138Forest Resource 20 20 32 60Favorable Support 21 43 100 134Domestic Market 5 5 10 100FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 52 43 100 132INTRA Sectorial Subindex 21 23 49 113IAIF 34 36 71 97
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).
Table IV.18: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 44 37 +7
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 6th 8th 2
77
Table IV.19: IAIF Results in Panama
PanamaRating in
2004Rating in
2006Max. rating
possiblePotential
growth in %GDP Growth Rate 62 88 100 14Passive Real Interest Rate 66 92 100 32Exchange Rate Stability 100 100 100 0Trade Openness 59 57 100 76Political Risk 73 75 100 33Tax Share of GDP 69 81 100 23SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 71 82 100 22Economic infrastructure 60 65 100 54Social Infrastructure 79 81 100 24Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 30 33 100 200Capital Market 48 67 100 50Property Rights 25 30 100 233Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 70 100 43Agricultural Policies 58 55 100 82Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 64 84 100 19INTER Sectorial Subindex 54 59 100 69Forest Resource 17 17 36 112Favorable Support 8 40 100 149Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 66 67 100 49INTRA Sectorial Subindex 20 27 49 81IAIF 37 44 71 61
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
80
IV.2. The Caribbean
4.2.1. In this chapter, the IAIF results, including the subindexes, will be briefly compared and
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
Country Score Position Score Position
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
Country Score Position Score Position
Trinidad y Tobago 79 3 62 3
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
Country Score Position Score Position
Trinidad y Tobago 56 1 56 1
Belize 50 2 53 2
Haiti 39 3 41 4
Dominican Republic 39 4 47 3
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
Country Score Position Score Position
Haiti 25 1 8 4
Dominican Republic 20 2 17 1
Belize 16 3 12 3
Trinidad y Tobago 15 4 15 2
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.25: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 34 31 +3
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 18th 19th 1
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).
Table IV.27: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 32 32 +2
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 22th 16th 6
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 .
Table IV.29: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 36 23 +13
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 13th 23th 10
91
Table IV.30: IAIF Results in Haiti
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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.31: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 34 33 +1
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 15th 14th 1
Table IV.32: IAIF Results in Trinidad and Tobago
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 69 100 100 0Passive Real Interest Rate 30 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 100 100 100 0Trade Openness 55 56 100 78Political Risk 66 70 100 43Tax Share of GDP 53 48 100 107SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 62 79 100 27Economic infrastructure 48 51 100 96Social Infrastructure 80 81 100 24Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 42 53 100 88Capital Market 54 53 100 89Property Rights 75 70 100 43Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 70 100 43Agricultural Policies 32 32 100 210Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 45 45 100 120INTER Sectorial Subindex 56 56 100 79Forest Resources 11 11 13 14Favorable Support 9 9 100 1025Domestic Market 5 5 5 0FVL 5 5 5 0Adverse Actions 43 43 100 131INTRA Sectorial Subindex 15 15 45 203IAIF 33 34 68 100
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
96
IV.3. The Southern Cone
4.3.1. In this chapter, the IAIF results, including the subindexes, will be briefly compared and
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
Score Position Score Position
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
SUPRA Sectorial Subindex
78.5 57.8 20.7 1 3.0
INTER Sectorial Subindex
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
Country Score Position Score Position
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
SUPRA Sectorial Subindex
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
Score Position Score Position
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
2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to growth
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
Planting & Harvesting Restrictions
68.1 51.2 16.9 1 1.9
INTER Sectorial Subindex
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
Score Position Score Position
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
the factors underlying the 2006 results.
Table IV.40: Intra Subindex Results in the Southern Cone - Averages
2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to growth
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
104
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
Table IV.42: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 47 44 +3
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
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 94 95 100 5Passive Real Interest Rate 21 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 25 100 100 0Trade Openness 48 59 100 70Political Risk 56 65 100 54Tax Share of GDP 58 53 100 89SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 50 79 100 27Economic infrastructure 54 54 100 85Social Infrastructure 85 86 100 16Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 47 60 100 67Capital Market 39 32 100 216Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 14 91 100 10Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 47 85 100 18INTER Sectorial Subindex 46 59 100 69Forest Resources 48 40 55 38Favorable Support 71 43 100 130Domestic Market 8 13 45 260FVL 10 10 15 50Adverse Actions 67 60 100 66INTRA Sectorial Subindex 41 33 63 90IAIF 44 47 79 68
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.
