Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Community forest concessions in Petén, Guatemala: Effective governance for tropical forest conservation and socio-economic development

105 views

Published on

The devolution of forest rights to local communities is seen as a critical element of strategies aimed at conserving tropical forests and strengthening livelihoods based on them. In this webinar on December 13, 2018, Dietmar Stoian (Bioversity) and Iliana Monterroso (CIFOR) presented findings of an in-depth study of 12 community concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Petén, Guatemala that focused on the community forest enterprises.
See more at https://pim.cgiar.org/2018/11/29/webinar-community-forest-concessions-in-peten-guatemala/

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Community forest concessions in Petén, Guatemala: Effective governance for tropical forest conservation and socio-economic development

  1. 1. Community Forest Concessions in Petén, Guatemala: Effective Governance for Tropical Forest Conservation and Socio-economic Development Dietmar Stoian, Iliana Monterroso & Aldo Rodas PIM Webinar, December 13, 2018
  2. 2. Prensa Libre, Guatemala on August 12, 2018 Problem addressed: Tenure conflicts, land use change, and community stewardshipin the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala
  3. 3. Objectives General Identify socio-economic benefits of community forestry perceived by members of community forest enterprises (CFE) that manage forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Petén, Guatemala Specific • Identify conditions that enable or disable forest management in community forest concessions and associated value adding • Assess the socioeconomic performance of community forest enterprises • Document household livelihood strategies of CFE members and the absolute and relative weight of forest activities therein
  4. 4. Methodology Phases Methods 1) Context analysis Review of scientific & grey literature Key informant interviews (n=35) Focus group discussions (n=11) 2) Enterprise assessment (N=12) 12 community forest enterprises (CFE): 9 active & 3 inactive 3) Household assessment (n=292) 30 hh each (20 in one case) in 9 active CFE, selected at random; 32 hh purposefully selected in 2 inactive CFE; none in 1 inactive CFE Donovan & Stoian (2012) Livelihood and business assets: human, social, natural, financial and physical capital -G 5Capitals: 2009 baseline data vs. 2013 data from 3 active concessions 5Capitals-G: 2016/17 data from 6 remaining active concessions (w Rainforest Alliance) 2018 assessment of 3 inactive concessions Gender-responsive version (Stoian et al., forthcoming)
  5. 5. Hughell & Butterfield (2008) Radachowsky et al. (2012) Study area: 12 community concessions (400,830 ha) in the Multiple Use Zone (MUZ) of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala
  6. 6. Progress of research activities (1)
  7. 7. Analysis of CFE : Carmelita & Árbol Verde First Phase 5Capitals: Carmelita, AFICC & Laborantes Second phase 5Capitals: Carmelita, AFICC & Laborantes First Phase 5Capitals-G: Árbol Verde, OMYC, Suchitecos, Custosel, El Esfuerzo & AFISAP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Segunda fase 5Capitales-G: San Miguel, La Pasadita & La Colorada 90 interviews 90 interviews 170 interviews 32 interviews One interviewer One interviewer Mixed Team Mixed Team Progress of research activities (2)
  8. 8. Results: Context analysis
  9. 9. effective, readily available, advanced, well developed, highly functional moderately effective, existent, developing, functional ineffective, unavailable, rudimentary/inexistent, underdeveloped, dysfunctional Context Analysis: Enabling/disabling conditions Enabling conditions for the management of community forest concessions in the MUZ At present Before signing concession contracts Tenure security (de jure) Tenure security (de facto) Sense of ownership regarding forest resources Political and institutional support provided by government agencies Guidelines for managing timber and non-timber forest products based on technical criteria (e.g. regeneration and growth rates) Obtaining forest certification (FSC) Science-based evidence of the sustainability of timber extraction including species protected under CITES Sense of ownership and skills development for forest management and conservation Technical support provided by government agencies Technical