Why Should We Certify Our Forests? Factors That Influence the Adoption and Maintenance of Forest Certification in Quintana Roo, Mexico

Material Information

Why Should We Certify Our Forests? Factors That Influence the Adoption and Maintenance of Forest Certification in Quintana Roo, Mexico
Ward, Dawn T
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (233 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Ecology
Committee Chair:
Mccarty, Christopher
Committee Co-Chair:
Stepp, John Richard
Committee Members:
Schmink, Marianne C
Keys, Eric
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Alliances ( jstor )
Community forestry ( jstor )
Forest certification ( jstor )
Forest management ( jstor )
Forestry ( jstor )
Forests ( jstor )
Hurricanes ( jstor )
Mayan culture ( jstor )
Noh theater ( jstor )
Timber ( jstor )
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
certification -- forestry -- fsc
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.


Environmental certificationprograms have been promoted by conservation and development agencies as aninstrument to achieve sustainable forestry management practices and soundforest governance. In 1993, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) debuted theirforest management eco-label to demonstrate to consumers that tropical timberproducts in the marketplace could originate from legal, well-managedsources.  Almost twenty years later, theFSC has certified over a 145 million hectares of forests in 79 countries butwith a significant percentage of this certification occurring in temperate andboreal forests and plantations. Unfortunately, management for tropical forests,the original forests intended to benefit from certification, has lagged behind.Mexico is renowned forhaving some of the world’s first FSC certified natural tropical forests.By the beginning of 2009, however, allof the previously certified community forests in the state of Quintana Roo losttheir certification status. These events call into question the viability ofenvironmental certification schemes and demonstrate the need for a betterunderstanding of what factors lead to the demise of certification, especiallywithin communally-owned tropical forests. This study examines thefactors that facilitate and impede the attainment and long-term maintenance offorest certification within eight communally-owned forests in Quintana Roo. Specifically,the study examines community forest owners motives to adopt FSCcertification and identifies the main variables ownersdeem necessary to maintain certification.To accomplish this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with keystakeholders and certification promoters (i.e. community leaders and forestryspecialists from civil associations, governmental agencies, donor agencies andresearch institutes) and compared their perceptions of certification barriersand benefits to corresponding FSC audit reports. Ethnographic methods ofparticipant-observation and informal conversations werealso used to complement data andto better understand the context of how local livelihoodsand relationships influence land use and management decision-making.Additionally, this study includes a historical description of landuse and conservation and development initiativesin this region, in order to document the sociopolitical climate leading up tode-certification and compare factors that influence thecompatibility of regional institutional arrangements and national forest lawswith FSC certification guidelines. Methods for the historicalanalysis include reviewing secondary data and conductingsemi-structured interviews with long-term regional stakeholders and communityresidents. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Adviser: Mccarty, Christopher.
Co-adviser: Stepp, John Richard.
Electronic Access:
Statement of Responsibility:
by Dawn T Ward.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Ward, Dawn T. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
Resource Identifier:
885021075 ( OCLC )
LD1780 2013 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2013 Dawn Teresa Ward


3 To my family Godoy Rodriguez Littler Ward


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS numerous people in my life. A big thank you is owed to my family, friends, committee members, ejido members and interview ees for putting up with all of my never ending questions and preoccupations To Mom, Dad, Rob and Maya k Farms and not pack my laptop! I am especially grateful to my advisor Chris McCarty for always having his door open to me and supporting me with in finite amounts of time and guidance I am very thankful to my Co chair Rick Stepp for his assistance since the early development of my dissertation. I am also deeply appreciative to Eric Keys, who made classes and conversations about M exico LULCC and political ecology a truly enjoyable learning experience It is without a doubt his coaching skills from the rugby field are transferred into the classroom I thank Marianne Schmink for reminding m e to stay true to my disciplinary backgroun d in Anthropology while recommending readings that have been fundamental to my research and evolution as a student at UF I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the ejido members of Bacalar, Caobas, Chacchoben, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Laguna Kanab, Naranjal P oniente, Noh Bec, Petcacab, San Francisco de Botes, Tres Garantias and X Hazil y sus anexos who have opened their doors to me since 2007 I hope to con tinue working with them I am indebted to the numerous conversations and data provided to m e first and foremost by Ing. Alfonso Arguelles, Tr opica Rural Latinoamerica (TRL) and Jesus Varguez Escobedo and his family Caobas ; Hugo Galletti, Edilberto Rosas and Luis Chay, the Society of Forest Producers in Quintana Roo ( SPFQROO ); Sebastien Proust and Ing. Jose A reola Palacios, ; Elsa Torres Zapata, CONAFOR/UNDP Biodiversity


5 Program; Ings. Rosa Ledesma and Victoria Santos, the Organization of Forestry Ejidos in the Mayan Zone (OEPFZM); Juan Osornio Jimenez, Autonomous Universi ty of the Yucata n (UADY) Ariadna Salvatierra, ; Ing. Celso Chan, forest technician of Noh Bec and Petcacab; Ings. Paulino Rosales, Bernabe del Angel, and Raul Perez Palomeque ; and Rafael Quesada Natural Reso urce Ministry in Chetumal ( SEMARNAT ) for allowing me desk space and access to ejido production data. A special thank you to Irving Gomez, and land use maps used in this dissertation. I am forever indebted to Silvia Caamal Colli, who greatly assisted me interviewing Mayan speaking ejido members and keeping me laughing in the field. A big thank you to my friends in Carrillo Puerto: Sonja Lillvik, A rmando Lopes, Catherine Gray, Pedro Esquivel Puc and Miguel Cauich Pia for always making sure I had a place to stay, food to eat and a hammock to sleep i n! I also want to thank the WFT fellowship and SNRE for providing me with financial support during my time as a student in th e classroom and in the field. I am proud to be a stud ent of the TCD Program and SNRE, and greatly believe in the community of emerging researchers and practitioners they are training: Andres Susaeta, Franklin Paniagua, Arika Virapongse, Ari Martinez, Allis on Hopkins, Jeff Hoelle, Tim Podkul, Deb Wojcik, Mason Mathews, Maria DiGiano, Kari MacLaughlin, Shoana Humphries, Laura Avila, Sam Schramski, Joysee Rodriguez, Jill Jensen and Pat Mupeta. And to my NYC sisters who have never left my side : Gabriella Pireno (editor since elementary school) Levette Burgos, Sara Thomas, and Ambe r Kubera


6 I would like to extend a special thanks to Helena Albuquerque and Drs. Christine Padoch, Miguel Pinedo Vasquez, and Chuck Peters, who from the start encouraged me to further my education and world vision. I would n o t be here if it were not for them. A final dedication is in order t o two people who left us too early but left a mark in my life : Alessandro Pireno (193 7 2012) and Andres Cauich Tuyub (197 6 2011 ) A nd here is to my future path with Sk A jaw who has gifted me with great insight into the life of a Quintana Rooense


7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 Statement of Problem ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 This Res earch ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Community Based Forest Management as Sustainable Forestry ........................... 25 Environmental Governance and Forest Certification ................................ .............. 28 A Brief History of the Forest Stewardship Coun cil ................................ ............ 30 Competing Forest Certification Schemes ................................ ......................... 31 Forest Certification Studies ................................ ................................ ..................... 33 Why Might People Choose Certification? ................................ ......................... 33 Why Does Certification Work in Some Places and Not Others? ....................... 34 What are the Main Barriers to Certification? ................................ ..................... 35 What Has Been the Experience within Mexico? ................................ ............... 35 3 FIELD SITE AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................. 40 Field Site Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 Why Choose Mexico to Study Forest Management Certification? .................... 40 Why Choose the Ejidos in Quintana Roo? ................................ ....................... 42 Stakeholder Selection ................................ ................................ ............................. 42 Methods and Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 45 Ethnographic Data Collection ................................ ................................ ........... 45 Historical Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 Stakehol der Perceptions and Theme Identification ................................ .......... 47 Secondary Data ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 Preliminary fieldwork ................................ ................................ ........................ 48 4 ETHNOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF EJIDOS IN QUINTANA ROO .................... 54 The natural landscape of Quintana Roo ................................ ................................ 54


