Citation
The impact of public policies in the forestry sector in Oaxaca, Mexico

Material Information

Title:
The impact of public policies in the forestry sector in Oaxaca, Mexico
Creator:
Olivas-Pérez, Miguel ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 online resource (62 pages) : illustrations ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sustainable Development Practice field practicum report, M.D.P
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
This report presents the results of the field practicum I conducted during the summer months (May to August) of 2017 in Oaxaca, Mexico with the support of CIIDIRIPN (Interdisciplinary Research Center for Regional Integral Development - National Polytechnic Institute). I analyzed the impact of public policies within the forestry sector, in reference to the changes transpiring in the regulatory framework, specifically in the new Forestry Law. I focused on the State of Oaxaca, but also obtained complementary information from other parts of the country, mainly Chihuahua. Policies were primarily in the areas of productive capacity and forest protection. The practicum was divided into two parts. First, I obtained information on public policies that the Mexican Government has put into practice in the forestry sector and on implications of the new Forestry Law that currently is being discussed and approved by the Representatives, awaiting approval by the Mexican Senate. I also compiled general information on the forests in Mexico, such as forest area in the country, annual budgetary allocations by the government for the sector, income generated by the forestry sector in the country, and different programs that the Mexican Government implements mainly through CONAFOR, among others. In the second part, my practicum focuses on the analysis of the new Forestry Law, which has been discussed in the Mexican Congress. This analysis determined positive and negative attributes of the new Forestry Law, from the perspective of different actors who comprise the forestry sector. I compared the Forestry Law that has been in force since 2003 and the new Law under discussion in the Mexican Congress, presently in the Senators' Chamber. I worked with stakeholders including communities and ejidos of the Mixteca region of Oaxaca; the public sector at the Federal (CONAFOR) and State
Abstract:
level; the academic sector; non-governmental organizations; professional service providers; and the private sector involved in the commercialization of wood products. I used two methods for this work, including a literature review and the application of semi-structured interviews carried out with stakeholders to collect information. I analyzed legal documents such as the Laws, the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, and regulations. I also reviewed other publications of the Federal Government, such as budgets, reports on expenditures and revenues and publications written by the different secretariats referring to relevant topics. Finally, I reviewed articles that express opinions of stakeholders such as NGOs and the academic sector on the topic of this research. During the application of the interviews, I sought to have a diverse group that would represent well the different stakeholders, in order to obtain representative information. The interviews were applied mainly in the communities of the Mixteca Region; however some were obtained in the City of Oaxaca or through the use of electronic means: cell phone calls or emails. As a result, I distributed my time between the State Capital, Oaxaca and the mountainous region denominated Mixteca, mainly the towns of Tlaxiaco and Putla. I found that members of communities and ejidos were not only ignorant with regards to the public review of the new Law, but also about its very existence. This is alarming, because the forestry sector is of paramount importance to the development of the national economy and the improvement in the quality of life of the inhabitants.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
The MDP Program is administered jointly by the Center for Latin American Studies and the Center for African Studies.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Miguel Olivas-Pérez.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
036257159 ( ALEPH )
Classification:
LD1780.1 2018 ( lcc )

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
University of Florida Institutional Repository

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICIES IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR IN OAXACA, MEXICO By MIGUEL OLIVAS PƒREZ A FIELD PRACTICUM REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASTER OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE DEGREE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, IN GAINESVILLE, FL USA UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA MAY, 2018 SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE GLENN GALLOWAY, CHAIR H ECTOR HUGO SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, CO CHAIR

PAGE 2

2018 Miguel Olivas PÂŽrez

PAGE 3

Dedico este trabajo a mi familia : Mis Padres Liduvina y JesÂœs Miguel; mi hermana Iyali

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my chair advisor Dr. Glenn Galloway for his help and support during the course of my graduate studies at the University of Florida I am grateful to Dr Hector Hugo Sandoval Gutierrez member of my committee, for his careful review and suggestions. To my professors friends and classmates in Gainesville and Chihuahua for their support. To my country, Mexico for the financial support for my M aster 's degree studies, specifically to the National Council of Science and Technology ( CONACYT ) and the Secre tary of Public Education ( SEP ) To the Interdisciplinary Center of Research for the Integral Regional Development of Oaxaca National Polytechnical Institute ( CIIDIR IPN ) for allow ing me to do my field practicum with them a nd the com uneros and ejidatarios from la Mixteca in Oaxaca for participating in my research Lastly, to my parents Liduvina and JesÂœs Miguel and to my sister Iyali for their support during my graduate studies at the University of Florida

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 A BSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 13 Study Site Oaxaca, Mexico ................................ ................................ ................... 13 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 The Forestry Sector in Mexico ................................ ................................ ................. 16 Economic Information about the Forestry Sector ................................ ..................... 18 Mexican Forestry Legislation ................................ ................................ ................... 20 1926 ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 21 1942, 1947 and 1960 ................................ ................................ ........................ 22 1986 ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 22 1992 ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 22 2003 ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 22 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 Analysis of Mexican legislation ................................ ................................ ................ 25 Semi Structured Interviews ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 28 Summary of Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................... 28 Knowledg e of the Law ................................ ................................ .............................. 30 Myths about the Forestry Law ................................ ................................ .................. 31 Forests will be p rivatized ................................ ................................ ................... 32 Co nsultation is m andatory ................................ ................................ ................. 32 There was n o c onsultation ................................ ................................ ................ 32 Th e Law is d ifferent from the CONAF p roposal ................................ ................ 32 Forest p lantations are b ad ................................ ................................ ................. 33 All p easant o rganizations are a gainst the n ew Law ................................ .......... 33 Lawmakers did not want to h ear p roposals from o pposing o rganizations. ........ 33

PAGE 6

6 The National Forest Commis sion (CONAFOR) will a ct as j udge and jury in f orest m anagement ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 There are t housands of s ignatures of o rganizations and i ndigenous g roups against the Law. ................................ ................................ ............................. 34 Press a rticles have come o ut in which c ommunities d evoted to f orest m anagement and s ilviculture e xpress f ear that they w ill l ose their r esources ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 The n ew Law p uts f orests at r isk ................................ ................................ ....... 35 Forest m onitoring is w eakened and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (Profepa) is not r ecognized in the n ew Law ................................ ...... 35 The r ights of i ndigenous p eople and f orest o wners are a ffected ....................... 35 Forests will be l ost ................................ ................................ ............................. 35 Positive Additions found in the New Forestry Law ................................ ................... 36 New Powers for CONAFOR under the New Law ................................ ..................... 37 Viewing Potential Impacts of the New Forestry Law Through an Interdisciplinary Lens of the Sustainable Development Goals ................................ ....................... 40 The Need for Education in the Sector (SDG 4) ................................ ................. 40 Sustainable Production and Consumption (SDG 12) ................................ ........ 40 Governance (SDG 16) ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 44 Forums ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 44 Simple Language ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 44 Monitoring System ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 Moving Forward ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 45 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 46 ANNEXES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 49 Annex 1: Mitos sobre la Ley Forestal ................................ ................................ 49 Annex 2: Interviews with Government, Private Product Sector and NGOs (MÂŽxico) ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Annex 3: Interviews with Government, Private Product Sector, NGOs (Oaxaca) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 54 Annex 4: Interview with Community and Ejido Members ................................ .. 57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................. 62

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1. Knowledge of the new Law ................................ ................................ ..................... 31

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1. Map of Oaxaca's R egions ................................ ................................ ................... 13 1 2. Conceptual framework of the F ield P racticum ................................ ..................... 15 2 1. Forest Rents ( % of GDP) ................................ ................................ .................... 19 2 2. CONAFOR Budget ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 4 1. Org anizations that provided information about the legal framework of the f orestry s ector ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF A CRONYMS CONAFOR Comisi—n Nacional Forestal (National Forestry Com m is s ion) CONAF Consejo Nacional Forestal (National Forestry Council) LGDFS Ley General de Desarrollo Fo restal Sustentable (Sustainable Forestry Development Law) PRONAFOR Programa Nacional Forestal (National Forestry Program) PRODEFOR Programa de Desarrollo Forestal (Forestry Development Program) SEMARNAT Secretar’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Environment and Natural Resources Secretariat) UMAFOR Unidad de Manejo Forestal Sustentable (Sustainable Forest Management Unit)

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Field Practicum Report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Sustainable Development Practice Degree at the University of Florida THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICIES IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR IN OAXACA, MEXICO By Miguel Olivas PÂŽrez May 2018 Chair: Glenn Galloway Co chair: Hector Hugo Sandoval Gutierrez This report presents the results of the field practicum I conducted during the summer months (May to August) of 2017 in Oaxaca, Mexico with the support of CIIDIR IPN (Interdisciplinary Research Cente r for Regional Integral Development National Polytechnic Institute). I analyzed the impact of public policies within the forest ry sector, in reference to the changes transpiring in the regulatory framework, specifically in the new F orestry L aw. I focused on the State of Oaxaca, but also obtained complementary information from other parts of the country, mainly Chihuahua. Policies were primarily in the areas of productive capacity and forest protection. The practicum was divided into two parts. First, I obtained information on public policies that the Mexican Government has put into practice in the forestry sector and on implications of the new Forestry Law that currently is being discussed and approved by the Representatives, awaiting approval by the Mex ican Senate. I also compiled general information on the forests in Mexico, such as forest area in the country, annual budget ary allocations by the government for the sector, income generated by the forest ry sector in the country, and different programs tha t the Mexican Government implements mainly through CONAFOR, among others.