support and advocacy provided by NGOs and projects Access to working capital for timber extraction and processing Availability of commercially valuable timber and non-timber forest products Availability of forest products for supporting livelihoods needs Access to markets for high-value timber species Access to markets for lesser-known timber species Access to markets for non-timber forest products Complementarity/Compatibility between timber and NTFP utilization Opportunities for women with respect to forest activities and the administration of community forest enterprises Internal and external governance structures that allow to mitigate external threats (from outside the MUZ), such as wild fires, expansion of cattle ranching and illicit activities
  10. 10. Note: This map shows deforestation trends in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala during the period 2000-2013; hashed areas are certified forestry concessions. Courtesy of the Rainforest Alliance. Effective "social fencing" in 9 active community concessions, but some deforestation in 3 inactive concessions. Still, community stewardship best model for ensuring both forest conservation and livelihood benefits. Context: Conservation/deforestation in Maya Biosphere Reserve Source: Hodgdon (2015)
  11. 11. Results: Enterprise Assessment
  12. 12. Community Forest Enterprises (CFE) 9 active CFE: membership increased by 26% (2000–2017) 3 inactive CFE: ceased to operate between 2007 and 2009 Numberofmembers CFE Evolution of membership in the 12 CFE, 1994-2017 Numberofmembers
  13. 13. Gendered membership in CFE 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% PercentofMembershipthatisFemale Year Percentage of Female Membership Over Time AFISAP SCAV SCEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS SCOMYC Membership of women in CFEPer cent of total membership 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Men are preferred Same I don't know Women are preferred Men are preferred Same Women are preferred Women Men Percent CFE Is there equal opportunity to join for women and men? AFISAP SCAV SCEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS SCOMYC Women Men Is there equal opportunity for women and men to join CFE?
  14. 14. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Full-time Full-time women Part-time Part-time women Full-time Full-time women Part-time Part-time women Today Five years Ago NumberofEmployees CFE Employment in 6 CFE assessed with 5Capitals-G AFISAP SCAV SCEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS SCOMYC 5 years ago Gendered employment in CFE Today
  15. 15. Professionalization of management and processing Today (semi-)professional management in 9 active CFE Own sawmill operated by 8 of them Table 3:Evolution of CFE Management Over Time Year AFIC APROLAPA APROSAM AFICC AFISAP Coop.Carmelita SCAV SCEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS SCLB SCOMYC 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 * 2002 * 2003 2004 2005 * 2006 * 2007 * 2008 * * 2009 * * 2010 * * * 2011 * * * * * * 2012 * * * * * * 2013 * * * * * * 2014 * * * * * * 2015 * * * * * 2016 * * * * * 2017 * * * * Key: CFE Management Red Not in Operation Tan No Manager Yellow Manager without formal training Green Manager with formal training * Manager is Non-Member of the CFE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Degreeofprocessing Year CFE Timber Processing History AFIC APROLAPA APROSAM AFICC AFISAP Coop. Carmelita SCAV SCEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS SCLB SCOMYC CFE-owned sawmill Rented sawmill Roundwood sales Flitch Standing timber No sales
  16. 16. Source: Own elaboration based on unpublished data from CONAP Total timber volume extracted (m3/member) Total mahogany volume extracted (m3/member) Total timber volume extracted (m3/ha) Total mahogany volume extracted (m3/ha) Timber/mahogany extracted by 12 CFE, 1994-2017
  17. 17. Q 187.3 millions (~US$25 million) from timber sales during the last five years Source: Own elaboration based on unpublished CFE data Timber sales of active CFE, 2012-2016 (in Q) Financial Capital: CFE timber sales, 2012-2016 Timber sales of active CFE, 2012-2016, by year (in Q)
  18. 18. Physical capital in 9 active CFE Actual value of physical assets: Q 42.9 million (~US$ 6 million) Total value of physical assetsQ