8 Ethnicity and population ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Housing structures ................................ ................................ ........................... 62 Principal livelihood activities ................................ ................................ ................... 63 Agriculture ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 Timber ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 64 Apiculture ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 66 Rubber tapping ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 Hunting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 67 Fish and Waterways ................................ ................................ ......................... 69 Tourism and Remittances ................................ ................................ ................. 69 Ejidal forest governance structure ................................ ................................ .......... 71 Traditions associated with land management ................................ ......................... 74 Mixture of Mayan traditions and Catholicism ................................ .................... 74 5 THE HI STORICAL ROLE OF SOCIAL ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY AND CERTIFICATION IN QUINTANA ROO ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 94 Pre certification: A brief history of events leading up to certification ....................... 95 International drivers (1980 2011) ................................ ................................ ............ 97 National drivers (1910 1992) ................................ ................................ .................. 98 National laws and regulations affecting forest management ............................ 98 Para statal and private timber companies ................................ ...................... 100 State level drivers (1983 1992) ................................ ................................ ............. 103 The Plan Piloto Forestal and the return to community controlled forestry in Quintana Roo ................................ ................................ .............................. 103 State forest plans and the creation of forest institutions ................................ 106 Ejidal level (1992 2010) ................................ ................................ ........................ 107 The certification process for ejidos in Quintana Roo ................................ ...... 107 Changes within the ejidos during the time of certification ............................... 109 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 111 How do external and internal drivers affect certification? ............................... 111 Is certification evolving from a voluntary to a mandatory obligation? .................... 114 Do ejidos need forest certification to manage forests sustainably? ................ 115 6 STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS: IS CERTIFICATION SUSTAINABLE? ........... 124 Why vote for certification: factors that influence the attainment of certification according to ejido members ................................ ................................ ............... 125 Problems associated with certification accor ding to ejido members ..................... 1 26 Problems associated with certification according to external stakeholders ........... 133 CARS: problems with certification according to auditor reports ............................ 141 Factors that fac ilitate and impede forest management and governance ............... 145 Ejido leader perceptions ................................ ................................ ................. 145 Compliance with rules and rule enforcement within ejidos ....................... 147 Revolving door and institutional memory within ejidos ............................. 150 Mistrust and corruption with internal and external authorities .................. 151


9 Organizational structure: division o f work groups and forestry offices ..... 152 Bureaucracy and paperwork with government agencies .......................... 154 Ethnicity relations (Social Problems) ................................ ........................ 154 Stakeholder perceptions on ejidal governance problems ............................... 157 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 159 Comparison of stakeholder perceptions with CARs: is there a difference? .... 159 certification? ................................ ................................ ................................ 161 7 THE CURRENT ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIAL ACTORS IN RETURNING TO CERTIFICATION ................................ ................................ ...... 173 The Creation of the Southeast Forestry Alliance ................................ .................. 173 Why are ejido members considering certification and Alliance membership? 179 Why are forest technicians participating in re certification efforts? ................. 181 Quintana Roo Certification Status: Are They Re certified Yet? ............................. 184 The entrance of Controlled Wood and Timber Buyers ................................ ... 186 Discussion: What really influences the fut ure of certification in Quintana Roo? .... 189 certification ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 190 Social networks: the role of key players promoting certification ..................... 193 8 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 201 Is certification feasible among southeas tern Mexican ejidos? .............................. 201 Lessons Learned and Recommendations to make certification more sustainable 203 The importance of information dissemination and perception of benefits ....... 204 The importance of sound institutional organization in communal forests ....... 205 The im portance of public policy and ejido support mechanisms ..................... 209 The importance of natural disaster protocols and dissemination of information ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 210 The importance of mixing conservation strategies ................................ ......... 212 APPENDIX A TEN PRINCIPLES OF FSC CERTIFICATION ................................ ...................... 214 B INTRODUCTI ON LETTER AND FIELD SURVEY USED ................................ ..... 222 C NEWSPAPER CLIPPING FROM POR ESTE, JULY 15, 2011 ............................. 226 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 227 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 233


10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Three important global certification schemes. ................................ .................... 38 4 1 General data on ejido year founded, number of members, population, ethnicity, and past certification status. ................................ ................................ 78 4 2 Key characteristics of ejido land use areas and authorized harvest volume in Quintana Roo. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 4 3 Commercially important timber and polewood species in Southeast Quintana Roo. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 80 6 1 List of forest governance problems cited by ejido leaders ................................ 169 7 1 Past and Current Forestry Alliance members. ................................ .................. 196 7 2 Forestry enterprise variables checklist. ................................ ............................ 197


11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 FSC certificates by biomes: global certified area. ................................ ............... 39 2 2 FSC certificates by tenure ownership: number of certificates globally. (Source: FSC Global certificates: type and distribution report August 2011.) ..... 39 3 1 Map of study sites. ................................ ................................ .............................. 50 3 2 Stakeholder selection. ................................ ................................ ........................ 51 3 3 technician with Silvia, field assistant for this study. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 52 3 4 Scanned picture drawn by Hanni (6 y.o.). From left to right: Hanni from Silvia (the field assistant). Throughout fieldwork children and young adults of the households frequently accompanied the researcher. ................................ ... 52 3 5 The actual kids from the drawin g: Josue, Hanni and the field researcher walking home from a hard day of work. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). .......... 53 4 1 Map o f eleven ejidos and their corresponding forest types. ................................ 77 4 2 Petcacab forest governance structure. An example of a Mayan e jido with work groups. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 81 4 3 Noh Bec forest governance structure. An example of a mestizo ejido with a separate forest management office. ................................ ................................ ... 82 4 4 Traditional Mayan house made with stone, polewood and thatched roof in Felipe Carrillo Puerto. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ..... 83 4 5 Wood house with laminated tin roof in Caoba. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 83 4 6 A common sight: palizada gathered and piled on the side of the road. An ejido member biking from his parcel and bringing firewood to his cinderblock home. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ .............................. 84 4 7 Traditional stingless mayan bee house in a solar (house garden). (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ .................... 84 4 8 Family owned carpentry workshop in Noh Bec making bee houses. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ .................... 85


12 4 9 courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ .................... 85 4 10 Young Milpa field in X hazil. Corn, squash and beans. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 86 4 11 Puerto. The researcher located in the middle with Dulce, a local NGO (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). .............................. 86 4 12 Hunter with rifle coming back from the milpa on the road to Naranjal Poniente. (Ph oto courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ........................ 87 4 13 Rubber tapper with machete in hand in the forest of Caobas. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Wa rd). ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 87 4 14 Chico zapote tree recently cut in Petcacab. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). .... 88 4 15 courtesy of Pascual Blanco Reyes). ................................ ................................ ... 88 4 16 Truck transporting timber to community owned sawmill in Noh Bec. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ .................... 89 4 17 Cutting chico zapote with chainsaw in Noh Bec. Boards to be used to build an animal watch tower in the Huasteco Reserve. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 89 4 18 workshop on territorial zoning (ordenamiento territ orial) in X hazil. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ .................... 90 4 19 Making homemade tortillas in a Mayan kitchen with traditional fi re pit to the right. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ 90 4 20 Making tamales wrapped in banana leaf in a mestizo kitchen. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ .................... 91 4 21 Making rope out of sisal (henequen) in a solar (house garden). The rope he is maki ng is the same rope used to tie his sandals. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 91 4 22 Celebrating the Catholic tradition of Dia de San Juan (St. John the Baptist Feast Day) in traditional dresses (huipiles). St John is the patron saint of water and they celebrate his birth (June 24) to continue to bring the rains. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ ......... 92


13 4 23 Fire pit of stone, charcoal and fuelwood in X hazil. It is used to cook meat hours. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). ................................ ................................ ......... 92 4 24 Meat taken out of the fire pit in Figure 4 26 and to be shared with the hazil. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). .................. 93 5 1 Historical timeline of of important events leading up to certification with a focus on four scales: international, national, state and ejido. ........................... 119 5 2 Historical timeline with a chronological focus ................................ ................... 120 5 3 Historical look at ejidos and their corresponding technical soc ieties (1986). .... 121 5 4 Historical look at ejidos and their corresponding technical societies (1994). .... 122 5 5 Historical look at ejidos and their corresponding technical societies (2011). .... 123 6 1 Why chose certification and benefit categories. ................................ ............... 163 6 2 Reasons why ejido s are no longer certified according to ejido members. ........ 164 6 3 Problems with maintaining certification according to ejido me mbers. ............... 164 6 4 Why ejidos lost certification vs problems ejidos had maintaining certification. 165 6 5 Why certification failed in Quintana Roo according to external stakeholders. .. 165 6 6 certification. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 166 6 7 CARS reports: problems with certification in four ejidos in Quintana Roo. ....... 167 6 8 Categories of forest governance problems cited by ejido leaders. ................... 168 7 1 Bimodal network of ejidos in 2009 ................................ ................................ .... 198 7 2 Five ejidos involved in the Southeast Forestry Alliance. ................................ ... 199 7 3 Timeline of Re certification efforts in Quintana Roo. ................................ ........ 200


14 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S CARS Corrective Action Requests CCMSS Consejo Civil de Mxico para la Silvicultura Sostenible CFE Community Forestry Enterprise CONAFOR Comisin Nacional Forestal (National Forestry Commission) CSR Corporate Social Responsi bility FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (Action Plan) FSC Forest Stewardship Council GEF Global Environmental Facility/Fund GTZ Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Society for International Cooperation) IFOAM International Federation o f Organic Agriculture Movement INEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geografa INFOQRO Instituto Forestal de Quintana Roo LGEEPA Ley General del Equilibrio Ecolgico y la Proteccin al Ambiente LGDFS Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement OEPFZM Organizacin de Ejidos Forestales de la Zona Maya PNUD Programa de Naciones Unidas de Desarrollo PPF Plan Piloto Forestal (Pilot Forestry Program) PROCEDE Programa de Certificacin de Derechos Ejidales y Titulaci n de Solares PROCYMAF Programa de Desarrollo Forestal Comunitario PROFEPA La Procuradura Federal de Proteccin al Ambiente RA Rainforest Alliance RAN Registro Agraria Nacional (National Agrarian Registry)