PAGE 11

11 In the second part, my practicum focus es on the analysis of the new F orest ry L aw, which has been discussed in the Mexican Congress. This analysis determined positive and negative att ributes of the new F orest ry L aw, from the perspective of different actors who comprise the forest ry sector. I compared the Forestry Law that has been in force since 2003 and the new Law under discussion in the Mexican Congress, presently in the Senators Chamber. I worked with stakeholders including communities and ejidos of the Mixteca region of Oaxaca; the public sector at the Federal (CONAFOR) and State level; the academic sector; n on g overnmental o rganization s ; professional service providers; and the private sector involved in the commercialization of wood products. I used two methods for this work, including a literature review and the application of semi structured interviews carried out with stakeholders to collect information. I analyzed legal doc uments such as the L aws, the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, and regulations I also reviewed other publications of the Federal Government, such as budgets, reports on expenditures and revenues and publications written by the different s ecretariats referring to relevant topics Finally I reviewed articles that express opinions of stakeholders such as NGOs and the academic sector on the topic of this research. During the application of the interviews, I sought to have a diverse group th at would represent well the different stakeholders, in order to obtain representative information. The interviews were applied mainly in the communities of the Mixteca Region; however some were obtained in the City of Oaxaca or through the use of electroni c means: cell phone calls or emails. As a result, I distributed my time between

PAGE 12

12 the State Capital, Oaxaca and the mountainous region denominated Mixteca, mainly the towns of Tlaxiaco and Putla. I found that members of communities and ejidos were not only ignorant with regards to the public review of the new L aw, but also about its very existence. T his is alarming, because the forestry sector is of paramount importance to the development of the national economy and the improvement in the quality of life of the inhabitants.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Study Site Oaxaca, Mexico The research was carried out in Oaxaca, located in the southwest of Mexico. The state is composed of 570 municipalities (INEGI 2015) divided into 25 districts, each having a district head. Traditionally the state has been divided into eight regions as shown below (Figure 1; INAFED 2017): Ca–ada Costa Istmo Mixteca Papaloapan Sierra Sur Sierra Norte Valles Centrales Figure 1 1 Map of Oaxaca's R egions

PAGE 14

14 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework below provides a graphic overview of the field practicum that solicited information from diverse stakeholders and other sources to prepare an analysis of the new F orestry L aw. The stakeholders (represen ted in blue) agreed to participate in semi structured interviews to share information regarding their perceptions of forests and the forestry sector. The information subjected to analysis is represented in green. I focused primarily on the F orestry L aw of 2003 and the draft L aw of 2017 drawing on different publications related to this subject, including documents prepared by the Government and other legal documents. The rectangle in brown was the major task I carried out: analysis of the aforementioned info rmation, in order to determine the actual and potential impact of public policies on the forest ry sector, specifically the new General Law of Sustainable Forestry Development (In Spanish Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable). Lastly, the rectangl e in purple indicates the objectives of th is analysis, which are to : develop a comparative analysis of the old and new F orestry L aws; document the perspectives of key stakeholders of the forestry sector; and envision potential impacts of the new Law.

PAGE 15

15 Figure 1 2. Conceptual framework of the F ield P racticum

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Forestry Sector in Mexico According with INEGI (2010) Mexico has a territorial extension of 196 066 800 ha. Within this extension, ejidos, private commu nities, private property, colonies, and government lands are taken into account. The ecological zones of the national territory are distributed in the following way, according to information provided by CONABIO (in millions of hectares): Arid and semi ari d 58.8 Temperate forest 33.5 Tropical forest 32.11 Grassland 12.38 Induced Vegetation (no native) 6.95 Wetlands 2.58 Mexico has a total of 31 837 agrarian territories, divided into 29,490 ejidos and 2,347 communities (Carps 2012). These cover an area of 100,308,240 ha, resulting in 51 percent of the nation being classified as "social" property. Social property refers to private property that benefits members of communities and ejidos. An ejido is defined as follows by the jurist Mario Ruiz Massieu: A soc iety of social interest, made up of Mexican peasants by birth, with an initial social patrimony including lands, forests and waters granted to them by the State. This social patrimony is inalienable, non transferable, indefeasible and imprescriptible; subj ect to its exploitation and exploitation to the modalities established in the law, under the guidance of the State as to the organization of its internal administration, based on cooperation and economic democracy, and whose purpose is the exploitation of its resources natural and human, through the personal work of their partners for their own benefit (Ruiz Massieu 2017).

PAGE 17

17 In like manner Massieu's definition for community is also relevant: The moral person with legal personality, holder of agrarian rights recognized by presidential resolution of return and land, of confirmation or titling, on a set of goods that include lands, pastures, forests and waters, subject to an inalienable, imprescriptible and non transferable property regime, which gives it the dual character of owner and possessor, and for its exploitation is ordered as a production unit, with a decision, execution and control body that operates subject to the principles of internal democracy, cooperation and self awareness, and according t o their traditions and customs (Ruiz Massieu 2017). It is also important to refer to the legal definition of both forms of land tenure, which can be found in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and in the Agrarian Law. Ejido as we ca n find in the article 27 of the C onstitution and in the articles 9 and 10 of the A grarian Law, has two connotations. Firstly, it is considered the population nucleus or moral person (like a company) with legal status and patrimony. Secondly, it refers to lands subject to a special social property regime land tenure; constitutionally its legal status is recognized and protected in a special way ." Community: in a b road sense community is the whole of the people who live in rural areas and share tradition s, uses and customs; is conformed by the set of lands, forests and waters as a general rule in the agricultural field, the community and its

PAGE 18

18 assets were recognized based on previous legislation through restitution, confirmatory or titling actions of their lands. The community has constitutional recognition of its legal status and special protection of its assets and resources; the communal lands are inalienable, imprescriptible, and indefeasible, except that they are contributed to civil or commercial compa nies. The community, through an assembly agreement may change to the ejidal regime." This is according to the A grarian L aw in the articles 99 100 According to the two different definitions, academic and legal, the difference between the ejido and the comm unity is in the people who can form part of them. While in the ejido any person can be an ejidatario, in the community only indigenous people can be recognized as members of the community. This is due to the fact that the creation of an ejido is through ag rarian distribution by Presidential resolution, while the "community" is through the historical recognition of the rights that the indigenous people have over their territory. The enactment of policy often involves the cooperation of Federal, State and Mun icipal governments, but in other cases the role of one of these levels of government will predominate. Coordination between different secretariats within the government may take place to carry out specific projects for the benefit of society. In the f orest ry s ector, the secretariat involved in policy development is the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), through the Comisi—n Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR), at the Federal level. Economic Information about the Forestry Sector The f orest ry s ector contributes 0.3 percent for the country's Gross Domestic Product (World Bank 2017) and has been increasing in recent years (Figure 2 1).

PAGE 19

19 Figure 2 1 Forest Rents (% of GDP, World Bank 2017 ) In contrast, the economic resources allocated to CON AFOR by the Government of the Republic have been reduced in recent years (Figure 2 3 ) 0.17 0.185 0.201 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Year GDP % 2013 2014 2015 2016

PAGE 20

20 Figure 2 2 CONAFOR Budget ( SHCP 2017) It is important to mention, however, that the administration of President Enrique Pe–a Nieto (2012 2018) increased the budget allocated to CONAFOR during its first years, but with the drop in oil prices and other unfavorable international circumstances suc h as the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it has been necessary to slash the budget by nearly 50% in 2017, when compared with the first year (2013) of his government. Mexican Forestry Legislation Mexico has had seve n different F orestry L aws since the establishment of the Constitution in 1917. The first L aw was put into place in 1926 with the objective of regulating all aspects related to the f orestry s ector.

