Impact of FSC Certi�cation on Deforestation and theIncidence of Wild�res in the Maya Biosphere Reserve

Dave Hughell and Rebecca Butter�eld

February 2008

Executive Summary

In 1990 the government of Guatemala created the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) with over 2 million hectares in northern Petén to guarantee the preservation of the natural and cultural patrimony for future generations. For administrative purposes the MBR is divided into three zones with varying degrees of resource management:

1) Core protected area (CPA), designated for strict protection; 2) Multiple use zone (MUZ), designated for managed and sustainable low impact agriculture and the extraction of timber and non-timber forest resources; and 3) Buffer zone (BZ), a 15 km wide zone at the southern limits of the MBR where agriculture and land ownership are permitted.

This move was controversial as many environmental groups lobbied for complete protected area status for the area and expressed concerns about allowing extractive activities within the reserve. In response, the Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (CONAP) required that new forest concessions within the MUZ become Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified within three years of the initial concession grant.

Rainforest Alliance (RA) has been active in the MBR for over 11 years, beginning with FSC training courses by RA’s SmartWood program in 1996 and the first FSC certified community concession in the MBR in 1998. Currently, RA’s Training, Extension, Enterprises and Sourcing (TREES) program is working to build links between FSC certified operations in the MBR and buyers of FSC-certified timber. By late 2007, RA had certified 478,000 hectares in the MBR, representing 60% of the multiple use zone and 23% of the total land base1.

To better understand the impact of FSC forest certification on forest conservation, we calculated the deforestation rate and examined the occurrence of wildfires on FSC certified concessions, and compared those with deforestation rates and wildfire occurrences on the other land use zones within the MBR.

1 These statistics do not include the 3 concessions that have had their certificates suspended or terminated.

We found that: • From 2002 to 2007, the average annual deforestation rate for the entire MBR and the

core protected areas was twenty times higher than the deforestation rate for the FSC certified concessions.

• Since 1998 the incidence of wildfires in the MBR has been variable (7% to 20% of forest area burnt annually), while the area burnt on FSC certified concessions has been a fraction of that and steadily dropped from 6.5% in 1998 to 0.1% in 2007.

The decision to grant forest concessions within the MBR was contentious in 1990 but has since proven to be strategically astute for the long-term protection of forest cover. If current rates of deforestation continue, the MBR will lose 38% of its 1986 forest cover by 2050, with most of that loss within the western core protected areas and the buffer zone. Of the remaining forest cover, an increasing percentage will be comprised of the FSC certified forest concessions. The success of the FSC certified concessions in maintaining forest cover is likely due to the sustainable management practices required by FSC certification as well as continued donor support and the activities of numerous government and non-government organizations to promote environmental awareness, community vigilance programs, and sustainable economic activities. FSC certification has clearly played a pivotal role in protecting Petén’s forest resources and will have an increasingly important role in the future in maintaining forest cover in the MBR.

Introduction

In 1990 the government of Guatemala created the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) with over 2 million hectares in northern Petén to guarantee the preservation of the natural and cultural patrimony for future generations.

The primary motive was to combine conservation and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources and, in doing so, maximize the ecological, economical and social benefits for Guatemala. The Consejo Nacional de Areas Progidas (CONAP) was responsible for administering the MBR (CONAP, 2001; Nittler and Tschinkel, 2005).

For administrative purposes the MBR is divided into three land use zones with varying degrees of management (CONAP, 2001; Ramos et al, 2007) (see Table 1 and Map 1):

2

• Core protected area (CPA) - designated for strict protection and composed of five national parks, four biotopes and one cultural monument.

• Multiple use zone (MUZ) - designated for managed and sustainable low impact agriculture and the extraction of timber and non-timber forest resources. Currently 67% of this land area has been allocated to either local communities or private industry through mid-term concession contracts with 61% FSC certified. The remaining 33% is not under any formal management program.

• Buffer zone (BZ) - this is a 15 km wide zone at the southern limits of the MBR where agriculture and land ownership are permitted. To alleviate the potential negative impact of agricultural development on the MBR the communities in and near this zone are given environmental education and rural extension programs on the sustainable use of their natural resources.