15 SAGARPA Secretara de Agricultura, Ganadera, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacin SARH Secretaria y Recursos Hidrulicos SEMARNAT Secretara de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Secretary for the Environment and Natural Resources) SCS Scientific Certification Systems SGS Socit Gnrale de Su rveillance SLIMF Small, Low Intensity Forest Management SPFQROO Sociedad de Productores Forestales de Quintana Roo (Society of Forest Producers in Quintana Roo) TREES Training, Extension, Enterprises and Sourcing TRL Tropica Rural Latinoamrica UIEF Forest Exploitation Industrial Units UNDP United Nations Development Program (same as PNUD)


16 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy WHY SHOULD WE CERTIFY OUR FORESTS? FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE OF FOREST CERTIFICATION IN QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO By Dawn Teresa Ward May 201 3 Chair: Chris McCarty CoChair: John R. Stepp Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Environmental certification programs have been promoted by conservation and development agencies as an instrument to achieve sustainable forestry management practices and sound forest governance. In 1993, the Forest Stewardship C ouncil (FSC) debuted their forest management eco label to demonstrate to consumers that tropical timber products in the marketplace could originate from legal, well managed sources. Almost twenty years later, the FSC has certified over a 145 million hecta res of forests in 79 countries with a significant percentage of this certification occurring in temperate and boreal forests and plantations. Unfortunately, management for tropical forests, the original forests intended to benefit from certification, has l agged behind. Mexico is renown ed the beginning of 2009, however, all of the previously certified community forests in the state of Quintana Roo lost their certification status. These events call into question the viability of environmental certification schemes and demonstrate the need for a better understanding of what factors lead to the demise of certification, especially within communally owned tropical forests.


17 This study examines the factors that facilitate and impede the attainment and maintenance of forest certification within eleven communally owned forests of Quintana Roo specifically examining the role of institutions forest policies and social actors in its promoti on and maintenance W e conducted semi structured interviews with key stakeholders : community members and leaders forestry specialists from civil associations, governmental agencies, donor agencies and research institutes and compared their perceptions of certification barriers and benefits to corresponding FSC audit reports. Ethnographic methods of participant observation and informal conversations were also used to complement data and to better understand the context of how local livelihoods and relationships influence land use and management decision making. Conclusions indicate that economic factors, social capital and ejido distinguishment are important motivation drivers for communities to adopt certification and in order to maintain certification s takeholder s need to perceive it to be economically feasible and beneficial. Additionally, the implementation of supp ort mechanisms by internal ejidal and exte rnal institutions to support sustainable forest management is ne cesarry for its long term maintenance.


18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION National and international policymakers have implemented programs to conserve dwindling natural resources that not only require local stakeholders and resource users to change their existing resource management techniques but to forfeit profits and to make additional sacrifices in order to have access to a specialized market For the past twenty years environmental certification programs have been promoted by conservation and development agencies as a tool to alleviate poverty and reduce deforestation. These programs attempt to accomplish these goals through the implementatio n of sustainable natural resource management practices and the enhancement of the programs include: wildlife, fish, agriculture, non timber forest products and as in this stud y, timber. This study deals specifically with community forest owners in Mexico and examines their motives to adopt Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for their forest management, while identifiying the main variables they deem necessary to ma intain it, and discussing the sociopolitical factors that have influenced its attainment and maintenance. D uring this period public concern for the environment has grown remarkably and a s a result environmental issues have begun to take the forefront in g lobal tr ade policies (Perera and Vlosky 2006). Consumers and activists, often in collaboration with NGOs, have created a force in the marketplace demanding socially and environmentally responsible products. Using their buying power, through product demand and/or boycotts, they have influenced industries to create self regulatory behaviors, to abide by corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles, and to develop certifica tion programs


19 (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Vogel 1995). This green movement in the market place arose in the 1970s when social and environmental labels (or eco labels), such as the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Organic eco label d products began to appear in l o cal supermarkets and shopping centers. Through the use of a label and/or logo, certification programs gave consumers a credible guarantee that a product complied with defined standards of management and w as environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and/or economically viable. Today there are a variety of environmental and social certification systems that have been developed by governments, industries and NGOs, which continue to evolve in their design and influence on environmental governance issues This study focuses ly on timber and paper products. Since 1993 the FSC, an international membership based NGO has created guidelines that systematize responsible forest managemen t with the goals of improving timber production in a sustainable manner for landowners and assuring buyers the timber products they purchase come from responsible practices and legal sources. The main benefits their certification label offer s landowners a nd timber companies include: 1. acquiring international market recognition for responsible management 2. the opportunity to enter new markets 3. assurance that future generations will enjoy benefits of the forest 4. s are respected, and 5. the opportunity to interact and cooperate among various players involved in for est management (FSC website 2007 ).


20 Forest certification studies have demonstrated the broad s pectrum of motives that persuade individuals (i.e. landowne rs, sawmill operators, lumber yards, timber and paper companies) involved in the timber supply chain to voluntarily certify their forests and/or purchase certified timber. In the U.S. a timber company might decide to certify their operation in order to imp rove efficiency in their production line but also to improve their company image to consumers. For a timber importer in the European Union, their FLEGT Action Plan (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) and EU Timber Regulation demanding companies proof of purchase of legally sourced tropical timber. A large multi national company might decide to purchase a specific amount of certified products each year due to a partn ership contract with an NGO in an effort to improve their environmental image and in an attempt to appeal to a new clientele base. Another influential factor for a multi national company to purchase certified products might be the hiring of a new executive who is a self proclaimed environmentalist and believes in these products. A community forestry operation in the tropical forest of Brazil might adopt certification practices due to financial and technical support offered by local NGOs and donor agencies. And a timber plantation in northern Mexico might adopt forest certification practices as their long time buyer in the U.S. want s to purchase certified lumber and offer s to subsidize the start up costs. Or newly integrated community forest members in Mexico might decide to certify their forests because they have seen the effects of devastating deforestation activities in the state where they migrated from and want to change that in their new place of residence.


21 All of these cases represent some of the reasons why people and companies in the supply chain decide to certify their forests or purchase certified timber products. While it is important to understand what motives influence people along the supply chain to adopt certificati on practices, it is also important to understand some of the potential variables that can assist in the long term maintenance and impediments of certification Statement of Problem As with m any new initiative s many problems have been identified within fo rest certification programs that have led researchers to call into question the equitability of their dis tribution of benefits (Klooster 2005). They have revealed low satisfaction levels of certificate holders (Thornber and Markopolous 2001; Fonseca 2006) and demonstrated high start up costs to producers and companies t o maintain the programs (Irvine 1999). The difficulties in obtaining and maintaining certification and the disparities in the realized benefits have led some scholars to question the practica lity of third party certification for specific resource users and their operations, especially for communally owned forest operations and small scale landowners (Markopolous 2003; Fonseca 2006 ) If certification has been shown to have such little satisfac tion and deliver so f ew benefits, why do private and public landowners continue partaking in certifi cation programs ? Why is certification growing in some countries and not in others? My objective is to identify the variables that determine whether a commun ity in one country will successfully attain certification and maintain that status. Perhaps more importantly, I will identify what factors lead to de certification, as is the current case within the ejidos in Southeastern Mexico.


22 This Research The researc h goals of this research are to 1) analyze the sustainability of forest certification according to stakeholder perceptions 2) understand under what conditions residents at the local level decide to support forest certification programs and 3 ) to identify the influential certificati on promoters from the lower to upper levels of decision making that affect community forest management The research questions driving this study are: what is the role of social actors and institutions in the attainm ent and maintenance of certification and how do stakeholder perceptions and existing local governance institutions influence the adoption and longevity of the Forest Stewardship Cou ? In order to accomplish this, the research inco rporates a historical analysis of forestry ejidos 1 and th eir institutional arrangements, specifically forest governance system s in Quintana Roo, Mexico and includes an analysis of stakeholder perceptions and attitudes/opinions of forest certification and forest governance. Preliminary fieldwork was collected for four months in 2007 and methods were tested for one month in 2008. The main field component of this study was imple mented from March 2010 to December 2011. The ethnographic methods used in this st udy were semi structured interviews, surveys, informal conversations, and free lists. Additional data w ere collected through participant observation at community and state level meetings. Secondary data w ere collected from the governmental institutions of the Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) and the National Agrarian Register (RAN), and from the international NGO Rainforest Alliance. 1 Ejido refers to a form of land tenure in Mexico that emerged from the agrarian reform. It recognizes individual land ownership with the possibility of collective administration and management.