Table IV.44: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
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
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 49 75 100 34Passive Real Interest Rate 54 97 100 3Exchange Rate Stability 35 100 100 0Trade Openness 60 58 100 72Political Risk 69 67 100 50Tax Share of GDP 41 53 100 90SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 51 75 100 34Economic infrastructure 64 62 100 61Social Infrastructure 78 79 100 26Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 32 39 100 156Capital Market 64 55 100 82Property Rights 50 50 100 100Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 14 57 100 76Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 16 52 100 91INTER Sectorial Subindex 46 55 100 82Forest Resources 49 40 95 138Favorable Support 87 37 100 168Domestic Market 85 95 100 5FVL 80 80 100 25Adverse Actions 45 42 100 137INTRA Sectorial Subindex 69 59 99 68IAIF 60 60 99 65
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.
Table IV.46: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 53 53 0
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 2nd 2nd
109
Table IV.47: IAIF Results in Chile
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 67 81 100 24Passive Real Interest Rate 89 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 85 95 100 5Trade Openness 82 81 100 24Political Risk 76 79 100 27Tax Share of GDP 60 56 100 79SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 76 82 100 22Economic infrastructure 68 73 100 37Social Infrastructure 84 86 100 16Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 50 51 100 98Capital Market 54 66 100 51Property Rights 100 100 100 0Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 75 100 33Agricultural Policies 46 88 100 13Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 41 83 100 21INTER Sectorial Subindex 63 75 100 34Forest Resources 19 22 30 39Favorable Support 87 49 100 104Domestic Market 18 20 25 25FVL 10 10 15 50Adverse Actions 76 71 100 41INTRA Sectorial Subindex 42 34 54 57IAIF 53 53 74 41
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
4.3.62. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Economic Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure,
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
for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
Table IV.48: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
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
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 70 70 100 43Passive Real Interest Rate 60 86 100 16Exchange Rate Stability 40 100 100 0Trade Openness 64 69 100 46Political Risk 53 57 100 75Tax Share of GDP 80 69 100 45SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 61 75 100 33Economic infrastructure 35 34 100 192Social Infrastructure 75 76 100 32Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 31 37 100 172Capital Market 33 29 100 240Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 50 50 100 100Agricultural Policies 69 33 100 200Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 85 47 100 112INTER Sectorial Subindex 48 40 100 152Forest Resources 20 15 30 106Favorable Support 8 26 100 279Domestic Market 5 5 10 100FVL 5 5 10 100Adverse Actions 42 44 100 129INTRA Sectorial Subindex 16 19 50 165IAIF 31 33 71 116
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.
Table IV.50: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 47 44 +3
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 4th 3rd 1
113
Table IV.51: IAIF Results for Uruguay
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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.
4.3.84. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Favorable Support and Adverse Actions
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
116
IV.4. Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname
4.4.1. In this chapter, the IAIF results, including the subindexes, will be briefly compared and
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
Score Position Score Position
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
SUPRA Sectorial Subindex
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
Score Position Score Position
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
the factors underlying the 2006 results.
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
Guyana and Suriname, comparing them to the 2004 results.
Table IV.56: INTER Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname
2006 2004
Score Position Score Position
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
the factors underlying the 2006 results.
121
Table IV.57: INTER Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname - Averages
2006 2004 Difference Weight Contribution to growth
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
Guyana and Suriname, comparing them to the 2004 results.
122
Table IV.58: INTRA Subindex Results in the Andean Group plus Guyana and Suriname
2006 2004
Score Position Score Position
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
the factors underlying the 2006 results.
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
124
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.61: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 41 34 +7
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 9th 11th 2
Table IV.62: IAIF Results in Bolivia
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 62 70 100 44Passive Real Interest Rate 61 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 90 100 100 0Trade Openness 62 64 100 56Political Risk 62 60 100 67Tax Share of GDP 65 46 100 116SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 67 73 100 36Economic infrastructure 25 28 100 259Social Infrastructure 68 69 100 45Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 31 32 100 215Capital Market 23 28 100 260Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 100 100 100 0Agricultural Policies 62 47 100 112Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 25 74 100 35INTER Sectorial Subindex 43 48 100 110Forest Resources 36 38 58 51Favorable Support 16 40 100 148Domestic Market 5 5 13 160FVL 5 5 10 100Adverse Actions 43 60 100 66INTRA Sectorial Subindex 21 30 56 88IAIF 34 41 75 83
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.