PAGE 21

21 In the beginning, forestry was seen as dependent on agricul tural activity. Forest land could be used for other types of activities, such as livestock or agriculture leading to large scale land conversion and forest loss When the agrarian distribution began in the 1930s, the Government of General Lazaro Cardenas del RÂ’o placed a strong emphasis on agriculture, rather than forestry in response to demands generated by the revolution. The agrarian distribution continued, becoming in some moments a means to control society rather than an instrument to empower the Mexi can peasants. An example of this period of distribution occurred during the Sexenio of Luis EcheverrÂ’a Alvarez, when the largest forest ejido in Mexico in the State of Chihuahua, Ejido el Largo Maderal, was created by presidential decree. The following F or est ry L aws were created after 1926. Each one reflects the political and economic situation prevailing in the country at that juncture in time. A closer look reveals that some have a more nationalist approach, while others have a more industrial approach or even a free market inclination. Different iterations of the F orest ry L aws were put into effect in the following years and according to the FAO (2018) have different characteristics: 1926 This law established the inalienable character of the communal forests and required that forest uses be exclusively developed by ejido c ooperatives. However, technical and financial support did not accompany the granting of forestry resources, so as a result, priva te companies carried out forestry operations. During this time European methods of forest manageme nt were adapted and applied

PAGE 22

22 1942, 1947 and 1960 This period was characterized by the reactivation of the forestry concession mechanism in favor of large nati onal and foreign private companies, which operated in the so called Forest Exploitation Units. Approximately 30 forest concessions were granted in five States, with an average of 400,000 hectares each. The concessions were granted on average for 25 years, although in some cases the terms extended up to 60 years 1986 A new process was initiated to integrate measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of forest management. Under this scheme, in 1990 the System of Conservation and Silvicultural Development was established, applicable to regular or irregular forest conditions, expanding the participation of the social se ctor in forestry production 1992 The liberalization of forestry and the free market of forest services were the significant changes that to ok place in this period. Likewise, the concept of sustainable forest management was incorporated. Taking advantage of the development of new techniques, emphasis was placed on mitigating environmental impacts and optimizing the balance with social and econ omic objectives. Planning horizons were also established, encompassing short, medium and long term horizons 2003 The National Forestry Commission was created as a decentralized public body of the Federal Public Administration, with its own legal status an d assets. To this day, i ts objective is to develop and promote productive activities, protection, conservation and restoration of forest s and forest lands (LGDFS 2003). At the same time it grants

PAGE 23

23 ownership of forest resources to the owners of the propertie s where the resources are located and seeks to integrat e productive and lucrative supply and value chains. The initiative to create the new General Law of Sustainable Forestry Development was presented on September 20, 2016 by Representative Alma Luc’a Arz aluz Alonso, member of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico (PVEM) with the support of the Federal Representatives of that political party It was presented to the Commission of Environment and Natural Resources of the C‡ mara de Diputados This initiative had the additional inten tion to repeal the previous L aw that was published on February 25, 2003 and to update the regulatory framework, according to t he new reality of the f orestry s ector. The initiative was created using inf ormation generated in 850 for ums in which principal stakeholders of the forestry sector participated, such as the government, producers, and non governmental organizat ions, among others. These for ums and the overall process for the analysis and creation of the Law w ere organized by the National Forestry Council (CNF). According to the initiative presented in the Chamber of Deputies on September 20, 2016, the reasons for making the new law were the following (Camara de Diputados 2016) : 1) T he growing international a wareness concerning the importance of the conservation of forest ecosystem s and environment al conditions favorable for human development 2) A decrease in biodiversity must be avoided in order to continue enjoying the diverse ecosystem services provided by natural environmen ts

PAGE 24

24 3) M angroves must be conserved this natural heritage can play an important role in combating poverty 4) T he sustainable use of forest resources, without risking the goods and services offered by the forest ecosystems to society is essential for the generation and permanence of jobs in the forest ry sector forest product development and the consolidation of lucrative supply and value chain s 5) The provision of data on the country's forest vegetation and associated ecosystems and biodiversity, ca rbon capture and the hydro meteorological functions of forests 6) T he soci o economic benefits of forest areas to satisfy human needs improve quality of life and reduce levels of marginalization and poverty. 7) Finally, the disparity that exists between fo rest areas and other parts of the country, in terms of housing provision of basic services, such as education, piped water, drainage and electricity These disparities make clear the poverty experienced by many inhabitants of forestry zones

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Analysis of Mexican legislation I analyzed the following documents of the Mexican legislation: Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, specifically Article 27 Agrarian Law General Law of Sustainable Development of 2003 General Sustainable Forestry Development Law of 2017 Once in Oaxaca, I made the decision, supported by the State's Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigaci—n para el Desarrollo Integral Regional (CIIDIR), to concentrate on Socio Legal issues in the research and n ot focus on technical, forestry issues. As indicated before, the main objectives of the research were to shed light on the impact that public policies have within the sector, including potential benefits or problems that the new Law could have in the futur e. The range of texts analyzed was expanded, including articles published by non governmental organizations such as the Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable Forestry, and Grupo Mesofilo A.C., among other organizations. These publications contributed to a broader understanding of the sector, and the varied perceptions concerning the new L aw. CONAFOR provided me with analy s es they had carried out on the discussion of the new Law and material that they had generated from for ums organized around the country. I n order to gain a broader understanding of the f orest ry s ector in Mexico and Oaxaca, I obtained and analyzed literature on the organization of forest ownership in Mexico which has many unique attributes. Collectively, the information indicated

PAGE 26

26 enabled me t o gain a much better understanding of the f orest ry s ector in Mexico and applicable legislation, including the new F orestry L aw. Semi Structured Interviews I interviewed the following stakeholders during the conduction of my field practicum: representatives of the government sector (federal and local), members of communities and ejidos, academia, professional service providers, non governmental organizations, and small producers In the semi structured interviews, I initially intended to ask all stakeholders the same ten questions, regardless of the group to which they belonged or where they were currently working. Once in Oaxaca, however, the organization told me that it was best to modify the format of the interview and adapt it to what I had planned to do. So, I prepared three new questionnaires with similar questions, two focused on the region of Oaxaca (Annex 3 for Government, private product sector and NGOs and Annex 4 for Community and Ejido Members) and the other one focused more broadly on Mexico (An nex 4 for Government and NGO's ) I exercised care when preparing the questions for members of communities and ejidos, recognizing that I had to use appropriate language and avoid complex legal terms that require lengthy explanations. The instruments used with other stakeholders were essentially the same, the difference being the approach I used when applying the instruments. In other words, I posed similar questions to all stakeholders, but varied the approach, taking into account the type of information that they could provide. For example, it is one thing to discuss ongoing programs with an ejidatario and another to discuss these programs with a government worker who has no ownership of land inside an ejido.

PAGE 27

27 I conducted most interview s in person. I recorded answers on paper, being careful to write down complementary information and observations that were important for the research. Some of the interviews were made by cellphone or email since some participants were located outside the c ity or region of Mixtec and could not be visited in person. Interviews were also conducted during the Forestry Management Unit (UMAFOR) meetings in Tlaxiaco and Putla de Guerrero, primarily during recesses between activities. I requested appointments were with other stakeholders, such as NGOs and profession al services providers. At times I carried out these interviews in their offices and in other cases by telephone or email

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS I conducted a literature review on the new F orest r y L aw and the current L aw, in order to identify potential advantages and disadvantages of the new legislation, as well as notable differences between the two Laws I accomplished this by analy zing both L aws and earmarking sections and chapters that focused on similar topics I also reviewed other sources of information summarizing discussions on the new law to become aware of differ ing opinions regarding the proposed legislation Once I had completed the comparative analysis of the laws, I analyzed interview responses from different stakeholders. Fr equencies of responses were analyzed as well as diverse opinions of the interviewees. Summary of Analysis The interviewees indicat ed the following deficiencies in the 2003 F orest ry L aw: The Law was writte n in complex language Excessive bureaucracy : compliance involves too much paperwork Complexity of the r egulatory f ramework Various for ums held around the country to gather informati on for the drafting of the new L aw were attended by 850 people, including : W omen and youth representatives Indigenous Peoples Forestry and industrial producers Technical service providers Representatives of Nongovernmental organizations Academics and researchers Legislators Representatives of three levels of government According to information presented by the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR), the topics that were included in the new Law were the following:

PAGE 29

29 Strengthening of inter agency coordination Increased participation of municipalities Stimulus and tax incentives tha t promote sustainable forest production Differentiated attention to women, communities and indigenous people Mitigation and adaptation of climate change in forest ecosystems Financial instruments for compensation for environmental services Instruments to increase forest production and deregulation of commercial forest plantations Forest certification system that favors the sustainability of forests under management and in the productive chain of forest resources Measures against desertification Utili zation of restored and reforested forest ecosystems Efficient procedures for prompt combat of pests Prevention, fire management and establishment of unique command in the execution Concentration of powers and functions in CONAFOR, which allow immediate attention to the needs in the forest area. Simplification and efficiency in regulations and procedures for the authorization of management and use of forest resources. Effective measures to prevent the illegal exploitation of forest resources. Increased sanctions for non compliance with regulations of sustainable forest development. The New Sustainable Forest Development Law, which has been discussed in the Mexican Congress, represents a change in the legal framework for the sector. Here I present the res ults of my analysis of this new L aw. The new L aw has a more neoliberal perspective than the old L aw, placing emphasis on market oriented approaches and strengthening the participation of

PAGE 30

30 individuals (Rodriguez Maldonado pers. comm. ). In the C onstitution, Article 27, the type of property that exists in ejidos and communities is termed social property that belongs to society. Two types of property are mentioned in the A rticle: national and private property. In the latter designation social property refers to private property including ejidos and communities. Mexican forests are primarily in the hands of ejidatarios (ejido members) and comuneros (community members) Some people that I interviewed (mainly members of NGOs) argued that the new L aw negatively a ffect s members of the ejidos and communities, because acc ording to their understanding it endangers the ir ownership of the forest and its use. Critics of the L aw indicated that the new L aw seeks to privatize Mexican forests. This is actually false, since forests are already private, in the form of social property (ejidos and communities) or small private property. This false narrative emerged from the politicization that occurred at the time of the creation of the new Law. Distortions with respect to the c ontent and intent of the new L aw have influenced several political groups. Taking into consideration that the creation of legislation affects different interest groups in distinct ways, the contentious nature of this process is not surprising. Another crit icism leveled at the new L aw is that non governmental organizations will substitute the work of professional forestry technicians who work in the forestry sector. This substitution, however, is not contemplated in the Law. Knowledge of the Law In the Mixte c region, 30 interviews were applied among the different stakeholders Knowledge concerning the new law varies among different stakeholders (Table 4 1) The lack of knowledge among members of communities and ejidos is concerning since they are the people m ost directly affected by the new law.