23 This dissertation is o rganized into eight chapters. The first two chapters include the introdu ction and the literature review that focus on the two themes that heavily influence the theoretical framework of this study: community based forest management and environmental governance. Chapter three presents the field site and methods used to conduct t he study. Chapter four describes the field site and the principal livelihood activities within ejidos Chapter five provides a historical description of key events that led to the implementation of certification in Quintana Roo, Mexico, including changes in international and national laws that affected community forest governance institutions and forest management during that time period. Chapter six discusses individual motives that influence various stakeholders to adopt or promote certification. It challenges and its sustainability. It in the region. It also provides additional stakeholder perceptions on factors that facilitate and impede sound forest governance, including major social and environmental problems faced by leaders in ejidos and by forestry technicians in the region. Chapte r seven discusses the creation of the Southeastern Forestry Alliance and key social actors and institutions that influence why community forestry owners decided to return to certification C hapter eight includes the c onclusion and lessons learn ed


24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This study draws heavily from literature written about environmental governance, specifically focused on certification schemes, and literature on the use of institutions in community based forestry case studies and in common property theory. Environmental governance literature describes the historical and political processes in which certification schemes arose as a voluntary form of regulation and its evolution into soft and hard policy in the international arena with governments, industries, NGOs and its original advocates, civil society. Community based forestry initiatives discuss the devolution of forest resources and management authority into the hands of its users as a viable approach to forest conservation and co mmunity development, while at the same time document the challenges its users must overcome in order to successfully govern their resources. Many common property studies focus on the importance of understanding the various scales and structures of existing institutional arrangements, be it informal or formal, within a specific land tenure system in order to assess their compatibility and ultimately sustainability. Certification is often considered an instrument used to achieve both sound forest governance and sustainable forestry. These readings provide a general context to better understand the multiple conditions (institutions and actors) under which forest certification arises and the potential to for it to succeed or fail in the long run. The literature review also examines case studies that focus on community based forest enterprises and their experiences with certification.


25 Community B ased Forest Management as Sustainable Forestry Worldwide deforestation and degradation rates remain a concern as many p eople depend on forest products and services to support their livelihoods. It is estimated that 400 number r ely on forest resources (Arnold 1992). Community forestry emerged in different places and under various guises between the 19 70s and 1990s but largely as a response to deforestation and to industrial logging (Poffenberger 2006). In the past it has been referred to as participatory forest management, collaborative forest management, social forestry, and community based forest management. In this study, community forestry refers to forest management that has ecological sustai nability and local community beliefs as central goals, with some degree of responsibility and authority vested in the community (Charnl ey and Poe 2007). Additionally, it is a model of forest management that give s local people the majority say in making dec isions, potentially enabling them to secure long term rights to use and manage forests sustainably, and to maximize the livelihoods benefits they receive from those rghts (RECOFTC 2011). Sustainable development agencies put forth participatory and commun ity based forest management as a popular strategy to help local populations conserve forests while improving their livelihoods (Bray et al 2005). Community based development has been used as an alternative model to mainstream top down development approach es and as a promising strategy for transforming global and local relationships of inequity (Stone 2003). In the past, local communities were often perceived as threats to conservation efforts instead of potential problem solvers capable of promoting conser vation behaviors. The change in this latter belief is apparent, as policies have


26 been created for governments to return natural resource control to communities and thereby increas e their participation and governance of their resources (Agrawal et al 2008 ) In 2002 a quarter of the forests in developing countries were found to be communally owned or managed (White and Martin 2002) and research estimates that this figure doubled within the last fifteen years and is likely to double again in the next fifteen years (Molnar 20 forest resources are held collectively due to its longstanding history of agrarian reform policies and Constitution (Bray et al 2005). C ommon property theory emerged from an interest in how com munities manage natural resources, specifically with regard to the kinds of rules regulating con trol and access Many small scale communities of resource users engaged in systems of local management and successfully avoided over consumption of a common poo l resource by employing rules to exclude outsiders and by regulating use by those who are permitted access (Ostrom and Schlager 1996; Berkes et al 1991). In Mexico community owned forest members have shown a tendency to conserve and to manage their forest s in a sustainable way. Community forestry enterprises in Mexico have been et al. 2005). And community based forestry operations management practices in Mexico were found to be more effective in increasing forest cover than natural reserv es and protected areas ( Ellis and Bolland 2008). In a recent meta analysis community managed forests in the tropics demonstrated lower annual deforestation rates than protected forests (Bolland et al. 2011) and in a land use, land cover comparison forestry based ejidos in Quintana


27 Roo were shown to avoid deforestation and have larger amounts of forest cover than agricultural based ejidos (DiGiano, 2011). Research in this area has demonstrated the importance of studying key actors in promoting conservation and development initiatives and have explored these social making process and shape internal and exter nal institutions (Cabar le et al. 1997; Morell 1992; Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Specific case studies in Latin America have also shown that the involvement of community organizations, international actors and key governmental promoters are factors that facilitate the adoption and success of sustainable development policies and projects (Silva 1994). In a review of general environmental certification in Mexico, NGOs and civil societies were found to be key social actors that influence the implementation of these projects (Klooster 2 005). In Brazil, community forestry certification was more likely to occur because of strong political, technical and financial ties these communities had established with state government agencies (Humphries and Kainer 2006). Key social actors (i.e. prom oters) tend to also connect community members to information being provided by external agents (i.e. civil associations and NGOs) and can influence the natural resource management decision making process. However, there are a variety of problems that need to be further explored within studies of community forestry and common property institutions. Decentralization of resource management can lead to the unequal distribution of benefits within communities as local elites and state agents have been found to mo nopolize power and captu re benefits (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Rising tensions between community forms


28 of governance and entrepreneurial forms of governance have been documented in Mexico (Bray et al 2006). Some studies have called for policy makers and researchers to understand the types of institutional arrangements t hat govern behavior, as well as institutional and individual incentives when formulating forest conservation strat egies (Swallow and Bromley 1995 ). Thus, the role local institutions and key social actors play in the adoption and long term maintenance of natural resource management projects should be further explored. Environmental Governance and Forest Certification As markets become globally interdependent, they begin to surpass the capacit y of national level governmental and societal institutions to regulate their behavior and impacts. This fast and for new forms of governance (2004 : 1). This process is evident in the creation and implementation of various forms of environmental and social certification schemes. More frequently we see members of civil society (consumers, activists, NGOs) taking on the role of governments in procuring environmental governance initiatives, as was the case with the rise of forest certification. orks of diverse actors set and enforce standards for the managemen t of forests (Meidinger 2003: 265). Current approaches to environmental governance operating on a transnational level have become more market based and less state centered (Watts 2002; Bart ley 2003; Pattberg 2005). Forest certification programs, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) are


29 opposed to the traditional governance systems of authority. It is assu med that consumers can vote with their dollars and impact the way business is performed. In some eyes, certification is seen as a way to modify markets so that market actors are able to express their social and environmental values (Klooster 2006). A negat ive connotation of certification is that it is seen as a means of changing the actions of southern producers in order to serve the interests and assuage the anxieties of northern consumers and retailers ( Klooster 2005: 3). Since the mid1980s forest and timber certification programs have greatly evolved in their definition and use. These programs originally aimed to encourage sustainable forest management and production within tropical forestry, improve livelihoods of timber workers and forest owners as w ell as to provide all members of the supply chain access to a niche market and imp roved prices (Butterfield et al 2005 ; Newsom and Hewitt 2005). Their benefits could be easily categorized under the pillars of sustainable development (economic, ecological and social/ political) and as time went on unforeseen benefits arose for the multiple actors involved. Forest certification programs were created by NGOs but were soon to be picked up and modified worldwide by governments and the timber industry. For exampl e, an unforeseen political benefit of forest certification programs is the fact that they have been used as soft policy instruments to achieve sustainable forest management (Elliot 2000) and have provided a credible set of standards on which some countries have even based their own forestry reform principles and agendas (Segura 2004).


30 A Brief H istory of the Forest Stewardship Council The origin of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) can be traced back to the frustration felt by the public sector at the gov problems through public policy and inter governmental processes (Cashore 2006). There was a general sentiment of frustration with the inability of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) to improve fo rest management practices in the tropics (Gale 1998) and concern was growing of the effect tropical timber boycott campaigns would have for forests in the Southern Hemisphere (Cashore et al 2004). By the late 1980s programs to certify timber from well managed forests existed but there was no globally recognized seal that reflected that commitment. At a 1990 meeting of the Woodworkers Alliance for Rainforest Protection (WARP) in the U.S. the idea of FSC emerged, and by 1992 various environmental groups and their allies created the FSC in hopes to systematize responsible forest management and to deter illegal logging in tropical forests. The Forest Stewardship Council is an international, non governmental, nonprofit, membership based organization that sets standards and accredits certifying bodies to systematize responsible forest management. Certifying bodies audit forest operations to for Forest Stewardship and can use the FSC seal of approval in the marketplace (see Appendix A ) 1 FSC has two types of certification: forest management certification (for forest owners) and chain of custody certification (for timber companies that are part of the supply chain). In 1993, FSC legally institutionalized itself and opened its office in Oaxaca, Mexico. 1 This study focuses on forest management certificate holders and their ten principles and guidelines.


31 It is important to note that Rainforest Alliance (RA), another international nonprofit organization already had a timber certification program, p reviously known as SmartWood. Some RA staff members had also been a part of the FSC initiative and established the timber certification program became accredited by the FSC. The Rainforest Alliance Certified program is responsible for the majority of forest management certificates within Mexico and they are also the largest FSC accredited certifier worldwide with the greatest number of certified community and indigenous oper ations as of September 2011 (Rainforest Alliance 2011 ). Two certification companies that have also certified forest operations in Mexico using the FSC Principles and Criteria are the Socit Gnrale de Surveillance (SGS) and Scientific Certification S ystems (SCS). Competing F orest C ertification S chemes By the late 1990 s forest certification schemes grew and competition for FSC was waged through the development of industry initiated certification programs, i.e. the American Forestry and Paper Associatio tive (SFI) that offered a more business frien dly and less stringent approach to forest management (Cashore et al 2004 ). Worldwide, governments also began to create forest certification that were more geared towards their own forestry situation and included national standards. In 1999, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) was created as an umbrella organizat ion that endorsed national forest certification systems through forest management and chain of custody standards (It can be regarded as a European version of the FSC) (See Table 2 1).