The creation of the MBR was controversial as many environmental groups lobbied for complete protection of the area and expressed concerns about allowing extractive activities within the reserve. In response, CONAP required that forest concessions within the multiple use zone become FSC certified within three years of the initial concession grant.

Since its inception, the MBR has received sustained donor support. USAID has been one of the largest donors in the region, supporting technical assistance in natural forest management and strengthening CONAP and the community concessions. Donors have also supported the Association of Forest Communities of the Petén (ACOFOP), which assists community organizations and represents them in policy issues.

Rainforest Alliance has been active in the Peten and specifically the MBR since 1996. Our first activities focused on training and outreach on FSC certification to nascent community groups and local NGOs involved in forest management activities. RA’s SmartWood program provided early training and has been, since 1998, the FSC certifier for the industrial and community concessions in the Peten, often helping to raise donor funds to cover the assessment and audit costs of certification for the communities.

RA’s Community Conservation Enterprise Program became active in the Petén in 2002, providing small grants for environmentally sustainable economic activities, such as bayal furniture, NTFP craft training, butterfly farms, and improved facilities for xate (Chamaedorea sp) collection, among others. The Community Vigilance Project, working in collaboration with RA and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), has provided support for community patrols that suppress fires and control concession boundaries against squatters. These activities help communities to meet FSC requirements and have had positive impacts in strengthening the effectiveness of local managers to maintain intact forests.

3

Since 2002 RA’s TREES program, focused on supporting community forestry, has been active in the Peten, working to improve the economic viability of the forestry concessions through a variety of activities. These include lowering the costs of certification by facilitating a move to group certification, strengthening of an umbrella, for-profit community enterprise (FORESCOM S.A.) to serve as both group certification manager and processor for secondary species, expanding markets for new species and value-added products and raising funds for a group-owned secondary processing plant in the Petén.

Seventeen years after the establishment of the MBR and after a decade and a half of concerted efforts by donors and dozens of international and national NGOs there are many accomplishments to be proud of. There is evidence that FSC certification has reduced the risk of poor forest management within the MBR, increased the credibility of forest concessions, and provided both the Guatemala government agencies and environmental NGOs assurances that sustainable forest practices are verified on an annual basis (Carrera et al, 2006).

However, there are also renewed calls to expand the protected area status within the MBR at the expense of the forest concessions2. We aim to inform these discussions by examining the extent to which each of the three different management categories within the MBR (core protected area, FSC certified multiple use zone, and buffer zone) has been affected by two devastating pressures: deforestation and wildfires.

Deforestation in the Petén is the destruction and eventual removal of the forest cover for raising cattle and the cultivation of agricultural crops. It is greatest near the newer settlements where the inhabitants do not have a tradition of utilizing the natural forest (Ramos et al, 2007)

Wildfires in the Petén are caused by humans either intentionally or through neglect, and are usually related to the use of fire for clearing agricultural land. Wildfires are generally creeping ground fires, although they do cause dramatic changes in the composition of the forest and can cause mortality of mature trees (Pinelo, 2001). The frequency, extent and damage caused by wildfires is highly related to the weather and, in particular, El Niño climatic events which are drier, resulting in more fires from controlled burning getting out of control and doing more damage. While wildfires do not directly cause deforestation, they are an indicator of human pressure for the land and an advancing agricultural frontier.

We ask the following research questions:

1. What is the current status of FSC in the MBR? 2. How does the deforestation rate of FSC certified forests in the MBR compare to that

of the other land management categories? What will the MBR look like in the years 2025 and 2050 if these trends continue?

3. What is the incidence of wildfires on FSC certified forests in the MBR, and how does this compare to the other land use zones?

In the conclusion we reflect on the effectiveness of FSC certification as a tool to protect and maintain intact forests. 2 The proposed Mirador Basin Preserve would take land out of the FSC certified concessions and place it under protected area status.

4

Methods

Our study uses data from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Centro de Monitoreo y Evaluacion (CEMEC)-CONAP and from the Rainforest Alliance SmartWood database.