4.4.31. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate,
Exchange Rate Stability, and Trade Openness improved during the period. Political Risk and Tax
Share of GDP deteriorated, as compared to 2004.
4.4.32. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Economic Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure,
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.
4.4.33. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Forest Resources, Favorable Support and
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
potential for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
4.4.39. Tables IV.63 and IV.64 present the results for the IAIF in 2006, compared to the 2004 IAIF
results.
Table IV.63: 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 7th 7th
127
Table IV.64: IAIF Results in Colombia
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 69 74 100 35Passive Real Interest Rate 79 89 100 12Exchange Rate Stability 55 100 100 0Trade Openness 61 59 100 69Political Risk 54 59 100 69Tax Share of GDP 79 71 100 41SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 66 75 100 33Economic infrastructure 46 49 100 106Social Infrastructure 77 79 100 27Licenses and Permits 50 50 100 100Labor 33 40 100 151Capital Market 36 49 100 102Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 75 100 33Agricultural Policies 67 70 100 42Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 39 82 100 22INTER Sectorial Subindex 50 58 100 73Forest Resources 17 16 55 253Favorable Support 44 43 100 134Domestic Market 8 10 50 400FVL 15 15 25 67Adverse Actions 59 59 100 69INTRA Sectorial Subindex 29 28 66 132IAIF 40 44 81 86
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.
4.4.41. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate,
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
potential for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
4.4.48. Tables IV.65 and IV.66 present the results of the 2006 IAIF, compared to the IAIF results in
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.
Table IV.65: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 32 25 +7
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 21nd 22nd 1
129
Table IV.66: IAIF Results in Ecuador
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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.
4.4.53. As to the INTER subindex-related factors, Economic Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure,
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
4.4.54. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Favorable Support and Adverse Actions
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
for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
4.4.59. Tables IV.67 and IV.68 present the results of the 2006 IAIF, compared to the IAIF results in
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.
Table IV.67: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 32 32 0
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 23th 17th6
131
Table IV.68: IAIF Results in Guyana
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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
for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
4.4.68. Tables IV.69 and IV.70 present the results for the IAIF in 2006, compared to the 2004 IAIF
results.
Table IV 69: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 39 33 +6
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 10th 15th 5
133
Table IV.70: IAIF Results in Peru
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
GDP Growth Rate 61 74 100 35Passive Real Interest Rate 74 100 100 0Exchange Rate Stability 100 100 100 0Trade Openness 59 61 100 65Political Risk 64 64 100 56Tax Share of GDP 72 70 100 43SUPRA Sectorial Subindex 72 78 100 28Economic infrastructure 56 53 100 89Social Infrastructure 75 77 100 30Licenses and Permits 25 25 100 300Labor 33 46 100 118Capital Market 34 48 100 107Property Rights 25 25 100 300Capital Flow and Foreign Investment 75 75 100 33Agricultural Policies 60 39 100 154Planting and Harvesting Restrictions 19 49 100 105INTER Sectorial Subindex 45 49 100 106Forest Resources 22 20 53 161Favorable Support 21 31 100 226Domestic Market 5 5 33 560FVL 10 20 20 0Adverse Actions 31 51 100 98INTRA Sectorial Subindex 18 25 61 141IAIF 33 39 78 97
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.
4.4.72. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate,
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
potential for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
Table IV.71: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 36 34 +2
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 16th 10th 6
135
Table IV.72: IAIF Results in Suriname
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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
potential for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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.
4.4.87. Tables IV.73 and IV.74 present the results of the 2006 IAIF, compared to the IAIF results in
2004.
Table IV.73: IAIF scores and ranks in 2004 and 2006
IAIF 2006 IAIF 2004 Difference
IAIF scores in 2004 and 2006 35 35 0
IAIF ranks in 2004 and 2006 17th 9th 8
137
Table IV.74: IAIF Results in Venezuela
Rating in 2004
Rating in 2006
Max. rating possible
Potential growth in %
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.
4.4.91. As to the SUPRA subindex-related factors, GDP Growth Rate, Passive Real Interest Rate,
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.
