Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

overregulation falls most heavily on smaller enterprises (see
box 2.11 on South Africa). Experience has shown that SMFEs
require a range of policy and support services and that
external intervention can help to ensure that there is some
degree of dialogue between such services, both to optimize
what exists and to identify gaps.
Institutionalize mechanisms to coordinate SMFE
activities across multiple government authorities.
Multiple overlapping authorities with varying responsibilities
can often tie up the SMFE sector in red tape. Developing strong
and clear advocacy messages within broad coalitions can shift
policies and institutions. For example, depending on the
context, it may be useful to establish a cross-ministerial SME
development council or administrative body to coordinate
policies. This might be linked with sector-specific SME centers,
including forestry. In turn, these might interact with SME
investment companies and banks or technical and business
support companies, including cooperatives and credit unions.
Support for SMFEs can be channeled through leaders
of local enterprise associations and cooperatives.
Dynamic individuals (often necessary to the establishment of
an enterprise association) can serve as useful contact points
about how to channel support to SMFEs. Associations work
best when they arise independently without political
patronage; this should be supported rather than creating new
institutions (Agrawal 2001).
Track and support extension networks of local
activists who support SMFEs. Experience has shown
that SMFE support programs run by local groups and
activists with long track records of community engagement
can be successful and overcome the problems of centralized
extension and support services that often bypass SMFEs
(see box 2.12). Local networks can build administrative and
technical capacity. It is vital that such local institutions, and
the SMFEs they support, are known and understood; thus,
data on SMFEs and their supporting institutions need to be
collected. Such data could inform the option of catalyzing
and rolling out programs area by area.
NOTES
1. While this is the starting point for most communities
and for many this is the market focus that remains, some
communities and some products could have export opportunities,
especially for some commercially valuable NTFPs.
2. Reduction of forest conflicts through devolution of control
is partly contingent on efficient land and forest tenure.
Box 2.11
South African SMFEs and the Burden
of Bureaucracy
In many countries the burden of overregulation
falls most heavily on smaller enterprises. For
example, in South Africa the paperwork involved
with value-added tax management, contributions
to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, district
municipality levies, and training levies can stretch
small firms. Many useful support programs exist.
For example, the Centre for Small Business Promotion
(policy), the Ntsika Enterprise Promotion
Agency (nonfinancial services), Khula Enterprise
Finance Limited (financial services), and the Forest
Industry Education and Training Association
(training) all provide useful services. However,
overall leadership and coordination is lacking and
might be provided by some cross-ministerial SME
development council or brokering bodies that
could coordinate policies, interact with investment
sources, and provide business support.
Source: Lewis and others 2003.
SELECTED READINGS
Auren, R., and K. Krassowska. 2003. “Small and Medium
Forestry Enterprises in Uganda: How Can They be Profitable,
Sustainable and Poverty Reducing?” Uganda
Forestry Sector Coordination Secretariat (FRSCS) and
International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED), London.
Box 2.12
Supporting Local Activists Who Support
SMFEs in Guyana
In Guyana the North Rupununi District Development
Board has successfully supported a range of
local initiatives, including a logging cooperative,
an agricultural producers association, a revolving
development fund, a women’s revolving loan
scheme, a credit and development trust, community
natural resources management projects, and
the Bina Hill Training Institute (Ousman, Roberts,
and Macqueen 2006). Local development of these
initiatives followed methods documented elsewhere
(Tilakarnata 1980; Albee and Boyd 1997).
NOTE 2.2: SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES 81