Since 2000 CEMEC has been processing LANDSAT satellite imagery and using geographic information systems (GIS) to assess changes in forest cover going back as far as 1986 (Map 2). We used these spatial data layers to calculate the average percent annual deforestation rate by dividing the loss in forest cover by the total forest cover in 1986 and by the number of years in the period studied. For data collected from 1986 to 2007, this was done for each of the land use zones and for the FSC certified concessions and the remainder (non-certified) areas within the multiple use zone (Tables 1 and 2). This analysis was used to assess the relationships among land use zones, certification and deforestation.

At or near the end of each year’s fire season (in April or May) CEMEC processed LANDSAT imagery to identify and map the season’s fire scars in 1998, 2003, 2005, and 20073. We used these geographic data layers to calculate the area burned for FSC certified forest concessions and for each of the land use zones within the MBR in order to compare the areas burned by wildfires within and outside the FSC certified forest concessions.

Results and Discussion

Current status of FSC Certification in the MBR Table 1 summarizes the three land use zones within the MBR and their relative importance in land area. The core protected areas are the largest management class with 40% of the total area, followed in size by the multiple use zone with 38% and the buffer zone with 22% of the total area.

Table 1. Three land use zones, area, and percentages that comprise the MBR.

Land use zones Ha % Core protected areas 821,700 40% Multiple use zone 779,500 38% Buffer zone 315,800 22% Total 1,917,000 100%

3 The analysis of fire scars was only carried-out for those fire seasons with a high incidence of wildfire and when the required data were available.

5

6

Since 1998 a total of 14 forest management concessions within the multiple use zone4 have been certified by the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood program to the FSC standards (see Figure 1), of which 12 concessions are community managed and two are industry managed. Even though CONAP encourages FSC certification of all MBR forest concessions in the multiple use zone and requires certification of all new concessions, the FSC certificates of three of the concessions have been terminated or suspended due to internal organizational difficulties, problems with illegal land acquisitions (“invasions”) and/or economic difficulties in meeting certification requirements.

The remaining 11 FSC certified concessions total 479,500 hectares, which represents 60% of the multiple use zone and 23% of the total land base of the MBR. The three non-FSC certified concessions have an area of 48,500 ha or 6% of the multiple use zone. This leaves 33% of the multiple use zone not allocated to any resource management concession.

4 The FSC certified Unión Maya Itza in not included here since it is not a concession (it is a cooperative) and is not located in the multiple use zone.

Map 1. Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) in northern Guatemala displaying the land use zones.

8

.

Mapa 2. C

obertura forestal y deforestación en la RB

M de 1986 a 2007 con relación a las concesiones forestales

certificadas por FSC

Cobertura forestal y deforestación

Concesiones certificadas por FSC

Agua/pantano

Agricultura antes de 1986

Deforestación 1986 – 2002

Deforestación 2002 – 2007

Cobertura forestal

Figure 1. Area (hectares) of previously certified and newly certified concessions in the MBR for each year since 1998. The chart takes into account those concessions that were certified and later decertified5 (the numbers of newly certified concessions certified each year is shown in parentheses above the bar).

Impact of FSC certification on deforestation Map 2 presents the forest cover and deforestation in the MBR from 1986 to 2007. The deforestation rates of all land use zones are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 2 in relation to pre-FSC certification (1986 to 2001) and after (2002 to 2007).

From 2002 to 2007 we determined that the average annual deforestation rate for the entire MBR is 0.88%, which is over twenty times higher than the deforestation rate for the FSC-certified concessions (0.04%) (Table 2). Similarly, the average annual deforestation rate for the core protected areas (0.79%) is nearly twenty times higher than the rate for the FSC-certified concessions. Figure 2 highlights not only the low deforestation rate of FSC-certified concessions, but also the dramatic increase in deforestation rates in all other land use zones from 2001 to 2005.

5 For the year 2004 the certified area was reduced by 26,000 ha for 2 concessions decertified and for year 2007 22,000 ha for 1 concession decertified.

Figure 2. Comparison of annual deforestation rates by land use zones in the MBR from 1990 to 2007.