4.4.93. In terms of the INTRA subindex-related factors, Forest Resources, Favorable Support and
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
potential for implementing policies aimed at improving the attractiveness of forest investment.
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
140
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
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
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
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?
( ) Yes (please enter a degree of distortion you consider appropriate) ( ) No ( ) I don’t know
1.3. Would you say that taxes over agricultural activity are comparatively lower than taxes over
forest activity?
( ) Yes (please enter a degree of distortion you consider appropriate) ( ) No ( ) I don’t know
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?
( ) Yes (please enter a degree of distortion you consider appropriate) ( ) No ( ) I don’t know
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:
Very high: 5 High: 4 Medium: 3 Low: 2 Very low: 1 Does not apply: 0
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
2.2 According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to
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
2.5 According to the current environmental regulation, is an authorization or license required to
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
2.7 According to the current environmental regulation, is a special authorization or license
required for cutting down trees in specific areas of natural forests?
( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0 ( ) I don’t know
2.8 According to the current environmental regulation, is a special authorization or license
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
DEGREES OF ADVERSITY:
Very high: 5 High: 4 Medium: 3 Low: 2 Very low: 1 Does not apply: 0
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
DEGREES OF ADVERSITY:
Very high: 5 High: 4 Medium: 3 Low: 2 Very low: 1 Does not apply: 0
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?
Please select one of the following options.
( )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
B.2. In your opinion, how adverse are the losses from transaction costs (time, materials, personnel,
and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from restrictions that have not been properly
compensated?
Please select one of the following options.
( )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.)
B.3. In your opinion, how adverse are the losses from transaction costs (time, materials, personnel,
and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from insufficient compensation for the above-
mentioned prohibition?
Please select one of the following options.
( )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.)
B.4. In your opinion, how adverse are the losses from transaction costs (time, materials, personnel,
and equipment), opportunity costs or others resulting from insufficient compensation for the above-
mentioned prohibition?
Please select one of the following options.
( )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
answer question B.5.) No (go on to Theme B.6.)
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?
Please select one of the following options.
( )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
answer question B.6.) No (go on to Theme B.7.)
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?
Please select one of the following options.
( )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?
Please select one of the following options.
( )5 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )1 ( )0
161
162
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
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
3 IERAL NEA – Fundación MediterráneaGerardo Alonso Schwarz
Economista Jefe
4
APFCh - Asociación de Productores Forestales del Chaco
Güemes 345 H3700HIG Presidencia
Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco
CPN Edmundo Ybarra
(03732) 42-2656 / 42-2657
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
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)
163
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
165
BOLIVIA: 15 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
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
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
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
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
5Prefectura Departamento de La Paz
Adiva Eyzaguirre
Directora de Recursos Naturales
Móvil (591) 71521044
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
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
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
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
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
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
13
Cámara Forestal de Bolivia
Prol. Manuel Ignacio Salvatierra, 1055
Casilla 346 – Santa Cruz
Freddy Terrazas Sedlak
Jefe Dpto. Económico y Comercial
(591-3) 3332699 Fax:3331456
167
14
Cámara Forestal de Bolivia
La Paz
Jhony Zapata
PhD- Jefe Dept. de Proyectos
Representante en La Paz
(591-2) 2441.491
15
CIMAL IMR S.A. Industria Forestal
Parque Industrial M – 10
Casilla 700
Santa Cruz
Alfonso Vargas
Gerente
(591-3) 3460404
Fax: 3461501
168
BRAZIL: 49 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
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
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
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
5.Aracruz Celulose S A
Zoé Antonio Donati
Gerente de Desenvolvimento Florestal
(27) 3270 2888; fax: (27) 3270 2689
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
7. Banco da Amazônia S.A
Marilene de Sena Ribeiro
Gerente Executiva
(91) 4008-3152
169
8. Banco da Amazônia S.A