PAGE 31

31 Table 4 1 Knowledge of the new Law Key informants were sought out to better understand the legal framework. According to the interviewees, CONAFOR is the institution where people are best informed about the new Law, so key informants were identified and interviewed in CONAFOR, but also in other organizations. Figure 4 1 Organizations that provided information about the legal framework of the f orestry s ector Myths about the Forestry Law I reviewed a number of publications summarizi ng forum discussions on the new L aw. A number of "myths" and misunderstandings with resp ect to the new L aw were Comuneros and Ejidatarios Government and other Sectors No knowledge concerning the new law 73% 30% Knowledgeable about the new law 27% 70%

PAGE 32

32 documented in the magazine Vita (Vita 2017 a Annex 1 ). Since the new General Law on Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS) is under discussion, voices have been and are being raised against and in favor of the approval of this new l aw. The "myths" alluded to have evidently been created to try to discredit this project. According to Vita (2017 a ), they need to be made known to avoid deception and manipulation of the public. The "myths" are as follows: Forests will be p rivatized This is a serious, false allegation. The new L aw does not in any way impact agrarian reform. Forest ownership is not impacted; forests ownership will remain as is in ejidos and communities. Consultation is m andatory The Mexican Law does not require that a reform or creation of a new L aw (in this case the new F orestry L aw) be submitted to popular consultation. At the same time, approval can be delayed further, since there is no legal mechanism to call it a popular cons ultation. There was n o c onsultation The Forest ry Law project was prepared over a three year period by the National Forestry Council (CONAF). Multiple consultation for ums and workshops were held throughout the country. The Law is d ifferent from the CONAF p r oposal The draft Law is almost entirely based on the project developed by CONAF, in which all stakeholders involved in the f orestry s ector have had representation. Most members of CONAF have expressed their support for the adoption of the new Law.

PAGE 33

33 Only non forestry organizations oppose the law. Forestry professionals from different organizations in Mexico are in favor of the creation of a new L aw. However, it is important to listen to the different opinions that arise concerning the new Law At present, the senators should play a role of conciliator, paying careful attention to different ideas and perspectives emerging from different stakeholders Fore st p lantation s are b ad Commercial forest plantations are established only in degraded areas. Under the prope r circumstances, they are viewed as a promising option for economic growth and can in some cases reduce pressure on natural forests. Mexico imports $7,000 million a year in forest products, and plantations can mitigate this need to purchase forest products abroad All p ea sant o rganizations are a gainst t he n ew Law Important organizations of foresters and civil society have signed declarations in favor of the adoption of the new L aw f or example: the National Network of Forest Specialists, the Mexican Association of Forest Professionals, the National Academy of Forest Sciences, the Mexican Society of Forest Resources, the Mexican Association of Forest Planners, the National Confederatio n of Silvicultural Producers, the National Union of Ejidos and Forest Communities, National Chamber of the Forestry Industry, the Association of Graduates of the School of Forestry Technicians and Guard s and the National Confederation of Forestry Organizat ions Lawmakers did not want to h ear p roposals f rom o pposing o rganizations Organizations opposed to the new L aw were granted the opportunity to present their proposals on several occasions by r epresentatives and s enators. For example, on

PAGE 34

34 April 19, 2017 the s enators organized a forum in which they received the following groups: AC Pulley, Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable Silviculture, Mexican Network of Peasant Forestry Organizations, Reforestamos M e xico, Mexican Center for Environment al Law and State Union of Community Foresters of Oaxaca. This event was organized in the Senate thanks to the efforts and support of Senator Silvia Garza. The National Fo rest Commission (CONAFOR) will a ct as j udge and j ury in f orest m anagement The Secretar y of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) will maintain authority in normative aspects of Forest Management, including permits to use forest resources. Likewise, SEMARNAT will continue to exercise responsibility in decisions regarding land use chan ge impacting forest lands. CONAFOR, possessing greater operational and technical capacity (forestry technicians on staff ), will assume responsibility for reviewing, authorizing and following up on sustainable forest management plans and forest use permits. Th e new procedure aims to simplify bureaucratic procedures for forest management. While always important, streamlined bureaucratic procedures are especially crucial during disease outbreaks in forest areas. Onerous bureaucratic procedures that make fores t management complicated and costly (high transaction costs) often dissuade communities and landowners from pursuing silvicultural production. There are t housands of s ignatures of o rganizations and i ndigenous g roups against t he Law No authentic signatures have been presented to any of the Legislative Chambers. Signatures were gathered on a digital platform in which it is not possible to confirm the origin and authenticity of the signatures A s a result, these collections of signatures fail to meet legal sta ndards.

PAGE 35

35 Press a rticles have come out in which communities devoted to forest m anagement a nd silviculture express f ear that t hey will l ose t heir r esources Foresters have not been documented speaking against the Law in articles prepared "on behalf" of forest based communities. Rather, these articles have been prepared and disseminated by civil associa tions that are against the new L aw. The n ew Law p uts f orests a t r isk The new L aw was drafted to be clear and precise regarding the conservation and restoration of forests and it encourages sustainable use. Forest monitoring is w eakened a nd t he Federal Environment al Protection Agency (P ROFEPA ) i s n ot r ecognized i n t he n ew Law The Law stipulates what constitute violations of the new L aw. It also indicates that PROFE PA is the entity responsible for enforcing the Law. Some organizations have argued that this instrument should apply to all PROFEPA activities, but the institution has its own regulations and must enforce environmental regulations beyond thos e contemplated in the Forestry L aw. The rights of indigenous people and forest o wners a re a ffected The Law is clear and precise on the rights of indigenous people I n addition it clearly indicates that the owners of the forest will be the beneficiaries of the services t hat forests generate. Forests will be l ost One of the main objectives of this Law is to enhance the conservation of forests and prevent land use change of forest lands. It establishes sanctions for whoever damages forests or carries out land use change and forces owners to restore forests after fire rather than engage in other activities that would lead to permanent forest loss.

PAGE 36

36 In this sense, the new Law seeks to stop the advancement of the agricultural frontier in forest lands. Positive Additions found in the New Forestry Law The new Law includes a number of positive aspects for the forestry sector, which were not found in previous L aws, some of w hich are discussed below. 1) The new L aw can address some problems in the forestry sector, but not in isolation Parallel change in other laws such as the A grarian L aw or the Federal Public Administration Act are required to address inter sectoral issues. Since the new Forestry Law must regulate C onstitutional A rticle 27 on land possession it will be necessary coordinate with other sectors with laws subordinate to A rticle 27 in order to benefit more effectively the Mexican agroforestry sector 2) Climate ch ange, not mentioned in the old L aw, is included in the new Law. 3) It releases municipalities from the oblig ation to carry out forest inventories, which can be carried out by the States and CONAFOR. 4) The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) will no longer have the responsibility for forest technical inspection, thereby decreasing their wor kload and shifting this task to CONAFOR, the organization with greater technical capacity. 5) Functions are transferred from SEMARNAT to CONAFOR, specifically the authorization of forest utilization, documentation and transportation of forest products, in addition to the control and registration of wood processing centers This reduces the workload of SEMARNAT and concentrates forestry activity in CONAFOR. SEMARNAT is responsible for other areas related to natural resources such as water, the protection of animals in danger of extinction and the protection of the environment.

PAGE 37

37 6) The design and implementation of the National Forest and Soils Inventory in CONAFOR The inventory provides the sector with important information to support the planning and sustaina ble forestry development of the country (CONAFOR 2018). 7) It integrates measures to simplify bureaucratic procedures related to commercial forestry plantations (PFC in Spanish) to encourage investment and involvement in this productive activity. 8) Fixed fees for the provision of Forest Technical Services are eliminated. Under the new Law, payment for services can be negotiated between stakeholders contracting the services and service providers. 9) Forest monitoring, while continued, seeks to avoid over r egulation and contradiction between laws and other dependencies Ne w Powers for CONAFOR under the N ew Law CONAFOR is assigned new powers in the new Law, including the following: Develop and integrate the National Forest Management System and the National Forest Information System Design methodologies for the valuation of environmental services Promote the management of fire in agricultural activities and other activities Coordinate campaigns to counter climate change, including both mitigation and adapt ation measures Grant, modify, revoke, suspend and declare the expiration or authorization of harvesting of timber and non timber forest products. Previously this function was carried out by SEMARNAT Issue and control forest transport permits. SEMARNAT ha s been responsible for this function.