  19. 19. CFE 91% Export (sawn timber) 9% Domestic market (sawn timber and round wood) US$ 4.4 millones per year US$ 447,107 per year Wood value chain of 9 active CFE, 2012-2016 Mahogany $ 3,437,468 Red cedar $ 379,154 Manchiche $ 256,180 Santa María $ 153,183 Other Sp. $ 176,909 Mahogany $ 164,098 Red cedar $ 9,937 Manchiche $ 24,260 Santa María $ 148,814 Other Sp. $ 99,999 Rex Lumber Caompany PRS Guitars American Wood Products Corporation Central American Timber Earth Source Forest Products Gibson Mcvain Company Hardwoos specialty products US LP North American Woods Products Plywood And Lumber Sale Inc AGROTROPIC S.A. Venta de muebles “El Arte Moderno” Madesol S.A. Centro de Maderas de Guatemala Caoba Doors INDICO S.A. Carpentry and processing plant Final consumer 74% gross income derived from mahogany
  20. 20. Alternative channel US$20-27/bf of mahogany Enterprises: value adding and asset building Conventional channel US$4-5/bf of mahogany Office building 2001 2009 2017
  21. 21. Source: Own elaboration based on unpublished data from CONAP and CFE 475 million palm fronds extracted Quantity of xate palm fronds extracted by 12 CFE, 2001-2017
  22. 22. Results: Household Survey
  23. 23. n=292 households 11 CFE Financial Capital: Composition of household income among members of 9 active CFE and ex- members of 2 inactive CFE (average across 11 CFE) Forest income: 38% Other sources Cattle ranching Pension Remittances Tourism Agriculture Rent Beekeeping Support from their children Petty commerce: 19% Employment (temporary or permanent): 19% Handicrafts
  24. 24. Forest income in 9 active CFE contributes 11-63% of hh income. Additional sources include petty commerce, employment, agriculture and others. Financial Capital: Composition of household income among members of 9 active CFE and ex-members of 2 inactive CFE (average at CFE level)
  25. 25. Households: Financial and physical capital 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Arbol Verde Uaxactun Suchitecos San Andres CUSTOSEL El Esfuerzo Percent Concession Principal sources of income among CFE member households Agriculture Handicrafts Small Business Income from another source Cattle Income from CFE Retirement Remittances/Help from children CFE Physical assets in CFE member households CFE
  26. 26. Financial Capital: Use of forest income 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Ahorro Pago de deudas Ahorro Pago de deudas Ingreso proveniente del empleo en EFC Ingreso proveniente por repartición de dividendo Porcentjedemiembros AFISAP SCAV ESEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS Savings Debt pay Savings Debt pay Income derived from CFE employment Income based on CFE dividend Per cent of CFE member households
  27. 27. Re-investment of forest income in human, social and physical capitals 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Inversión en el hogar Salud Educación Inversión en el hogar Salud Educación Ingreso proveniente del ingreso por empleo EFC Inversión proveniente por repartición de dividendo PorcentajedemiembrosdeEFC AFICC AFISAP Coop. Carmelita SCAV ESEE SCCUSTOSEL SCIS SCLB SCOMYC Housing improvement Health Education Health Education Investments based on CFE employment Investments based on CFE dividend PercentageofCFEmembers Housing improvement
  28. 28. Decision making over household assets 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% ambos alta hombre alta mujer baja hombre baja mujer Household decision making - CFE Arbol Verde financiero fisico humano natural social 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% ambos alta hombre alta mujer moderada hombre moderada mujer baja hombre baja mujer Household decision making - CFE Suchitecos financiero fisico humano natural socialSocial SocialHuman HumanNatural Social Both More men More women No/little men No/little women Both More men More women Some men Some women No/little men No/little women Natural Important variations between more and less-equitable decision making over household assets across CFE PhysicalFinancial PhysicalFinancial Per cent of CFE member households Per cent of CFE member households
  29. 29. Results: Inactive concessions