32 In addition to these forest certification programs and labels there has been a rapidly growing number of initiatives related to enhancing the trade of legally produced timber from local to international levels. By 2010, there were 127 initiatives that exis ted worldwide and that constituted a diverse mix of government, private sector and NGO efforts for policy development, implementation and capacity building to increase legality in the forest sector and improve forest management and governance (vanDam and S avenije 2011). Some of these initiatives focused on certification labels while others were policies created to encourage governments to purchase certified timber. Certification is becoming more commonplace in the market. To date, more than 140 million hec tares of forest are FSC certified in 79 countries ( Van Dam and Savenije 2011 ). The Rainforest Alliance has certified over 64 million hectares and 3,262 operat ions in 74 countries (Rainforest Alliance 2011 ). And about 225 million hectares of forest area are managed in compliance with Programme for the Endorsement of Forest thirds of all certified global forests being certified to PEFC ( Van Dam and Savenije 2011 ). All of this progress has be en made in less than 25 years. The arrival of these additional labels, a trend that is commonly seen with other certified products and their seals, can lead to problems of saturation in the marketplace, increase in consumer confusion and decrease in recogn ition and trust of labels. The origin of certain labels (such as those created from industry or government) might deter consumer preference in the future due to a lack of trust in these agencies. While forest certification schemes are still young in the ma rketplace, it is unclear if consumers are sufficiently knowledgeable of these differences


33 Forest Certification Studies Why Might People Choose Certification? While the original intent of FSC certification was to improve timber production in a sustainab le manner for landowners and to ensure buyers that they were purchasing responsible wood products, additional benefits and motives have evolved over time dependent on the stakeholder and where the individual lies on the chain of custody. Forest certificat ion studies have demonstrated the broad spectrum of motives that persuade foresters, firms and forest operations to voluntarily certify forests and/or purchase certified timber. Specific motives cited have been: price premium and market a dvantage (Hayward and Vertinksy 1999), non economic benefits, i.e. public confidence, improvement of management systems and performance, self discovery of non conformance and better public, landowner and supplier communication, (Araujo et al (i.e. securing public confidence) as well as a motives listed may not have been originally intended by the certification schemes but can be regarded as supplementary benefits They demonstrate the importance of public in timber product production. Different reasons individuals chose certification also depend ed on the benefit they deem most valuable to their needs and goals. In Brazilian community forest operations, from local t benefits (Humphries and Kainer 2006). In the U S differences in reasons commodity chain stakeholders chose timber certification depended on their position in the chain (Overdevest and Rickenbach 2006). Despite the


34 comprehensive research effort, there is still an information deficit around forest certifi cation motives and perceptions, specifically amongst different stakeholders along the commodity chain. Why Does Certification Work in Some Places and Not Others? There are many factors that influence the attainment of certification worldwide. Reviewing the FSC Global certificate reports, one sees a differentiation in biome type (boreal, temperate and tropical/subtropical), forest type (natural, plantation, and semi natural/ mixed plantation/ natural forest), and forest tenure (public, private, government indigenous, concession and community) ( FSC 2011). While FSC was originally intended for tropical forest operations there currently is a higher percentage of temperate and boreal forests certified than tropical/subtropical and most certified forests belong to public or private landholdings (see Figure 2 1) Natural forests encompass 38% of certified FSC forests while the remaining areas belong to plantations and semi natural/mixed plantation. Again, plantations had not been originally included in the FSC Principles and Criteria but were added on as the tenth principle and were necessary due to the industrial demand for large amounts of timber and paper products. Another factor not specifically mentioned in the FSC report is forest operation size. The ten largest FSC certificates (in hectares) belong to various forest operations in Canada, Russia, Sweden, Croatia, and the United States, which have predominantly boreal and temperate forests (see Figure 2 2). Other factors that may be influential in attaining certification are: existing forest governance programs in the country government willingness to accept or promote certification as well as grassroots development coalitions (Segura 2004; Silva 1994). Countries with certi fication friendly forest policies that have been working closely with


35 international organizations to promote certification have also seen a rise in FSC certified forests (Segura 2004). In tropical forests this has occurred in Bolivia, Peru, and Vietnam whi le the few remaining Western European forests have become certified due to strict European Union timber marketing laws ( Segura 2004). What are the Main Barriers to Certification? FSC certification can be seen as a way to encourage and recognize communit y based forest enterprises (CFEs) but there have been many barriers and problems associated with forest certification. Outside of Mexico, few CFEs have been successful with certification and many demonstrate difficulties in retaining it (Irvine 1999; Bass et al 2001). Case studies of certified enterprises have shown that benefits realized from certification have varied greatly and economic costs to obtain certification have been significant (Irvine 1999; Madrid and Chapela 2003; Molnar 2003). Environment al forest certification has also been described as an attempt by NGOs to influence the governance of a global wood commodity network, which leads to an imbalance of power between big retailers demanding certification and small forest managers who must abso rb increased costs (Klooster 2005). A more detailed evaluation of the actual impacts of certification and the certification process on these communities and their operations has been called for (Nussbaum and Simula 2004). What Has Been the Experience with in Mexico? At the start of this study in 2008, Mexico was the third largest certified timber producer of Latin America and the Caribbean, after Brazil and Bolivia. It boasted more than 700,000 certified hectares and 40 timber operations. As of July 2011 it dropped in rank to the fifth largest certified producer with Uruguay and Peru surpassing it and Chile


36 and Guatemala close behind. Mexico currently has a total of 551,114 hectares of FSC certified forestland and 28 certificate holders (FSC 2011). One contr ibuting factor to the decrease in certified operations and forestland is that all of the certified ejidos containing natural, tropical forests in the state of Quintana Roo are no longer certified. This led to a loss of 124,291 certified hectares from six o ut of the eight ejidos that were once Rainforest Alliance Certified and FSC accredited. Mexican forests differ from many of these other fo rests due to the prevalence of their communal land tenure system They are predominantly communally owned forests. There are a larger number of decision makers that vote on attaining and maintaining certification. Private or public landholders deal with fewer decision makers in this process. The states in Mexico where certification has increas ed are Durango, Guerrero and Oaxaca (personal comm unication 2010). The first two states predominantly consist of pine plantations while Oaxaca has natural pine forests and subtropical forests. The state of Oaxaca also has strong governmental support due t o a law that passed encouraging state institutions to purchase certified timber and paper products for their offices and schools (personal comm unication 2008). An additional factor leading to the de certification process in Mexico could be the increased p resence and takeover of lands by drug traffickers (narcotraficantes) in Central and Northern Mexican states which has restricted auditors access into certified lands but this has not been seen in the Southeastern region where this study takes place (per sonal communication, 2010). In the case of Quintana Roo forest communities we find similar problems as seen in the aforementioned general case studies of forest certification, i.e. retaining


37 certification and absorbing its high implementation costs. This study discusses in depth the factors various stakeholders deem important to maintain certification.


38 Table 2 1 Three important global certification schemes. Rainforest Alliance (formerly known as SmartWood) The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC) Founded 1989 Founded 1993 Founded 1999 International non profit organization that uses independent third party certification to assure consumers that the wood products they purchase come from well managed forests. Their standards and guidelines are based on FSC accredited standards and they use national standards. Stakeholder owned system that promotes responsible management of the principles and 56 criteria a re based on the environmental, social and economic aspects of SFM National initiatives are responsible for developing national or sub national certification standards in accordance with FSC principles. International non profit, non governmental organizatio n dedicated to promoting sustainable forest management, especially among small forest owners, and includes a number of public and industrial forests. Endorses national forest certification schemes. Forest Management Certification (FM) Chain of Custody Certification (COC) Timber legality verification of origin and compliance (VOL, VOC) Forest Management (FM) Certification Chain of Custody Certification (COC) Controlled Wood Certification (CW) Sustainable Forest management standard (SFM) Chain of Custody standard (COC) Over 64 million has. of forest are RA FM certified in 74 countries and 3,262 COC certified operations. (As of August 2010). 135,335,596 has. of forest are FSC FM certified in 81 countries. (As of August 2010). 225 million has. o f PEFC certified forest area (Two thirds of all certified forests globally are certified to PEFC). 7,143 companies and organizations have achieved PEFC Chain of Custody certification) (As of July 2010)


39 Figure 2 1. FSC certificates by biomes: global certified area. Reprinted by permission from FSC. 2011. FSC Global certificates: type and distribution report August 2011 Figure 2 2. FSC certificates by tenure ownership: number of certificates globally. (Source: FSC Global certificates: type and distribution report August 2011 )