PAGE 38

38 On March 2 nd 2018, the Mexican Civil Council of Sustainable Forestry made the case that the following three aspects should be discussed in the Senate before the new Law is put up to a vote (CCMSS 2018) : 1. The transfer of authority from SEMARNAT to CONAFOR: Various actors in the forestry sector have pointed out potential risks and disadvantages of concentrating authority in CONAFOR. They argue that this will contribute to a weakening of SEMARNAT which alre ady lacks capacity to carry out policy measures on water, fisheries and hydrocarbons. Another concern is that this shifting of institutional responsibilities will place to o much power in the hands of CONAFOR in the definition and exercise of forestry secto r policies. Without institutional balances, there is a perceived risk that CONAFOR officials will be open to conflicts of interest and lack of transparency, creating a potentially fertile ground for corruption. SEMARNAT, under current regulations, stifles forestry development with onerous bureaucratic procedures C hanges to regulations and institutional arrangements should focus on a regulatory improvement that allows the environmental authority to streamline its procedures and strengthen its internal struc ture. A simple reshuffling of institutional responsibilities will not solve the problems facing the sector. 2. Powers of the National Forestry Council : According to the opinion piece alluded to above, the new L aw would lead to an unacceptable setback wit h respect to the full participation of society. Specifically, the Law proposal approved by the Representatives will lead to a suppression of substantial powers of the National Forestry Council (CONAF) and state councils, taking away their power to weigh in on

PAGE 39

39 changes to public policies and to exercise a monitoring and oversight role on th e impact of these changes 3 Procedures and authorizations related to forest management : Several measures for regulatory improvement and management have not been included in the new L aw such as the regulation of mobile sawmills, the clarification of the prohibition of forest use change, measures to reach the zero deforestation rate, the management of secondary vegetation, the definition of forest preference due to the fragility of ecosystems a nd several other concepts that are being discarded due to lack of understanding among persons involved in drafting and approving the new L aw with out arguments that can only be discussed and addressed through open and well founded discussion T he House of S enators h eard key issues that were presented by the Mexican Civil Council of Sustainable Forestry in March 2 nd which were subsequently added to the L aw that was voted on April 17, 2018. According to Raul Benet (2018) the Law was approved because it includ es the following points: Community forest management program as a policy instrument, as well as an obligation of promotion of the community forest management by the Mexican state. P rovisions for the development of a system of social and environmental safe guards based on the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The National Forestry Council recovers as well as a council of advanced social participation, with mandatory, binding powers, that sets a precedent for other sectors to have b odies that empower civil society to track and supervise the implementation and impact of policies.

PAGE 40

40 Viewing P otential Impacts of the New Forestry Law Through an Interdisciplinary Lens of the Sustainable Development Goals The S ustainable D evelopment Goals adopted by the United Nations to enhance human wellbeing while sustaining crucial environmental functions are inherent in the new Law As examples, here I refer briefly to the areas of education, production, consumption and above all, governance. The new L aw seeks to s trengthen these areas essential to sustainable forestry with concrete actions as described below. The Need for Education in the Sector (SDG 4) Many actors in the sector, especially community members and ejidatarios, lack information and knowledge concerning the L aw. At the same time there is an explicit interest in their participation in activities contemplated in the L aw. This situation implies that nearly all stakeholders require access to timely and appropriate information and oppo rtunities to take part in capacity building and training activities that correspond to SDG 4. Sustainable Production and Consumption (SDG 12) The L aw, as its name implies seeks to further sustainable forestry development, through the sustainable use of wo od and other non timber resources that in turn, contribute to the economic growth of the country. The new L aw also seeks to increase the production of products with added value and ensure that future generations may also take part in the sector. Indeed, a basic premise of the new L aw is to create a sector that spans present and future generations while eliminating indiscriminate exploitation of the resource.

PAGE 41

41 Governance (SDG 16) G overnance refers to the laws, institutions, management regimes, policies and social conventions that determine how forests are used and who will use them" (FAO 2003b ) Through the new F orestry L aw, a strengthening of forestry sector institutions is sought, delegating more powers to CONAFOR and delineating more clearly the functions corresponding to SEMARNAT and CONAFOR. At the same time, measures to strengthen community participation in decision making regarding the forestry sector are put into place eliminating the existing legal and power gaps. The new legislation seeks to streng then the participation of communities and ejidos in decision making, taking advantage of progress made to date and strengthening the sector with clearer rules. With good governance, civil society collaborates with government and other stakeholders, to impr ove the management of forest resources for the benefit of all, especially those who depend directly on the goods and services forests provide

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Based on this analysis of Mexican F orestry L aws (both past and present), legal documents, opinions of different stakeholders and interviews conducted it is possible to reach four principal conclusions. The new L aw was created to strengthen the forestry sector and reduce bureaucratic processes which hav e been p e rceived to stifle growth of the sector. It seeks to clarify and delineate functions of different government agencies, especially CONAFOR and SEMARNAT, highlighting differences between the two different institutions. It introduces significant chang es to strengthen the Mexican forestry sector and augment the responsible and sustain a ble use of forest resource s Much disinformation has been disseminated regarding the intention and approval of the new forestry L aw, creating fear and uncertainty among th e people who depend to some degree on forests, especially the ejidatarios and comuneros. Overall, I found that people are in general not well informed about the new Law, or even about the previous L aw. The resultant lack of understanding creates fertile gr ound for misinformation, speculation and fear. Several stakeholder groups feel that they were not taken into account in the discussions and for ums held during the creation of the new Law, and that it will harm rather than benefit them. Lack of knowledge a bout the new Law exacerbates this perception and even crucial topics like the "privatization" of forests are often misconstrued and poorly understood.

PAGE 43

43 The consultation process between all those interested in the creation of the L aw and its incipient appli cation was inadequate, giving rise to the perception that not all interested parties were taken into account.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS For ums Regarding the New Forestry Law, it is necessary to take a number of measures in the near future. Firstly, for ums should be carried out throughout the country to explain clearly to interested parties what the L aw is about, what benefits it generates and at the same time listen to and address the participants' concerns. While apparently insufficient, fo r ums were held before drafting the L aw to listen to different opinions, but this consultation process has not allayed misunderstandings regarding the new L aw and what it seeks to accomplish. Care must be exercised to invite all communities impacted by the new Law in an effective and opportune fashion. An important function of these for ums is to dispel myths that have created fear and anxiety around the new Law. Simple Language Secondly, information developed to disseminate the new L aw should be drafted with appropriate language, without using complex legal terminology. The important thing is to enable persons unfamiliar with legal terminology to understand the L aw, so they can share with their peers the knowledge transmitted to them. Monitoring System Create a monitoring system with the objective of analyzing the application and impact of the new F orestry Law. To accomplish this, it w ill be necessary to work with the different people who have participated in the forestry sector and will take part in the appli cation of the new L aw. The aim of this effort would be to make adjustments to the approaches taken to apply the new L aw in order to enhance its effectiveness in reaching its objectives over time.

PAGE 45

45 Moving Forward A recommendation that is legal and that can only be used at the moment in which the L aw comes into force and is applied by the Government in a specific case is that the person who is affected by the application of the Law use the A mparo T rial against the a ct of G overnment that violates their human rights. It is important to emphasize that the A mparo T rial cannot be filed without an act of authority to claim and that it can only be used by the person whose human right s w ere affected. This judicial figure is the last defense against a Government act and requires the assistance of a lawyer to be applied. Regulations of the new L aw still must be drafted. This process creates the opportunity to engage all relevant sectors in a timely fashion and avoid the confl icts that were generated during the discussion of the new Law.