  30. 30. Accumulated cost: ~US$1.6 million Annual cost: ~US$200,000 For comparison: Financial contributions to CONAP from the 12 EFC (incl. 3 currently inactive EFC) amounted to Q 15 million (~US$ 2.1 million) over the period 1994-2018. Breakdown of costs across institutions Costs incurred by institutions (in Q) Guatemalan army DIPRONA NGOs (WCS - ACOFOP) Establishment of control post Evicition (preps & execution) Costs of safeguarding the concession area of La Colorada after eviction, March 2010 – July 2018 Institution Amount CONAP 4,753,811Q Guatemalan army 3,080,000Q DIPRONA 805,182Q NGOs (WCS - ACOFOP) 1,097,876Q Eviction (preparations & execution) 1,151,100Q Establishment of control post 315,236Q TOTAL 11,203,205Q Foregone income (licenses, fees) 362,664-Q
  31. 31. Forest cover, 1990-2016 Number of hot spots (fire incidents), 2001-2017 Año / Concesión La Colorada (%) La Pasadita (%) San Miguel (%) 1990 97 93 92 1995 96 91 91 2000 95 89 91 2007 95 78 89 2010 82 63 77 2011 82 61 77 2012 83 59 74 2013 83 59 75 2014 84 58 76 2015 84 56 74 2016 84 55 74 Entre 2010 y 2016 2 -8 -3 Year | EFC After cancellation/ suspension, 2010-2016 +2 -8 -3
  32. 32. Principal income sources today, during and prior to CFE operations Agriculture Bee keeping Livestock raising Other employment Daily wages Petty commerce Today During Before CFE employment Allspice Xate Livelihood changes in inactive concession– San Miguel (1) n=13 households Number of households
  33. 33. Principal sources of income in San Miguel (2017) Main Second Third Agriculture Bee keeping Cattle ranching Salaried employment Daily wages Petty commerce Livelihood changes in inactive concession– San Miguel (2) n=13 households Number of hh
  34. 34. Synthesis and the way ahead
  35. 35. Main Findings: 9 active CFE • Concession area: 352,089 ha (44% de la ZUM) • Deforestation rate (2000-2013): 0.1% per year • Membership growth (2000-2017): 26% • Membership (2017): 68% ♂ y 32% ♀ • CFE Boards (2017): 78% ♂ y 22% ♀ • Value of physical assets: Q 42.9 million • Total timber volume extracted : 219,225 m3 (1994-2017)  1.8 m3/ha intervened • Total mahogany volume extracted: 108,977 m3 (50% of total volume) • Gross income from timber sales (2012-2016): Q 187 million (74% mahogany) • Gross income from NTFP sales (2012-2016): Q 23 million
  36. 36. Main findings: 3 inactive CFE • Concession area: 47,923 ha (6% of the MUZ) • Deforestation rate (2000-2013): 1.8% per year • Low availability of high-value timber species at onset of concession contract • Membership growth (2000-2006): -10% • Total timber volume extracted: 15,764 m3 (1994-2008)  2.3 m3/ha intervened • Total mahogany volume extracted: 4,641 m3 (29% of total volume) • NTFP extraction: comparatively low extraction volumes
  37. 37. Main findings: CFE member households • Livelihood diversification  broad variation across and within CFE • CFE members mainly male – more gender equity in decision making over assets Active CFE: • Importance of forest income (38% of hh income on average), followed by petty commerce, salaried employment or daily wages, and other sources • Remittances (2%) and tourism (<1%) much less important • Forest income as livelihoods pillar (US$500-10,000/hh/yr): employment (extraction and processing of timber and NTFPs) and dividends (civil societies) • Depending on economic status, households reinvest in basic needs and/or improved housing, education, and physical assets Inactive CFE: • Loss of forest income has led to poverty for lack of alternative income sources
  38. 38. Conclusions • Asset building at CFE level leads to asset building at household level and forest-based income helps to build household assets  positive feedback loops • Spill-over effects to local communities: employment, procurement of goods and services, investments in community development • Inactive concessions as example of minimum requirements for successful community stewardship: resource endowments, livelihoods fit, organizational and institutional strength • Weak governance in inactive concessions and core and buffer zones a threat for the MBR, with high risk of deforestation and violence • As a whole, effective forest conservation through community stewardship  strong case for renewal of community concessions
  39. 39. Publications & Stakeholder Engagement Monterroso, Stoian, Lawry & Rodas (2018) Stoian, Rodas & Arguello (2017) Stoian, Rodas, Butler, Monterroso & Hodgdon (2018) Forthcoming: 2 ISI articles (Land Use Policy, Society & Natural Resources) Available online: Bioversity Brief & CIFOR Info Brief Launching events: Petén & Guatemala City (Nov. 2018), Washington (March 2019)
  40. 40. Political economy and need for further research and engagement Further research topics: political economy, governance in other parts of the MBR, perspectives for women and youth

×