40 CHAPTER 3 FIELD SITE AND METHO DS Field Site Selection Why Choose Mexico to Study Forest Management Certification? Mexico is an ideal country to study forest management certification within community standing history with common property regimes since the early 1900s pre valence in the country since its inception in the early 1990s and the presence of sustainable forestry initiatives with ejidos in Quintana Roo since the mid 1980s. Ejidos are a form of communal land tenure that cover large portions of the rural landscape in Mexican states and form the foundation o f comm unity forestry (Wilshusen 2005). Most ejido lands are divided into collective use lands (forests), individual plots for agriculture and pasture for livestock, and a nucleus or town center (pueblo) where the population lives. Ejidatarios are ejido members w ith rights to a specific amount of land and the right to vote on decisions regarding the use, management and governance of the communal forests. The Mexican Revolution (1910 1917) led to the first and most extensive agrarian reform in Latin America, creati ng one of the largest experiments in common property management in the world (de Janvry et al 2001). Due to the Mexican Constitution, between the years of 1917 and 1992, some 29,000 ejidos and indigenous communities were established, covering more than 50 (Bray et al 2005). As a result 52% of Mexican households were granted access to land (de Janvry et al. 2001). Having legally recognized land ownership titles and undisputed, established borders can assist com munities and ejidos in attaining forest management


41 certification guidelin e 1 Mexico is also an ideal country to study the certification process because it contains some of in Oaxaca and ejidos in Quintana Roo, along with territories in Indonesia, were the f irst to receive FSC accredited SmartWood certification. Studying the certification process within t hese communities allows us to have a better idea of how it has evolved through the experiences of its long term users. The international headquarters of FSC was located i n the state of Oaxaca from 1993 until 2005 which could also contribute to the financi al and technical attention Mexico received for their certification efforts and initiatives. Mexico is also an ideal country to study community based forestry, as it is known for its successful community forestry enterprises, which have been referred to as models for susta et al. 200 5). In a recent study Mexico forests that are community owned and controlled were shown to have lower deforestation rates than national parks and reserves i n the country (Bolland et al. 2011). Ejidos demonstrated a higher percentage of forest cover than the parks, due to their management and cons ervation practices (Bolland et al. 2011). Research has shown that Mexico has had a successful experience with community based forest management. 1 PRINCIPLE 2 states that tenure and land use rights must be legally established and accepted without any territorial conflicts.


42 Why Choose the Ejidos in Quintana Roo ? Data for this study were collected within eleven forestry ejidos located in the two municipalities of Othon P. Blanco and Felipe Carrillo Puerto, in the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Figure 2 1 demonstrates the loc ation of the eleven ejidos in the state of Quintana Roo. Ejidos were selected due to their experience with certification. The re were a total of eight formerly Rainforest Alliance/ FSC certified ejidos in the state : 1) Caobas, 2) Chacchoben, 3) Naranjal Pon iente, 4) Noh Bec, 5) Laguna Kanab, 6) Petcacab, 7) Tres Garantias, and 8) X Hazil y Anexos (see Figure 3 1) While other ejidos in the state have applied for certification, only these eight had actually obtained it. Noh Bec was the last ejido to lo se cert ification in 2010. As of December 31, 2011 five of these eight ejidos we re in the process of reapplying for certification. T hree additional ejidos were interviewed 9) Bacalar, 10) Felipe Carrillo Puerto and 11) Francisco de Botes as they are part of a newly created Certified Forest Ejido Alliance of the Southeastern region which will be discussed in C hapter 6 It was also important to select these ejidos in Quintana Roo since they focus on forestry activities within natural, trop ical forests and not plantations or temperate forests. As mentioned earlier, there is a rise in temperate and mixed plantation forests certification, and it is necessary to understand what factors are impeding certification of tropical forests. Stakeholder Selection There were a variety of stakehol ders interviewed in this study as i t was important to document perceptions and opinions of people who are familiar with and have dealt with the certification process, are involved with the decision making, promoti on or law enforcement of certification, as well as those who may receive benefits from its


43 implementation. Therefore, this study includes interviews with: 40 ejido members, 15 technical agents from civil associations ( SPFQROO TRL, OEPFZ ) and employees from non governmental organizations (The Nature Conservancy, Reforestamos Mexico, Rainforest Alliance, Consejo Civil Mexicano de Silvicultura Social, World Wildlife Fund) nine private consultants/technical agents, employees in governmental agenc ies (CONAFOR, SEMARNAT, PROFEPA, Municipal forestry office of Carrillo Puerto and Chetumal), four research institutes (EcoS ur, INIFAP), and two timber buyers. Figure 3 2 demonstrates the various types and number of stakeholders selected for this study. Total number of stakeholders interviewed is 80. After preliminary fieldwork in 200 8 when I randomly selected interviewees from two certified ejidos (Noh Bec and Caobas) and two ejidos (San Francisco de Botes and Felipe Carrillo Puerto) that were in the p rocess of certification, I realized many ejido members were not familiar with the definition and process of certification. Therefore, in this study I decided to interview ejido members that work directly with timber resources (sawmill operators, forestry o ffice employees) and are involved with comunal forest management and de cision making on a daily basis, such as Comisariado (Committee) members Seguro de vigilancia ( Enforcement) officers and Grupo de Trab a jo ( W ork G roup ) leaders Informants selected for interviews in ejidos were chosen due to the above requisites of holding a current or past leadership position and working directly with timber in the ejido A dditional informants were selected through snowball sampling to ensure that the group (Bernard 2006) At the end of every interview, I asked for recommendations of


44 other informants or experts o n the topics that were either ejido members or external members. This was helpful as it allowed me to identify interviewees I would not have known to interview. For example, a forestry technician recommended a specific individual in a governmental agency b ecause they were interested in learning their opinion of certification and because at one time h e had promoted certification with the ejidos belonging to their agency T he technician wanted to see if funding and interest in certification still existed from that agency. A few times current ejido leaders directed me to a leader who had previously been in charge during the initial stage of certification because they thought that person could better explain the historical background of certifi cation in that specific ejido. It should be noted that all informants in the ejidos that were interviewed were men. Traditionally men are the only ones allowed to be legal ejido members. A woman may become an ejido member if her husband dies and her son i s not of age or if her father passes away and there is no immediate male relative to accept the status. According to the officia l records of ejido membership by the National Agr arian Registry (RAN) there are 5 women ejido members in Noh Bec. There were onl y two women that were chosen as informants within the ejido of Noh Bec (secretary in the forestry office) and in the ejido of Caobas (Comisariado secretary). In all the other ejidos there were no female Comisiariado members, there were no female sawmill op erators or machinery operators, and no informant ever recommended a woman as a specialist on this topic, unless it was an external forestry technician. Interviews with female forestry technicians and governmental agents were conducted and are included in t he stakeholder


45 Methods and Analysis Ethnographic r esearch was conducted from the community level up to the national administrative levels of the certification program in order to understand the process of certifica tion from differen t stakeholders and how those views can potentially influence the decision making process This study used ethnographic methods to better understand the certification process that evolved within Quintana Roo and the current re certification initiatives Mos t interviews were conducted in Spanish, while a field assistant accompanied the researcher in the Maya speaking ejidos to translate some of the questions into Maya for those who had difficulty with Spanish. Ethnographic Data Collection Participant observat ion was conducted throughout the study because it allowed the investigator to have a long term engagement with community members, while developing a better understanding of everyday life in the ejidos. This includes livelihood activities associated with fo assembly meetings, workshops held by technical agencies, governmental workshops, and wood production and selling transactions (Figures 3 3, 3 4, 3 5) Semi structured interviews were used as they allo w additional information deemed pertinent to the interviewee to arise during conversations while using a specific set of questions to guide the interview and ensure its brevity (Spradley 1979). Individuals interviewed were: community members, community for estry and timber specialists (i.e. auditors, certification agents, technical agents, certified buyers) and identified leaders. Semi structured interviews focused on what people thought about certification from the community to the national level as discuss ed in C hapter 5 (see Appendix B for questions ). Through preliminary interviews it became evident that people constantly


46 brought up forest management and forest governance problems the ejido faced that th obtaining certification. Therefore the semi structured interview included questions about local institutional rules and structures that exist in the ejidos, how they were created and enforced, an d problems associated with them and their relation to FSC timber certification rules. Of the 80 stakeholders interviewed, there were multiple times the researcher returned to interview the stakeholders again to discuss questions that arose from typing up the interview notes. Therefore, it was very common to cond uct repetitive interviews with key informants. During the semi structured interviews additional data w ere compiled through a survey with the ejido leaders in order to obtain basic ejido data (i.e. year formed, # hectares per member / per forest, yearly timber income per member, cubic meter of timber/member, main income generating activities in the ejido). These interviews were offices (casa eji dales) and family gatherings, Informal conversations within ejidos were held with members in community settings to better understand the structure and function of local institutions and leaders, to learn about historical livelihood activities, reasons why and how people became ejido members and general opinions about forest management and governance. These types of conversations added qualitative, rich data to the study. This method was important especially when certain questions arose from previous interv iews and clarification was needed or contexts explained. Informal conversations occurred in a variety of settings: bus or van rides, walking within ejidos, meeting breaks, restaurants etc.