PAGE 46

46 REFERENCES Bray, D B ( 2017 ). When the State supplies the commons: origins, changes, and design of Mexicos common property regime Florida International University Benet. R. (20 18). Aprueba el Senado una Ley de Avanzada. Retrieved April 18, 2018 from https://aristeguinoticias.com/1804/mexico/aprueba el senado una ley forestal de avanzada articulo/#.WteKzo2O428.whatsapp C‡mara de Diputados ( 201 6) Minuta de la Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable C‡mara de Diputados del Estado de Chihuahua ( 2017 ). Proyecto de Ley Forestal Sustentable Estatal CEMDA. (2016). Minuta que Abroga la Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable y Expide la L ey General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable Retrieved April 5, 2018 from http://www.cemda.org.mx/minuta que abroga la ley general de desarrollo forestal sustentable y expide la ley general de desarrollo forestal sustentable/ CONAFOR. (201 7 ). Econom’a F orestal en MŽxico Retrieved June 15, 2017 from http://www.cnf.gob.mx:8090/snif/portal/component/phocadownload/category/25 estadistica forestal nacional?download=1229:informacion estadistica de la produccion forestal nacional 2015 CONAFOR (201 8 ). Mecanismo de Atenci—n Ciudadana Retrieved April 14, 2018. from http://www.conafor.gob.mx/web/temas forestales/bycc/mecanismo de atencion ciudadana mac/ CCMSS. (2018). Enormes Fallas en la Nueva Propuesta de la Nueva Ley Forestal. Retrieved March 12, 2018 from http://www.ccmss.org.mx/enormes fallas la propuesta nueva ley forestal/ Diario Oficial de la Federaci—n. (1917). Constituci—n Pol’tica de los Estados Unid os Mexicanos. Retrieved May 3, 2017 from http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/1_150917.pdf Diario Oficial de la Federaci—n. (2003). Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable. Retrieved May 3, 2017 from http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/259_190118.pdf Diario Oficial de la Federaci—n. (2014). Ley Agraria. Retrieved May 3, 2017 from http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/13_270317.pdf

PAGE 47

47 FAO. (2018). Resumen del Estado Actual del Manejo y Ordenaci—n Forestal en MŽxico. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/j2628s/J2628S13.htm FAO. (2003 a ). Caracter’sticas del Sec tor Forestal. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/j2215s/j2215s06.htm FAO ( 2003 b ). Una buena gobernanza de los bosques es clave frente al cambio clim‡tico Retrie ved April 14 2018 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/j2215s/j2215s06.htm Gobierno de la Repœblica (2014), Anuario Forestal. Retrieved J une 1 5 201 7 from https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/43390/ANUARIO_FORESTAL_ 2014.pdf INEGI. (2016). Nuestros Vecinos. Retrieved May 18, 201 7 from http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/territorio/vecinos.aspx?tema=T INEGI. (2010). Agricultura, Retrieved J une 18, 201 7 from http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/economia/primarias/agri/default.aspx?tema=E# Martinez, P ( 2017 ) Nueva Ley Forestal Elimina la Participaci—n Civil en la Toma de Decisiones sobre Bosques, Animal Pol’tico Retrieved October 18, 201 7 from http://www.animalpolitico.com/2017/03/nueva ley forestal elimina la participacion civil toma decisiones bosques/ T orres Rojo, J M ( 2015 ). Desarrollo Forestal Comunitario. La Pol’tica Pœblica, Cd. de MŽxico, MŽxico, Centro de Investigaci—n y Docencia Econ—mica Ruiz Massieu, M ( 2017 ). Derecho Agrario Revolucionario, Archivos Juridicos UNAM Retrieved May 20 201 6 from https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/2/913/11.pdf SEMARNAT. (2013). Anuarios Forestales, Retrieved July 1 201 7 from http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/temas/gestion ambiental/forestal y suelos/anuarios forestales SHCP ( 2017 ). Presupuesto MŽx ico : 2008 2017 Transparencia Presupuestaria Retrieved October 18, 201 7 from http://www.transparenciapresupuestaria.gob.mx/es/PTP/datos_presupuestarios_ abiertos Vita ( 2017 a ). Mitos Sobre la Nueva Ley Forestal Retrieved May 15 201 7 from http://r.newsletter.ampf.org.mx/3tlp6qnmkczf.html Vita ( 2017 b ). Organizaciones a Favor de la Ley Forestal Retrieved May 15, 2017 from http://vita.org.mx/organizacionesconferenciadeprensa/

PAGE 48

48 WHO ( 2015 ). Datos Estad’sticos MŽxico. Retrieved April 10 20 17 from http://www.who.int/countries/mex/es/ World Bank. (2017 ) Rentas Forestales Retrieved October 15, 2017 from https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/NY.GDP.FRST.RT.ZS?view=chart WWF. (2017). D—nde trabajamos. Retrieved April 10, 2017 from http://www.wwf.org.mx/que_hacemos/programas/oaxaca/donde_trabajamos

PAGE 49

49 ANNEXES Annex 1 : Mitos sobre la Ley Forestal ABRIL 20, 2017 / Est‡ en discusi—n la aprobaci—n de la nueva Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable (LGDFS), y se han alzado voces en contra y a favor de que sea aprobada esta nueva ley. Sin embargo, se han creado muchos mitos tratando de desprestigiar este proyecto y es importante que sean declarad os, para que no se basen decisiones en mentiras, para que el pœblico no se deje enga–ar y no sea manipulado. Se privatizar‡n los bosques. Es la peor mentira. La Ley no toca ningœn tema de reforma agraria y adem‡s todos los bosques de MŽxico tienen due–o, en su mayor’a ejidos y comunidades. Es obligatorio que haya consulta. No es obligatorio que en una Ley reglamentaria como est‡ se tenga que basar en consulta pœblica. No hubo consulta. El proyecto de Ley forestal se basa en el trabajo de tres a–os del Co nsejo Nacional Forestal (CONAF), en donde hubo mœltiples foros de consulta y talleres en todo el pa’s. La Ley es diferente de la propuesta del CONAF. El proyecto de Ley se basa casi en su totalidad en el proyecto que dise–— el CONAF en donde est‡n represe ntados todos los sectores del medio forestal. De hecho, los miembros del Consejo se han manifestado, en su mayor’a, a favor de que se apruebe ya la nueva Ley. Forestales est‡n en contra de la Ley Ninguno de los representantes de las organizaciones que est ‡n en contra de la ley son forestales. Los profesionales forestales de distintas organizaciones est‡n a favor la nueva ley. Las plantaciones forestales son malas. Las plantaciones forestales comerciales se establecen solamente en ‡reas degradadas, son una gran alternativa de desarrollo econ—mico y quitan presi—n sobre los bosques naturales. Algunos expertos se–alan que posiblemente industrias de la madera en el extranjero dan financiamiento a la campa–a en contra de la Ley para no permitir que crezca en MŽ xico el mercado forestal. Recordemos que MŽxico compra el extranjero 7000 millones de d—lares al a–o en productos forestales. Todas las organizaciones campesinas est‡n en contra de la nueva ley. Es mentira, importantes organizaciones de silvicultores, y d e la sociedad civil han firmado pronunciamientos a favor de que se aprobada la nueva ley. Los legisladores no quisieron escuchar las propuestas de las organizaciones que se oponen.

PAGE 50

50 Mentira, las organizaciones fueron recibidas con sus propuestas en diversa s ocasiones por Diputados y por Senadores. Pero parecer’a que hay una postura necia de que forzosamente deben de quedar las cosas como ellos quieren. La Comisi—n Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR) ser‡ el juez y parte en la Gesti—n Forestal y eso es malo. Falso, la Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) seguir‡ conservando toda la parte normativa de la Gesti—n Forestal y permisos de aprovechamiento de los recursos forestales. Igualmente seguir‡ siendo la SEMARNAT la entidad responsable del c ambio de uso de suelo en terrenos forestales. La CONAFOR, que tiene una mayor estructura operativa y especializada, se encargar‡ de revisar, autorizar y dar seguimiento a los planes de manejo forestal sustentable y a los permisos de aprovechamiento foresta l. Esto permitir‡ que sea mucho m‡s f‡cil la gesti—n y menos complicada la tramitolog’a para las comunidades forestales. La tramitolog’a y la complicada gesti—n forestal son una de las principales causas del abandono de la producci—n silv’cola. Hay miles de firmas de organizaciones y de ind’genas en contra de la Ley. No se han presentado firmas aut—grafas en ninguna de las C‡maras Legislativas, se reunieron firmas en contra de la Ley en una plataforma digital en la que no se puede confirmar el origen de lo s firmantes, ni su autenticidad. Han salido art’culos de prensa donde comunidades silv’colas temen perder sus recursos. En esos art’culos a nombre de comunidad silv’colas, no ha salido nunca un silvicultor hablando en contra de la Ley, han salido los mismos protagonistas de asociaciones civiles que est‡n en contra. La nueva Ley pone en riesgo los bosques. Falso, la Ley es clara y precisa con respecto a la conservaci—n y restauraci—n de los bosques y fomenta el uso y aprovechamiento sustentable. Se de bilita la vigilancia forestal y se ignora a la Procuradur’a Federal de Protecci—n al Ambiente (PROFEPA). La Ley establece muy claramente cu‡les ser’an los cosas violatorios y adem‡s se–ala a la PROFEPA como la entidad responsable de hacer valer la Ley. Org anizaciones han se–alado que este instrumento deber’a indicar todas las actividades de PROFEPA, pero recordemos que Žsta tiene su propia reglamentaci—n y tiene que hacer valer varias leyes relacionadas con el ambiente y no solo Žsta. Se afectan los derechos de los ind’genas y de los due–os del bosque. La Ley es clara y precisa sobre los derechos de los ind’genas, adem‡s se–ala de manera clara que los due–os del bosque ser‡n los beneficiarios de los servicios que los bosques generen. Se perder‡n bosq ues. Uno de los objetivos principales de esta Ley es la conservaci—n de los bosques y evitar el cambio de uso de suelo en terrenos forestales. Establece sanciones para quien da–e un bosque para cambiarlo, y obliga a los due–os a que sean restaurados despuŽ s de un incendio en lugar de que se dediquen a otra actividad. Esta Ley busca que deje de crecer la frontera agr’cola en terrenos forestales. !"#$%# & "#$%&!"#'%(!)*$+,%--#.*(!/,%0%12(!340#+*$+& 5$$67889#$%&2,:&4;84#$2< = <20,+ = >% = >+? = @2,+<$%>8