Marcelo Lúcio Silva
Analista – Gerência de Crédito de Fomento
(91) 4008-3152
9.BDMG – Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais S.A
Mário José Ferreira
Gerente – Departamento Agronegócios
(31) 3219 8286
10.BDMG – Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais S.A
Vanor Barbosa Almeida
Gerente – Divisão Agropecuária
(31) 3219 8286
Fax 3219 8471
11.BDMG – Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais S.A
Luiz Felipe Valério Firme
Analista de Desenvolvimento – Divisão Agropecuária
(31) 3219 8286
Fax 3219 8471
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
13.Celulose Nipo-Brasileira – CENIBRA
Cláudio R Pontes
Planejamento Florestal
(31) 3829-5043
14. Consultor
Sebastião Kengen
Consultor
(61) 3302-2281
(61) 9987-3109
15. Embrapa Florestas / Colombo-PR
Moacir José Sales Medrado
Chefe Geral
(41) 3675-5600
Fax:(41)3675-5601
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
17. Eucatex
Edward Fagundes Branco
Diretor Florestal e de Agroindústria
(11) 4028-9194 ou
(19) 3888-4400
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
19. IBAMA
Antonio Carlos Hummel
Diretor de Florestas
Sérgio Luiz do Bomfim – Assessor
[email protected] ; [email protected]
20. IBAMA
José Humberto Chaves
Coord. Geral de Gestão dos Recursos Florestais – CGREF/Diretoria de Florestas – DIREF
(061)3316-1474 Fax: (61)3316-1712
21. IBAMA
Adalberto Costa Meira Filho
Analista Ambiental
Diretoria de Florestas
22.IMAZON – Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia
Paulo Barreto
Pesquisador Sênior
(91) 3182-4000
R/ 4004
Fax: (91) 3182-4027
171
23. International Paper do Brasil Ltda.
Armando J.S. Santiago
Vice-Presidente Florestal
(19) 3861-8817
Fax: //-8194
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
25. Klabin S.A.
Evaristo Manuel Lopes
Gerente de Incentivos Florestais
(11) 3046-8405
26.Ministério do Meio Ambiente – Serviço Florestal Brasileiro (SFB)
Tasso Rezende de Azevedo
Diretor Geral
(61) 4009-1095/1010
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
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
31. Satipel Florestal S.A.Edmundo Bernardo Silva Smith – Gerente
172
Unidade de Negócio Florestal
32.SINDUSMAD – Sindicato das Indústrias Madeireira do Norte do Estado de Mato Grosso
Jaldes Langer
Presidente
33. Sociedade Brasileira de Engenheiros Florestais Glauber [email protected]; [email protected]
34. Sociedade Brasileira de Silvicultura
Amantino Ramos de Freitas - Presidente
(11) 3719-1771
35. Sociedade Brasileira de Silvicultura
Rubens Cristiano Damas Garlipp – Superintendente
(11) 3719-1771
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
[email protected]; [email protected]
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
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
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
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
42. Universidade Federal de Viçosa Márcio Lopes da Silva
43. Universidade Federal do Acre -UFAC
Departamento de Ciências Agrárias
Tarcísio José Gualberto Fernández
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
45.
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro – UFRRJ /Departamento de Silvicultura
Tokitika Morokowa
Professor
(21) 2682-1128
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
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
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
174
CHILE: 13 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
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
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
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
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
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
6
Universidad de Chile – Facultad de Ciencias Forestales
Santa Rosa, 11315
Casilla 9206 – La Pintana
Manuel Rodríguez R.
Director Económico y Administrativo
(56-2) 978-5883
Fax: 541-4952
175
7
Universidad de Chile – Facultad de Ciencias Forestales /Departamento Manejo de Recursos Forestales
Santa Rosa, 11315
Casilla 9206 – La Pintana
Guillermo Guerra Marín
Director Dep. Manejo de Rec. Forestales
(56-2) 678-5743
Fax: 541-9437
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
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
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
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
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
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
176
COLOMBIA: 22 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
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
2.DNP – Departamento Nacional de Planeación
Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de BogotáMartha Arévalo
3.DNP – Departamento Nacional de Planeación
Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de BogotáClara Martin
4.DNP – Departamento Nacional de Planeación
Calle 26, nº 13-19 P7 Santafe de Bogotá
Martha Méndez
Directora de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible
596-0300
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
6.
Procuenca
INFI-MANIZALES (convenio con la FAO)
Km 3, Via El Magdalena
Manizales
Francisco Ignacio Ocampo – Director Nacional
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
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
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
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
14. Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y TurismoEdith Urrego
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
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
18.Programa MIDAS/USAID (Más Inversión para el Desarrollo Alternativo Sostenible)
Octavio Lopes
19.FEDEMADERAS – Federación Nacional de las Industrias de la Madera
Alfonso Davila Hijo
178
20.Programa MIDAS/USAID (Más Inversión para el Desarrollo Alternativo Sostenible)
Cristina Porras
21.