47 Field and were used to include informal conversation highlights and meeting and workshop quotes. They were also used to record observations about time spent in ejidos, livelihood activities, cultural ceremonies and events attended Historical Analysis The first part of this research deals with compiling historical information on past land use throughout Quintana Roo, and the sociopolitical climate leading to certification and its entrance into the ejidos. These data were collected through a literature search of governmental agency documents, research articles and interviews with elderly ejido members and past ejido leaders as well as certification promoters in Mexico. Stakeholder Perceptions and Theme Identification A large part of this research consists of docum enting and analyzing stakeholder perceptions on 1) factors that influence people to vote for certification within their ejidos (i.e. costs and benefits), 2) factors that caused the demise of certification in the region, 3) variables necessary to successful ly maintain certification and 4) factors that impede forest governance within the ejidos. The first group (factors that influence people to vote for certification) uses the technique of free lists The remaining perceptions were compiled in semi structured interviews and answers were analyzed using theme identification to se lect codes and categories that we re most frequently cited and discussed. Secondary Data Additional data, such as timber production and commercialization volumes, ejido rules (ordenamien to territoriales), and ej ido assembly meeting minutes were provided though technical reports from the government institutions of the Registro Agraria


48 Nacional and SEMARNAT. This information was used in Chapter 4 to provide background information on ejido i nstitutional organizati on rules and used in Chapter 5 to provide data on legal problems faced by the ejidos. Additional data on factors that impede certification w ere collected from the ejido public audit reports entitled CARS (Corrective Action Requests) from Rainforest Alliance. Preliminary fieldwork In September 2007 the co PI conducted exploratory research in Mexico for three months to observe community forestry an d certification practices firsthand, learn about relevance of the proposed study. Forty semi structured interviews were conducted with key certification actors (government and funding agencies, NGOs, technical agencies, civil associations, and research institutes) in five states (Guadalajara, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Campeche, and Xalapa) and in Mexico City. In June 2008 the researcher visited Mexico for an additional five wee ks and stayed in two certified ejidos (NohBec and Caobas) and two non certified ejidos (Botes and Felipe Carrillo Puerto) in Quintana Roo. The goal was to refine research questions and test social network methods through surveys of 29 ejido members and 10 additional regional certification stakeholders and to maintain communication with technical agencies working with certified ejidos. Preliminary fieldwork demonstrated that many ejido members were dissatisfied with the FSC timber certification. They agreed that it has helped with forest management and production but they had yet to receive premiums in the marketplace, they were unable to pay the high costs to maintain certification and they lack ed machinery equipment to extract and process wood. Another co mmonly mentioned


49 problem was competition with neighboring forestry ejidos that sell their uncertified timber at lower prices and the monopoly of t wo local timber exporters in the region, to who m ejidos continue to sell since they are willing to give monet ary advances. Unfortunately, these two buyers sell timber to the national market, which has a low demand for certified timber and they are therefore unwilling to pay premiums. Additional results showed that residents chose certification due to perceived b enefits, resources available and social ties. The top five reasons listed were: better prices, facilitation in exporting process, increased government assistance, market access and improved production practices. Technical agents and community leaders disc ussed the resources needed to increase the success of certification, such as equipment (sawmills, tractors, skidders), valuable timber species, stable timber income and the (corrective action requests) for the FSC program. I ntangible resources were not explored during preliminary research but may include: knowledge on certification standards, stable relationships with buyers (Klooster 2004), and local institutional enforcement of FSC rules.


50 Figure 3 1. Map of study sites.


51 Figure 3 2. Stakeholder selection


52 Figure 3 technician with Silvia, field assistant for this study. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 3 4. Scanned picture drawn by Hanni (6 y.o.). From left to right: Hanni from Silvia (the field assistant). Throughout fieldwork children and young adults of the households frequently acco mpanied the researcher.


53 Figure 3 5. The actual kids from the drawing: Josue, Hanni and the field researcher walking home from a hard day of work. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


54 CHAPTER 4 ETHNOGRAPHIC DESCRIP TION OF EJIDOS IN QU INTANA ROO Chapter 4 is an ethnographic description of life in the community forests of Quintana Roo, Mexico, as observed in the eleven ejidos in this study: Bacalar, Caoba, Chacchoben, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Laguna Kanab, Naranjal Poniente, Noh Bec, Petcacab, San F rancisco de Botes, Tres Garantias, and X hazil y sus anexos. The objective of this chapter is to introduce the reader to what daily life is like for residents in the ejidos and how their communities are organized. It is based upon observation participation informal interviews and surveys conducted since preliminary fieldwork in Mexico took place (fall 2007 and summer 2008), as well as the time period of fieldwork based on eleven ejidos in Quintana Roo (March 2010 to December 2011). It includes conversation s held with male and female ejido members within their households, agricultural parcels, ranches, timber extraction sites, and areas of conservation. Information is also Forest Management Plans (PMF) and Environmental Impact Assessments (MIA). The chapter describes: natural landscape (local flora and fauna), eth nicity and population, principal liveli hood activities, organizational and governance structures, and traditions associated with natural resource management. The natural landscape of Quintana Roo The state of Quintana Roo extends a total area of 5,084,300 hectares, of which 3,686,700 has. are categorized as forestry vocation (INEGI, 2010). There are a total of 120 ejidos in the state but only 78 ejidos are registered as having


55 permits to manage 737,000 hectares of comunal forests and sell timber (INEGI, 2010). These forests have an estimated 1 02 tree speies per hectare with an average of 30 species p er hectare ( Snook, 1992) The dominant forest types located in the southeastern portion of the state, specifically within the eleven ejidos of this study are categorized as high and medium subperren ial tropical forest and lowland subperrenial tropical forest. Figure 4 1 is a map that delineates the eleven ejidos and their forest types. The ejidos of Carrillo Puerto, X hazil, Petcacab (in the municipal of Carrillo Puerto), and Noh Bec and Bacalar (in the municipal of Othon P Blanco) have mostly medium high forests where as Laguna Kanab and Naranjal Poniente (in the municipal of Carrillo Puerto) and Chacchoben, Caobas, Tres Garantias and San Francisco de Botes (in the municipal of Othon P Blanco) have a mixture of low and medium high forest. The eastern portions of Carrillo Puerto and X hazil include mangroves and popal tular As these areas are not considered as conducive t o human settlement or as well as payment for environmental services program. In between the southern border of Bacalar and northern border of Botes are large swaths of agricu ltur al land, which is predominantly used for sugar cane. (Many ejido members of Botes supplement their income as temporary workers on these private and concessioned lands). The subperrenial tropical forests are characterized by an abundant population of v ines and dense areas containing tree species between 15 30


56 meters, of which 25 50% lose their leaves in the dry season (Pennington y Sarukhn 1968). Common tree species found in this forest type are: chicozapote ( Manilkara zapota ), ramon ( Brosimum alicastr um ), pucte ( Bucida bucerase ), tzalam ( Lysiloma bahamensis ), chac rojo, copal, palo mulato ( Bursera simaruba ), Vitex gaumeri ) (INEGI, 2012). The lowland forests of the zone are disting uished by the dominant tree species gro wing to heights betw een 7 15 meters and which also lose 25 50% of their leaves. Subperrenial forests develop in terrains with deficient drainage in tropical and subtropical climates and flood during the rainy season. The more common species found in these forests are: p alo ti nto, e k ( Haematoxylon campechianum ), p ucte ( Bucida buceras ), chechem ( Metopium brownei ), s ak pah ( Byrsonima bucidaefolia ), and abundant grass species ( cyperaceae and graminea) (INEGI, 2012). Two other land types found within the ejidos in less frequency but of equal ecosystem importance are mangroves and popal tular. Mangroves are vegetation types that form in the brackish waters of lowlands and swamplands. They range in forming dense communi ties reaching heights of 2 0 meters or as low scrubland. Principal species found are: mangle rojo ( Rhizophora mangle ), mangle negro ( Avicennia germinans ), mangle blanco ( Laguncularia racemosa ) and Botoncillo ( Conocarpus erecta) (INEGI, 2012) Popal tular is a herbaceous vegetation type that forms in swamplands and along coastlines. The roots of the plants are almost permanently underwater with their leaves above water. Plant species common to this vegetation type are: popoay ( Calathea sp.), quenty ( Thalia ge niculata ),


57 platanillo ( Heliconia spp.) and the aquatic species of Leersia sp., Paspalum spp., Panicum spp. and Cyperus spp. (INEGI, 2012). As timber extraction sites are rotated on a yearly basis in the ejidos it can also change the forest type or soil typ e where extraction is occurring. In Caobas, Tres Garantias and Botes timber extraction only occurs during the dry season. Fangosa soil is predominant in these areas and they are therefore unable to bring trucks into extraction sites during the rainy seaso n. Soil type was also observed to affect Petcacab and X instances of heavy rains closed the roads for a number of days. For centuries the forests in this region have been shaped by natural disasters (hurrican es, fires, droughts) as well as human land uses, such as the traditional slash and burn agriculture of the Yucatec Mayans and immigration waves promoted by national programs. Many of the forests in this region are described as a mosaic of secondary success ion i n various stages, with few blocks of mature forests, due to the natural dynamic of the vegetation and use by human communnities (Bray and Merino 2004). In Quintana Roo, there were two major waves of immigration. One occur red in the 1930s and 40s, which consists of the government granting larger sized ejidos for chicle extraction to the Yucatec Maya population that was already living in the area as well as immigrants from other south eastern states (Tabasco and Veracruz). The second occurred in the 1970s and 80s and smaller plots of lands were given for agricultural purposes, wi th many immigrants coming from c entral states and Chiapas. Milpa is still the major form of agricultural land practice in the