PAGE 51

51 Annexe 2. Annex 2: Interviews with Government, Private Product Sector and NGO's (MŽxico) Pr‡ctica de Campo (Entrevista semi estructurada) El impacto de las pol’ticas pœblicas en el sector forestal en el cuidado y en la capacidad productiva del bosque Investiga dor Principal: Dr. Glenn Galloway Estudiante Investigador: Miguel Olivas PŽrez Soy un estudiante de la Universidad de la Florida, en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos. Estoy planeando realizar una investigaci—n, a la cual quisiera invitarlo a tomar parte. Tiempo del estudio: La entrevista tomar‡ 30 minutos Ubicaci—n: las sedes de las comunidades, ejidos, oficinas gubernamentales, instituciones educativas, dependiendo del caso en concreto en Oaxaca, MŽxico y otras entidades del pa’s Este estudio es dise–ado para aprender m‡s acerca del impacto de las pol’ticas pœblicas en el sector forestal. Los resultados de este estudio pueden ser utilizados para ayudar a otras personas en el futuro. Participando de este estudio puede que usted no r eciba un beneficio personal, pero nosotros podremos aprender nuevas cosas para ayudar a los dem‡s. A qui Žn puedo contactar en caso de tener preguntas acerca de esta investigaci—n? Si usted tiene preguntas, es libre de preguntar ahora o bien puede contact ar a: Miguel Olivas PŽrez m.olivas.p@ufl.edu +52 6142508930 Acepta participar en la entrevista____________________________________ Fecha: _______________ _________ No. d e entrevista: __________ I. Datos del entrevistado Datos del entrevistado: Edad : __________ G Ž nero: ____________ Escolaridad: ____________________ Pertenece a alguna etnia: SI/NO, en caso afirmativo a Cu‡l etnia pertenece? Habla la Lengua: ___________________ Ocupaci—n: _____________________________ Cargo: __________________________ __ Profesi—n: Cu‡ntos a–os lleva trabajando en el sector forestal? ________________________ Cu‡l es su profesi—n: ____________________________________

PAGE 52

52 1. Sabe cu‡l es la situaci—n del sector forestal en MŽxico? En caso afirmativo podr’a dar una breve explicaci—n? 2. Sabe Usted que hay un proyecto para una nueva Ley de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable en MŽxico? SI/NO 3. Sabe Usted sobre la Ley actual de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable en MŽxico? SI/NO 4. Cu‡les son las diferencias que usted detecta en tre ambas leyes? 5. Les han explicado las leyes anteriormente mencionadas? 6. Sobre pol’ticas pœblicas y programas en apoyo del sector forestal a. D—nde se enteran de las convocatorias de los programas? b. C—mo, d—nde y quien les explica las reglas de operaci—n de los programas? c. QuiŽn les informa de los cambios en la ley agraria y otras relacionadas con el bosque? 7. Sabe usted de los programas del gobierno que existen para apoyar el cuidado y aprovechamiento en los bosques de las comunidades/ej idos? 8. QuŽ dependencias del gobierno son las m‡s cercanas a las comunidades en relaci—n con los recursos naturales como madera, diversidad, agua, tierras agr’colas y ganaderas, materiales pŽtreos, miner’a, etc.?

PAGE 53

53 9. C—mo es la relaci—n de las dependencias del sector forestal (como la CONAFOR) con otros sectores (como la SAGARPA, la CONAGUA, Secretaria de Econom’a (agr’cola, ganadero, minero, etc.) con las comunidades? 10. QuŽ actividades est‡n permitidas dentro del bosque de las comunidades que usted conoce ? ( ) Desmonte para agricultura ( ) Pastoreo de ganado bovino o caprino ( ) Extracci—n de le–a ( ) Extracci—n de madera para viviendas ( ) Extracci—n de madera con fines comerciales ( ) Extracci —n de resina ( ) Cacer’a ( ) Otras. Indique cu‡les:____________________ 11. Las condiciones que requerir’an las comunidades para un aprovechamiento —ptimo del bosque? Podr’a enumerar del 1 al 5 las opciones de mayor a menor importancia, siendo el uno el de mayor importancia? ( ) Sociales (cultura forestal, organizaci—n, acci—n colectiva, interŽs de los comuneros/ejidatarios para aprovechar) ( )Econ—micas (Programas pœblicos de financiamiento, prestamos, subvenciones, etc.) ( )Infraestructura (aserradero, camiones, grœas, caminos) ( )Asesor’a tŽcnica (gesti—n, capacitaci—n, elaboraci—n de estudios, etc.) ( ) Biol—gicas (Disponibilidad de especies maderables, ‡rboles maduros, bosque sin plagas, calidad del sitio, etc. 12. Usted piensa que existe conservaci—n de los bosques o deforestaci—n en MŽxico? Podr’a justificar su opini—n? MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU VALIOSA COLABORACIN!!!!!!!

PAGE 54

54 Anexxe 3. Annex 3: Interviews with Government, Private Product Sector, NGO's (Oaxaca) Pr ‡ ctica de Campo (Entrevista semi estructurada) El impacto de las pol’ticas pœblicas en el sector forestal en el cuidado, y en la capacidad productiva del bosque Investigador Principal: Dr. Glenn Galloway Estudiante Investigador: Miguel Olivas PŽrez Soy un estudiante de la Universidad de la Florida, en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos. Estoy planeando realizar una investigaci—n, a la cual quisiera invitarlo a tomar parte. Tiempo del estudio: La entrevista tomar‡ 30 minutos Ubicaci—n : las sedes de las comunidades, ejidos, oficinas gubernamentales, instituciones educativas, dependiendo del caso en concreto en Oaxaca, MŽxico. Este estudio es dise–ado para aprender m‡s acerca del impacto de las pol’ticas pœblicas en el sector forestal. L os resultados de este estudio pueden ser usados para ayudar a otras personas en el futuro. Participando de este estudio puede que usted no reciba un beneficio personal, pero nosotros podremos aprender nuevas cosas para ayudar a los dem‡s. A qui Žn puedo co ntactar en caso de tener preguntas acerca de esta investigaci—n? Si usted tiene preguntas, es libre de preguntar ahora. Si tiene preguntas, usted puede contactar a: Miguel Olivas PŽrez m.olivas.p@ufl.edu +52 6142508930 Acepta participar en la entrevista____________________________________ Fecha: ________________________ Comunidad: _______________________________ Municipio: __________________________ No. De entrevista: __________ II. Datos del entrevistado Datos del entrevistado: Edad: __________ GŽnero: ____________ Escolaridad: ____________________ Pertenece a alguna etnia: SI/NO, en caso afirmativo a Cu‡l etnia pertenece? Habla la lengua: ___________________ Ocupaci—n: _____________________________ Cargo: ____________________________ Cu‡l es su profesi—n: Cu‡ntos a–os llevan trabajando en la Mixteca? ________________________ A cu‡ntas comunidades asesoran? ______________________________ 13. Sabe cu‡l es la situaci—n del sector forestal en MŽxico?

PAGE 55

55 14. Sabe Usted que hay un proyecto para una nueva ley de desarrollo forestal sustentable en MŽxico? SI/NO 15. Sabe Usted sobre la ley actual de desarrollo forestal sustentable en MŽxico? SI/NO 16. Cu‡les son las diferencias que usted detecta entre ambas leyes? 17. Les han explicado las leyes? 18. Sobre pol’ticas pœblicas y programas en apoyo del sector forestal a. D—nde se enteran de las convocatorias de los programas? b. C—mo, d—nde y quien les explica las reglas de operaci—n de los programas? c. QuiŽn les informa de los cambios en la ley agraria y otras relacionadas con el bosque? 19. Sabe usted de los programas del gobierno que existen para apoyar el cuidado y aprovechamiento en los bosques de las comunidades/ejidos? 20. Que dependencias del gobierno son las m‡s cercanas a las comunidades en relaci—n con los recursos naturales como madera, diversidad, agua, tierras agr’colas y ganaderas, materiales pŽtreos, miner’a, etc. 21. C—mo es la relaci—n de las dependencias del sect or forestal (como la CONAFOR) y con otros sectores (como la SAGARPA, la CONAGUA, secretaria de econom’a (agr’cola, ganadero, minero, etc.) con las comunidades?