Reforestación Andina
FEDEMADERAS – Federación Nacional de las Industrias de la Madera
Jorge Berrio
Empresario
Director Técnico
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
179
ECUADOR: 06 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
1CAMARO
Guaranda 1911 y Camilo Destruge
Rodolfo Arambulo
2444751 2447665
2445831
2
Aglomerados Cotopaxi
Av. Granados E12-70 e Isla Marchena
Quito
Bernardo Perez
(593-2)396-3000
Fax: 396-3093
3
Consultor
Calle Filamil Vélez/frente iglesia católica/Pichincha, Manabì
Luis Suarez Loor
092325-772
05-2323396
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
6
ECUAPINE
Pasaje 1 de mayo, #15 y Av 1 de mayo
Gina Ambrosi
07-2811878
072-883779
180
PARAGUAY: 13 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
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
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
3.
RALE S.A.
Ruta 3, km 24 - Limpio
Raul Legal
CEO
(595-21) 780- 661Fax: 780-662
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
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
6.Copetrol /
Cámara Paraguaya de Reforestadotes
Blas Zapag
Director/
EmpresarioReforestador
Tel/fax (595-21) 442-322 / 441-711
7. Servicio Forestal Nacional – SFN/MAG
Mariscal Estigarriba, km 10
Asunción
Jose Maria Marengo Director
(595-21) 575-562 / 524382
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
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
10.
Colegio de Graduados en Ciencias Forestales/
Paraguay Silvestre
Madame Lynch, 3500 Asunción
Jose Ayala
Esperto/Asociado
Tel/fax: (595-21) 614-666/667
11.
Colegio de Graduados en Ciencias Forestales/
Paraguay Silvestre
Madame Lynch, 3500 Asunción
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
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
182
PERU: 16 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
1
Cámara Forestal Nacional
Wilfredo Salvino Ojeda Ojeda - Presidente
(51-1) 423-6726
[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
3 Consultor
Dirección:Urb. Los Cipreses Mz. T 10 Huacho
Manuel Antonio Pesantes Rebaza Ingº Forestal – Consultor
Tel. 232-4784
4ATFFS INRENA Lima
Rafael Ramírez Arroyo [email protected]
5
Sociedad Nacional de Industrias
Alfredo Biasevich Presidente del Comité de la Madera
6 Foripsac Alan Schipper Guerovich Gerente [email protected]
7
Consultor
Walter Nalvarte
Ex- Director Forestal del Instituto Nacional de Investigación
8
Tecnología Forestal SAC
Humbreto Esteban Bartolini Martinez 92110704 / 2265557Director - Gerente
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
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
13Consultora
Micha Torres
Asesora Forestal y Ambiental
183
14OSINFOR
Emilio Alvarez Romero
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
[email protected] ; [email protected]
16 Confederación Peruana de la Madera Erik Fischer LLanos [email protected]
184
URUGUAY: 14 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
1
Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente
Zabala, 1432, 4º piso - Montevideo
Oscar Caputi
Asesor
(598-2) 917-0710, int.1409
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
3
Cofusa
Rala. Baltasar Brum, 2819 CP 11800 Montevideo
Andrés Gomes
(598-2) 200-5759
Fax: 209-6590
4
Exdocente/Esperto
Daniel Sán Román
Agronomo
Exdocente de la Universidad de la Republica
(598-2) 915-1900
5
Consultor
Ituzaingó 1377 Piso 1 Montevideo
Carlos Faroppa
(598) 99 656065
915-80-22
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
[email protected]; [email protected]
7
Eufores
Paraguay, 1470, piso 6º
CP 11100 Montevideo
María Noel Fadel
Responsable Sistemas Integrados de Gestión
(598-2) 901-8431
Fax: 901-8436
185
8 Laboratorio de Semillas y Servicios Forestales
Juan P. Laguna, 3320 esq. Osorio
CP 11300 Montevideo
Graciela Romero
Directora
(598-2) 622-9779
9
Foresur G.I.E
Zabala, 1276 CP 11000 Montevideo
Gerardo Barrios-Director
(598-2) 916-3638 / 3640
10
Forestal Oriental
Cebollati, 1474
11200 Montevideo
Javier Solari
Gerente de Comercialización y Fomento
(598-2)410-3790
Fax: 410-3789
11
Colonvade-Weyerhaeuser
Continuación Echevarriarza 3535 Torre A. Oficina 1802.