Since the buffer zone is right at the interface between the tropical forests and the developed lands to the south, it is logical that this area would have stronger pressure for conversion of forests to agricultural use and a higher deforestation rate (2.2% since 2002 in Table 2). However, one would not expect to see the high recent deforestation rate of the core protected area (0.79%), in which all forestry or agricultural activity is legally prohibited (Figure 2). The deforestation rate for the non-certified areas of the multiple use zone (0.86%) may indicate what would be at risk for the whole multiple use zone if FSC certification had not been used as a tool to monitor and support better forestry practices. However, it is difficult to know what the deforestation rate in the FSC certified concessions would be if they were not certified. Similarly, the non-certified concessions have lost their certificates in part because of the deforestation taking place, so it is logical they would exhibit a higher deforestation rate.

Table 2. Annual deforestation rate averaged over the entire study period compared the rate before and after 2002.

Land class 1986 to 2007

1986 to 2001

2002 to 2007

Core protected areas 0.41% 0.26% 0.79%

FSC certified concessions in multiple use zone 0.02% 0.01% 0.04%

Remainder of multiple use zone 0.47% 0.31% 0.86%

Buffer zone 1.99% 1.91% 2.20%

Entire MBR 0.62% 0.52% 0.88%

These annual deforestation rates do not seem so dramatic until they are used to project the remaining forest cover under the various land use zones in the MBR. If the current

10

deforestation rate continues, in 2050 we will have lost 38% of the 1986 forest cover in the MBR, while the FSC certified lands would remain relatively intact with only a 3% loss (Table 3 and Figure 3). Figure 3 shows that the 38% projected loss of forest cover in 2050 can be broken down as follows for the land use zones: 16% loss will occur in the buffer zone, 16% in the core protected areas, 7% in the non-certified multiple use zone, and 1% in the FSC-certified area of the multiple use zone.

Table 3. Current (2007) and projected area of forest cover and percentage of 1986 forest cover remaining in 2025 and 2050. Projections assume the same average annual deforestation rates as observed between 2002-2007 in Table 2.

Deforest 2007 2025 2050

Land Use Zone rate (%) Ha % forest

remaining Ha % forest

remaining Ha % forest

remainingCore Protected Area

0.79% 695,595 91% 596,681 78% 478,837 63%

FSC Certified Concession

0.04% 474,656 100% 471,238 99% 466,526 98%

Multiple Use Zone

0.86% 269,239 90% 227,561 76% 178,635 60%

Buffer Zone 2.20% 208,795 58% 126,112 35% 56,750 16%MBR 0.88% 1,648,285 87% 1,387,197 73% 1,180,749 62%

CPA25%

FSC25%

MUZ9%

BZ3%

CPA15%

FSC1%MUZ

6%BZ

16%

Deforesta-tion38%

Projected Forest Cover - 2050

Figure 3. Projected breakdown of forest cover in the MBR in 2050. The bar graph on the right shows the percentage of forest that is deforested in each land use zone. The projection assumes the current (2002-2007) annual deforestation rate for each land use zone will continue until 2050.

11

Impact of FSC certification on the incidence of wildfires In nearly all the years for which wildfires were documented (2007 is an exception), nearly 20% of the MBR suffered from wildfires (Map 3, Table 4 and Figure 4). While wildfire presence does not necessarily lead to land conversion or deforestation, repeated fires reduce forest cover, and significantly reduce the integrated economic potential of forest management resulting from the collection of non-timber forest products (NTFP). Years 1998, 2003 and 2005 showed a decreasing incidence of wildfires in all land use zones with the important exception of the core protected areas, where wildfires have increased from 24% of the land base to nearly 30% in 2005. The FSC certified concessions have consistently smaller incidence of wildfires than the remainder of the multiple use area and the other land use zones. This contrast is especially evident in the wildfire map for the 2003, 2005 and 2007 fire seasons (Map 4) . Table 4. Percentage of area burned in each land use zone by year.

Land Use Zone 1998 2003 2005 2007 Core protected areas 23.6% 26.0% 29.6% 10.4% FSC/RA certified concessions in multiple use zone 6.3% 1.8% 0.1% 0.1%

Remainder of multiple use zone 21.9% 21.3% 12.9% 5.0%

Buffer zone 23.9% 23.5% 19.6% 10.3% Overall MBR (%) 19.5% 19.1% 18.0% 7.2% Overall MBR (ha) 404,632 398,280 375,149 149,424

Figure 4. Percentage of area burned by land use zone and year.