PAGE 56

56 22. QuŽ actividades est‡n permitidas dentro del bosque de las comunidades que usted conoce ? (Marq ue con X las opciones mencionadas por el entrevistado). ( ) Desmonte para agricultura ( ) Pastoreo de ganado bovino o caprino ( ) Extracci—n de le–a ( ) Extracci—n de madera para viviendas ( ) Extracci—n de madera con fines comerciales ( ) Extracci—n de resina ( ) Cacer’a 23. Las condiciones que requerir’an las comunidades para un aprovechamiento —ptimo del bosque? Podr’as enumerar las opciones. Pedir al entrevistado cual que ordene de mayor a menor ( ) Sociales (cultura fores tal, organizaci—n, acci—n colectiva, interŽs de los comuneros/ejidatarios para aprovechar) ( )Econ—micas (Programas pœblicos de financiamiento, prestamos, subvenciones, etc.) ( )Infraestructura (aserradero, camiones, grœas, caminos) ( )Asesoria tŽcnica (gesti—n, capacitaci—n, elaboraci—n de estudios, etc.) ( ) Biol—gicas (Disponibilidad de especies maderables, ‡rboles maduros, bosque sin plagas, calidad del sitio, etc. 24. Cu‡l es la condici—n del bosque en el Estado de Oaxaca? 25. Usted piens a que existe conservaci—n o deforestaci—n de los bosques en la regi—n de la Mixteca?

PAGE 57

57 Annexe 4. Annex 4: Interview with Community and Ejido Members Pr ‡ ctica de Campo (Entrevista semi estructurada) El impacto de las pol’ticas pœblicas en el sector forestal en el cuidado, y en la capacidad productiva del bosque Investigador Principal: Dr. Glenn Galloway Estudiante Investigador: Miguel Olivas PŽrez Soy un estudiante de la Universidad de la Florida, en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos. Estoy planeando realizar una investigaci—n, a la cual quisiera invitarlo a tomar parte. Tiempo del estudio: La entrevista tomar‡ 30 minutos Ubicaci—n: las sedes de las comunidades, ejidos, oficinas gubernamentales, instituciones educativas, dependiendo del caso en concreto en Oaxaca, MŽxico. Este estudio es dise–ado para aprender m‡s acerca del impacto de las pol’ticas pœblicas en el sector forestal. Los resultados de este estudio pueden ser usados para ayudar a otras personas en el futuro. Participando de este estudio puede que usted no reciba un beneficio personal, pero nosotros podremos aprender nuevas cosas para ayudar a los dem‡s. A qui Žn puedo contactar en caso de tener preguntas acerca de esta investigaci—n? Si usted tiene preguntas, es libre de preg untar ahora. Si tiene preguntas, usted puede contactar a: Miguel Olivas PŽrez m.olivas.p@ufl.edu +52 6142508930 Acepta participar en la entrevista____________________________________ Fecha: ________________________ Comunidad: _______________________________ Municipio: __________________________ No. De entrevista: __________ III. Datos del entrevistado Datos del entrevistado: Edad: __________ Genero: ____________ Escolaridad: ____________________ Pertenece a alguna etnia: SI/NO, e n caso afirmativo a Cu‡l etnia pertenece? Habla la lengua: ___________________ Ocupaci—n: _____________________________ Me podr’a mencionar sus tres Principales fuentes de ingreso: 1) ________ 2) ________

PAGE 58

58 3) ________ Cargo: ____________________________ Cu‡l es su profesi—n: Cu‡ntos a–os llevan trabajando en la mixteca? ________________________ IV. Datos de la comunidad Desde cu‡ndo tienen su dotaci—n? __________________________________ Cu‡nta superficie tiene la comunidad/ejido? __________________________ Cu‡ntos comuneros hay actualmente? _______________________________ QuŽ tipo de bosques tienen? _______________________________________ QuŽ porcentaje de la superficie de la comunidad/ejido es de bosque? __________________________________________________ ________________ QuŽ porcentaje es de agricultura y cu‡les son los principales cultivos? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ QuŽ porcentaje es de pastoreo y cu‡les son los principales tipos de ganado que cr’an? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ V. Sobre conocimiento del marco legal 1. Sabe Usted que hay un proyecto para una nueva ley de desarrollo forestal sustentable en MŽxico? SI/NO 2. Sabe Usted sobre la ley actual de desarrollo forestal sustentable en MŽxico? SI/NO 3. Cu‡les son las diferencias que usted detecta entre ambas leyes? 4. Les han explicado las leyes? VI. Sobre el conocimiento de programas y apoyos 5. Sobre pol’ticas pœblicas y programas en apoyo del sector forestal 5.1 D—nde se enteran de las convocatorias de los programas?

PAGE 59

59 5.2 C—mo, d—nde y quien les explica las reglas de operaci—n de los programas? 5.3 QuiŽn les informa de los cambios en la ley agraria y otras relacionadas con el bosque? 6. QuŽ programas y/o apoyos recibe/tiene el Estado Mexicano? 6.1 Sabe usted de los programas del gobierno que existen para apoyar el cuidado y aprovechamiento en los b osques de las comunidades/ejidos? 6.1.1 QuŽ proyectos relacionados con el cuidado y aprovechamiento de sus bosques les han aprobado en los œltimos a–os? ___________________________________ A–o de inicio: __________ ___________________________________ A– o de inicio: __________ ___________________________________ A–o de inicio: __________ ___________________________________ A–o de inicio: __________ 7. Es f‡cil conseguir que le aprueben a su comunidad/ejido algœn proyecto a travŽs de los programas existentes para cuidado y aprovechamiento en los bosques? 7.1 Han sometido algœn proyecto para cuidado y aprovechamiento en los bosques a la CONAFOR o a otra dependencia del gobierno? SI / NO Les han rechazado algœn proyecto? a) S’ ( ) Por falta de al gœn documento u otro requisito ( ) Por datos incorrectos en la propuesta ( ) Por falta de presupuesto de la dependencia ( ) No nos informan el motivo del rechazo b) No 7.2 QuŽ problemas tienen cuando necesitan armar un proyecto para cuidado y aprovechamiento en los bosques y pedir apoyo a las dependencias del gobierno? ( ) Desconocimiento de datos de la comunidad ( ) Desconocimiento de reglas de operaci—n ( ) Desconocimiento de leyes agrarias ( ) Falta de tiempo ( ) Falta d e dinero ( ) Ausencia del asesor tŽcnico ( ) Otro ___________________

PAGE 60

60 8. Que dependencias del gobierno llegan a su comunidad/ejido, que tengan relaci—n con los recursos naturales como (madera, diversidad, agua, tierras agr’colas y ganaderas, mater iales pŽtreos, miner’a, etc.) 9. C—mo es la relaci—n de las dependencias del sector forestal (como la CONAFOR) y con otros sectores (como la SAGARPA, la CONAGUA, secretaria de econom’a (agr’cola, ganadero, minero, etc.) que llegan a su comunidad/ejido? VII. Sobre el aprovechamiento y manejo del bosque 10. Usted quŽ opina existe conservaci—n o deforestaci—n en los bosques de su comunidad? 11. Sabe cu‡l es la condici—n del bosque en el Estado de Oaxaca? 11.1 QuŽ actividades est‡n permitidas dentro del bosque? (Marque con X las opciones mencionadas por el entrevistado). ( ) Desmonte para agricultura ( ) Pastoreo de ganado bovino o caprino ( ) Extracci—n de le–a ( ) Extracci—n de madera pa ra viviendas ( ) Extracci—n de madera con fines comerciales ( ) Extracci—n de resina ( ) Cacer’a

PAGE 61

61 12. Las condiciones que requerir’a su comunidad para un aprovechamiento —ptimo del bosque? ( ) Sociales (cultura forestal, organizaci—n, acci—n colectiva, interŽs de los comuneros/ejidatarios para aprovechar) ( )Econ—micas (Programas pœblicos de financiamiento, prestamos, subvenciones, etc.) ( )Infraestructura (aserradero, camiones, grœas, caminos) ( )Asesor’a tŽcnica (gesti—n, capa citaci—n, elaboraci—n de estudios, etc.) ( ) Biol—gicas (Disponibilidad de especies maderables, ‡rboles maduros, bosque sin plagas, calidad del sitio, etc. 12.1 Cu‡les son los arboles m‡s grandes que podr’an indicar el potencial de los bosques de su comunidad/ejido? rbol _________________________ Altura: ________________________ Di‡metro: ______________________ 12.2 C—mo es la calidad de la madera que se extrae en la comunidad? a) Excelente b) Buena c) Regular d) Mala 13. Si usted compara la superficie actual del bosque de su comunidad/ejido, con la de hace 10 a–os usted podr’a decir que: A) est‡ igual B) se ha reducido c) ha aumentado d) otro (indicar) ___________ 13.1 Por quŽ cree que ha permanecido igual, aumento o disminuyo? 13.1.1 C—mo es la regeneraci—n natural del bosque en su comunidad/ejido? a) Excelente b) Buena c) Regular d) Mala

PAGE 62

62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH After earning his Bachelor in Law at the Universidad Aut—noma de Chihuahua, MŽxico Miguel work ed in The National Forestry Commission (Comision Nacional Forestal, CONAFOR) in Chihuahua, Mexico, collaborating mainly as a legal advisor in applying legal regulations for the implementation of projects related to the PROARBOL Program, currently known as Fo restry Development Program (PRODEFOR). He also worked at the Research Center for Advanced Materials (CIMAV) in Chihuahua, Mexico. This Research Center belongs to the National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT). At this Center he collaborated by writi ng and reviewing Contracts and Agreements for research and development of technology among several national and international research and academic institutions and private organizations.