Pablo Armand Ugón -
Gerente de Operaciones Forestales
(598-2) 623 44 1270.
12 Sociedad de Productores Forestales del Uruguay
Av. 18 de Julio, 1474, of. 701
11200 Montevideo
An13dréa Regusci
Gerente Técnica
(598-2) 401-1441
13
Grupo Forestal
Rincón, 477, Of. 801 - CP11000, Montevideo
Alberto Rodríguez
Gerente General
(598-2)916-1475
Fax: 916-1436
14Uruguay Forestal
Rosario Pou Ferrari
186
VENEZUELA: 17 answers
# INSTITUTION/ ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
1 CONARE – Compañia Nacional de Reforestación
Tania Zambrano
Gerente de Planificación
+58 (212) 782.7423
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10IFLA – Instituto Forestal Latinoamericano
Ernesto Arends/ Director. María Elizabet Suescum Asistente
(58-274) 244.8906
[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
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
Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario Pesquero Forestal y Fines (FONDAFA)
Yesenia Menendez
+58 (212) 542.3605/3718
Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479
14
Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario Pesquero Forestal y Fines (FONDAFA)
Raul Hidalgo
+58 (212) 542.3605/3718
Telefax: +58 (212) 541.2479
15
Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario Pesquero Forestal y Fines (FONDAFA)
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
190
191
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
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
3
Earl Green
(Ex director forestal Belice)
T.(501)822-2614C.(501)600-3054
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
5
Osmany Salas
Director de las estrategias de BELNaRM
192
COSTA RICA: 13 answers
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
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
Secretario Ejecutivo
7Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, FONAFIFO
Ing. Héctor Arce
Director de Crédito
8 Cámara Costrarricense ForestalLic. Sebastián Ugalde
Secretario Ejecutivo
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
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
1Cardocoffee S.A. de C.V.