One could argue that a lack of human settlement in the CPA coupled with an absence of an effective government fire fighting presence has lead to the high level of wildfires in the protected areas. However, the repeated and escalating nature of those fires points to

an increase of human presence and settlement within the protected areas and substantiates the spike in deforestation found within the CPA, especially in the western area of the MBR around the Laguna del Tigre National Park. The presence of open savannahs and inflammable “jimba-a thorny bamboo” vegetation also contributes to the high incidence of wildfires in that area.

In contrast, the decline in wildfires within the FSC certified forest concessions from 6.5% of the area in 1998 to 0.1% in 2007 underscores the effectiveness of the community wildfire vigilance and community awareness programs (many supported by RA) as well as FSC requirements for protection plans. These have undoubtedly played an important role in reducing the frequency and extent of wildfires in and near the certified concessions.

We can point to specific areas where FSC certification has improved forest management and protection while strengthening the community managers of those forests. Carrera et al (2006) have identified the following improvements in forest concessions attributable to FSC certification:

• Creation of forest fire control and prevention plans, including a monitoring and patrol program, organization of fire brigades and fire fighting strategies, as well as training of personnel and purchase of adequate fire suppression equipment with support from the Guatemalan National System for the Prevention and Control of Forest Fires (SIPECIF),

• Reduced social conflict due to improved land use mapping and boundary definitions;

• Creation of specialized committees within communities to manage fire suppression, forest inventory, timber extraction, and boundary patrols;

• Formalization of rules and procedures governing outside collectors of non-timber forest products (often a historical source of illegal hunting and unintentional wildfires);

• Improved relations and collaboration with neighboring communities over road use, maintenance and forest fire control;

• Improvements in living and working conditions for forest workers including insurance, increased use of safety equipment and use of labor contracts.

13

Map 3. Areas burnt during 1998 fire season in the MBR.

15

Map 4. Frequency of wildfires for 2003, 2005 and 2007 fire seasons in the MBR. Map 4. Frequency of wildfires for 2003, 2005 and 2007 fire seasons in the MBR.

Conclusion

This study found significantly less deforestation and incidence of wildfires within the FSC certified forest concessions than in the remainder of the multiple use zone and the overall MBR. A more detailed analysis might be able to further research cause and effect linked to settlement patterns, livelihood strategies, road access, and vegetation type within the various land use zones.

The decision to grant forest concessions within the MBR was contentious in 1990 but has since proven to be strategically astute for the long-term protection of forest cover. If current rates of deforestation continue, the MBR will lose 38% of its 1986 forest cover by 2050, with most of that loss within the western core protected areas and the buffer zone. Of the remaining forest cover, an increasing percentage will be comprised of the FSC certified forest concessions. The success of the FSC certified concessions in maintaining forest cover is likely due to the sustainable management practices required by FSC certification as well as continued donor support and the activities of numerous government and non-government organizations to promote environmental awareness, community vigilance programs, and sustainable economic activities. FSC certification has clearly played a pivotal role in protecting Petén’s forest resources and will have an increasingly important role in the future in maintaining forest cover in the MBR.

References

Carrera, F., Stoian, D., Campos, J.J., Morales, J. and Pinelo, G. 2006. Forest certification in Guatemala. In B. Cashore, F. Gale, E. Meidinger and D. Newsom, eds. Confronting sustainability: forest certification in developing and transitioning countries, PP. 363-406. New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, CONAP, 2001. Plan Maestro de la Reserva de la Biósfera Maya 2001-2006. 82 pages.

Nittler, John and Henry Tschinkel, 2005. Community Forest Management in the Mayan Biophere Reserve of Guatemala – Protection Through Profits. 28 pages.

Pinelo, Gustavo. 2001. Efecto de un incendio forestal rastrero sobre la vegetación de un bosque natural latifoliado en San Francisco, Petén, Guatemala. Master’s thesis. University of San Carlos, Guatemala. 122 pages.

Ramos, Victor Hugo; Irene Burgués; Leonardo C. Fleco; Byron Castellanos; Carlos Albacete; Gerardo Paiz; Piedad Espinosa; and John Reid, 2007. Análisis económico y ambiental de carreteras propuestas dentro de la Reserva de la Biósfera Maya. Wildlife Conservation Society, 126 pages.