Alfredo Cardoza
Presidente
T.2243-0570F.2243-0568
2 Funde
Andrew Cummings
Coordinador Puembo II
2209-5318
3 Afosalva
Carlos Bondanza
Presidente
T.2228-0805F.2228-1051
4 ENFF / EFSA
Carlos Isaac Pérez
Coordinador ENFF
2211-4718
5 MAG / DGF
Edgar Cruz
Coordinador Nacl. EFSA
7884-9456
6 Afosalva
Ernesto Obed
Directivo
2276-3901
7 Centa
Guillermo Hurtado
Dirección de Proyectos
T.2302-0200F.2302-0241
8 MARN
Hugo Zambrana
Gerente Bosques Conservación
2267-9307
9 Procafé
Jersto Gil
Mercadeo y Proyectos
2288-3088
10 FUNDE
Jorge Criollo
Mecanismos Financieros
2209-5318
11FIAES
Jorge Enrique Trejo
Director
12 FIAGRO Juan Carlos Hidalgo [email protected]
194
Director2267-0050
13 UES
Juan Rosa Quintanilla
Facultad de Agronomía
2225-1500
14 Reforestador
Julio Olano
Consultor ENFF
7888-3088
15 Agrisal
Miguel Araujo
Asesor en Medio Ambiente
T.2500-9000F.2500-9001
16 Procafé
Oscar Ramos
Mercadeo y Proyectos
2288-3088
17 Camagro
Raúl García
Coordinador Planificación EFSA
18 Afosalva
Salvador Sánchez
Directivo
T.2284-1801F.2264-5507
19 BMI
Samuel Salazar
Subgerente de Proyectos
T.2267-0000F.2267-0001
20 Prods. Forestales S.A.
William Figueroa
Director
T.2242-0132F.2242-0132
195
GUATEMALA: 22 answers
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
1Baren Comercial
Santa Elena Petén, contiguo al Hotel Casa Elena
Carlos Díaz Rivera
Asesor Forestal
7926-1451y 2428
2AGROKAN
4ta calle, 21 – 21 zona 14. Guatemala
Andrea Polanco
Gerente
2385-50642385-49955412-4099
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
5FORESCOM
4ta Av. Y 11 calle, San Benito, Petén, Petén
Reyes de León
Gerente General
55877750
6
ACOFOP
4ta Av. Y 11 calle, San Benito, Petén, Petén
Apolinario Córdova
Subdirector
7926-3571 / 72
7Cooperativa Carmelita, San Andrés Petén
Colonia Itza, San Benito Petén
Juan Francisco Trujillo Méndez
Socio
57691165Oficina79248245 y 35
8
ASILSUR
13 Av. 17 – 73 zona 11 Vía del Mariscal, Guatemala
Federico Alvarado
Presidente
2473-08522472772253128464
9FEDECOVERA
6 calle 5 – 05 zona 11, Coban, Alta Verapaz
Hugo Moran
Director, Depto. Forestal
7952-10355502-7872
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
196
12Universidad del Valle de Guatemala
18 Av. 11 – 95, Vista Hermosa III
Cesar Castañeda
Director Depto. Forestal
PBX: 2364-0336/4053086859
13 Km 31.5, carretera a La Antigua Guatemala
Ing. Roberto Alvarez
Consultor en Industria Forestal
59776692
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
17INAB
7ma Av. 6.80 zona 13
Edwin Oliva
Coordinador del Programa Forestal Nacional
2440281924719699
18Cluster Forestal
Ruta 6, 9 – 21 zona 4, Ciudad Guatemala
María Eugenia Rey Rosa
Gerente
2360-19985702-8528
19Programa Reverdecer Guatemala
7ma Av. 6.80 zona 13, Ciudad Guatemala
Ing. Blanca Aragón
Coordinadora
2440281924719699
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
197
22
ASOREMA
2 Av. 1 – 66 zona 16, Concepción Las Lomas, Guatemala
Roberto Cáceres
Miembro de la Junta Directiva
5208-73012364-04192364-1921
198
HAITI: 14 answers
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
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]
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
12Claurin Sylveste
975-5262
[email protected]@gmail.com
13
Anje Sonna Bastién
431-6576431-4165
14Badette Ludger Thérameñe
199
HONDURAS: 6 answers
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
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
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
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
6Productores de primer y segundo nivel
7 CONAFOR
Juvenal Rodríguez Villicaña
Coordinador de Integración de Cadenas Productivas Norte
201
NICARAGUA: 24 answers
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
1 Centro HumbolthVictor Campos
2 Coordinación Territorial INAFORMartín Cuadra
3 IPADEOve Faurby
4 MARENARoberto Araquistain
5 CATIEMiguel Sinon
6 ACDI Mercedes Salgado L. [email protected]
7 JOVENES AMBIENTALISTASRoberto Herrera
8 BOSAWASYadira Meza
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
12 FNIMarlon Cardoza
13 FCRRosa María Tablada
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
22 GTZMarvin Centeno
23 Proyecto Sureste (incentivos)Gustavo Zapata
583-0176 ext 15
24 BCIE Melvin Cuevara
202
REPUBLICA DOMINICANA: 15 answers
Nº INSTITUTIÓN / ADDRESS CONTACT E-MAIL
1 Cámara Forestal Dominicana
Bernabé Mañón Ross
Presidente
T.241-7977F.559-2440C.309-1870
2 SEMARN/SUREF
Elías Vargas
Director Planificación y Política Forestal
T.688-0902F.685-4950C.501-2726
3 Jarabafinca
Freddy González
Director Ejecutivo
T.574-6085C.519-4794
4 PROCARYN
Humberto Checo
Director Ejecutivo
T.574-6727F.574-6994C.753-8899
5 Vivero Agroforestal Loma Grande
Jhonny Quiñónez
Presidente
T.763-9995
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
8 Cámara Forestal Dominicana
Omar Domínguez
Director Ejecutivo
T.541-4449C.842-2304
9 PROCARYN
Pablo Ovalles
Coordinador Componente Forestal
T.574-6729F.547-6994C.502-5660
203
10 Plan de Desarrollo de la Sierra
Simeón Abreu
Director Ejecutivo
T.578-8764C.917-5644
11 Fundación Sur Futuro
Wilkin Luciano
Encargado Componente Forestal
T.472-0611F.472-0612C.501-3961
12Jose de Moya
696-3395
13Nicolás Tejada
223-1460
14Rubén Moisés Espinal
578-8181
15Juan Gilbato Torres
578-8370
204