58 region. It is a small scal e agricultural practice that consists of slash and burn of forest plots and the intercropping predominantly of corn, squash and beans but additional crops can be grown in the plots. After a few years of crop production these areas are left to grow into aca huales (fallows) and farmers rotate the area they use for agriculture. Usually fallows are reused for agriculture after eight to fifteen years. This farming practice leaves a mosaic of forest succession land types in the peninsula. Government programs prom oting cattle ranching, large scale agriculture, and infrastructure development also have shaped the landscape 4 Hurricanes have also been shaping the natural landscape as well as livelihood activites in the Yucatan peninsula for centuries. The past hurrica nes frequently referred to in conversations with individuals in the state were: Janet (1955), Gilbert (1988), Wilma (2005), and the most recent, Dean (2007). Hurricane Dean did not cause fatalities but did cause extensive damage to forest areas, affecting 661,000 hectares of productive forests in Quintana Roo and more than 6000 households (CONAFOR, 2007). According to many ejido members Hurricane Dean impacted their ability to maintain the certification status 5 As mentioned earlier, the ejidos in this stu dy are located within or bordering a biologically diverse and important area entitled the Calakmul 4 These national drivers affecting landscape use and management are discussed in grea ter detail in Chapter 5. 5 This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.


59 res and Calakmul encompasses 1.8 million hectares. There are a number of protected flora and fauna species found in their forests and conservation areas: the howler monkey ( Alouatta pigra ), spider monkey ( Ateles geoffroyi ), ocelot ( Leopardus pardalis ) tig rillo ( Leopardus wiedii ) and jaguar ( Panthera onca ), tapir, (T apirus bairdii ) and the king buzzard ( Sarcoramphus papa ). Spanish cedar ( Cedrela odorata ) and mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla ) are listed under CITES, Appendix II with restrictions on their tra de. By law (as well as FSC regulation), ejidos with forest management plans must have conservation areas delineated within their territories In the following section Table 4 2 includes total hectares of productive forest and conservation area per ejido. E thnicity and population The ejidos in this study were some of the first ejidos in the state to be created. With reference to Table 4 1, we can see that the year they are legally recognized in the state ranges from 1936 to 1943, with the exception of Laguna Ka nab and Naranjal Poniente, whose members originally belonged to Chunhuhuas (formed in 1942) but seceded in 1999 and became inde pendent ejidos. X hazil also belonged to the ejido of Felipe Carrillo Puerto but became independent in 1942. The two largest ejidos in this study are Bacalar with 11,084 and (and only 175 members) and Carrillo Puerto with 24,744 (and only 234 ejido members ). Both are cities with their own municipalities and are composed of immigrants from various other ejidos and states in Mexico. Aside from these two ejidos, the population of the other nine ejidos range s from 685 (Naranjal Poniente) to 2,500 (Noh Bec) and from 105 ejido members (Tres Garantias) to


60 311 ejido members (Caoba). In terms of ethnicity, Naranjal Poniente, Laguna Kanab, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, X hazil, and Petcacab are ejidos of Mayan descent (with more than 75% of the population categ orized as eth nic Mayan). It is very common to hear Mayan spoken in these ejidos. The ejidos of Caoba, Noh Bec, Bacalar and Botes are categorized of mestizo descent and Chacchoben and Tres Garantias can be described as Mayan/Mestizo because of the recent influx of immig rants and the frequent use of Mayan in various households in both these ejidos. According to the table, it is difficult to make a correlation between ethnicity and certified ejidos, as a more heavily weighed influencing factor seems to be ejido population size. The two ejidos with the highest population are not certified, possibly related to the ability to rely upon other income generating activities. In Table 4 2 areas including total ejidal are a, total permanent forest area, total area assigned for agricultural activities, total area assigned for conservation, as well as annual authorized harvest volume (including cubic meters of precious, hard wood, soft wood and palizada) and the annual harves t of precious woods (which are the most economically important tree species that receive the highest price per cubic meter. It is not necessarily the amount of forest an ejido owns that will make their forestry practice (and certification) economically fea sible but the amount of mahogany and cedar (precious wood). The ejidos with the larg est extension of total area include Caoba (68,553 has.), Bacalar (56,280 has.), Xhazil (55,019 has.) and they also have large forestry areas (communal areas) that are dedic ated solely to the extraction of timber. While Petcacab has 51,117 hectares


61 for its total area, it is the second largest ejido in regards to it s permanent forest area (30,715 has). It is second in place to Caoba with 32,500 hectares dedicated to forestry a ctivities. All of these large sized ejidos have been ce rtified except for Bacalar. Petcacab and X hazil are of Mayan descent. Ethnicity does not seem to The three smallest ejidos in total area are: Nara njal Poniente (12,620 has.), Laguna Kanab (18,496 has.), and Chacchoben (18,654 has.). The first two ejidos h ave a predominant Mayan population while Chacchoben is equally mixed. They, along with the ejido Botes (10,000 has.) have the smallest permanent fo rest type. In regards to land set aside for agricultural purposes, Caoba (34,785 has.), Tres Garantias (11,178 has.) and X hazil (10,637 has.) are the largest ejidos. And Botes (2,000 has.), Noh Bec (2,600 has.) and Nar anjal Poniente (2,000 has.) have the least amount of land set aside for agricultural purposes. It should be noted that these are areas designated for agriculture but all of the area is not necessarily in current use. The ejidos with the highest authorized timber harvest volume in 2005, accord ing to SEMARNAT are Petcacab (21,446 m3), Noh Bec (19,396 m3) and Tres Garantias (12,458 m3) and with Laguna Kanab (35 m3), Chacchoben (280 m3) and Carrillo Puerto (290 m3) having the least amount of precious wood. It is not as important if an ejido has a large authorized harvest volume but what species make up that volume. Forest extraction is economically beneficial when there are large volumes of precious woods and the ejido has the ability to process value added products. It becomes even more profitable if the ejido size is small, hence the reparticion de utilidades (annual timber income) is


62 higher. An ejido like Tres Garantias with only 105 ejido members and a high volume of precious wood (568 m3) if they manage their money, are efficient in processing and receive a good price for their timber, will be more profitable than a large sized ejido like Botes (298 ejido members) who have to split the income earned from precious wood sales of only 393 m3. Cost benefit analysis of timber production and forestry well. Housing structures There are three general types of houses found within these ejidos : t he traditional M ayan house constructed of stone and palizada (polewood) with thatched roofs (Figure 4 4 ) wooden houses with tin roofs (Figure 4 5 ) and concrete houses ( many of which were donated by the government in order to withstand hurricanes ). There is a plethora of architectural freedom in the ejidos and in some instances, such as in Carrillo Puert o, one can see designs from Europe and the U.S. in their housing structures (those are usually pointed out as the houses built by remittances or by people that lived outside the country). Many households still rely heavily upon fuelwood and few have gas st oves inside their kitchens (Figure 4 19 and Figure 4 20 ) Three of the eleven ejidos interviewed (X hazil, Felipe Carrillo Puerto and Noh Bec) wer e incorporating Tuumben Kooben, an eco technique that used less firewood, was made of natural ingredients (egg yolk, soil, corn husk and recycled glass bottles), and redirect ed the smoke outside of the kitchen. All of the ejidos count on basic services: running water, electricity, a health center, elementary school (primaria). Noh Bec, Carrillo Puerto, Petcacab,


63 Bacalar, Caoba, and X hazil have junior high schools ( secundaria ) and high schools ( bachilleres ) or tele bachilleres (long distance learning) have higher education send their children to the closest neighboring ejido or city to study Pr incipal livelihood activities In this section we discuss the principal livelihood activities that are used for livelihood activities observed in this region were agriculture (traditiona l milpa farming), timber and pali z ada (polewood) extraction, apiculture, rubber tapping, hunting, fishing, tourism services, and remittances. There are some noted differences in ejidos and the livelihood activities they partake in due to forest size and ty pe, ethnic composition, location to market and service industry. Differences in ejido activities will be noted throughout the section. Agriculture Agriculture is a temporary act ivity dependent on family labor available and timed with the rainy and dry seas ons. All ejido members have the right to a specific amount of land to cultivate cr ops be it mechanized or milpa as long as and they respect ejido rules and boundaries. In the traditional system of milpa (slash a nd burn agriculture) individuals use anywhere between one to three hectares for intercropping various species of corn, squash and beans (Figure 4 10 and Figure 4 11 ) Other crops of watermelon and chile peppers are included in these areas. In Mayan communi ties, some families continue to maintain solares (house gardens) for subsistence purposes. Crops found here in small quantities are: achiote,


64 jitomate, cucumber, melons, radishes, jcama, yuca, macal, coote. They also plant fruit trees of banana s orange s grapefruits, lime s lemons and mango. Large scale mechanized agriculture is not prevalent in the ejidos but had occurred in Carrillo Puerto in the late 90s through a government subsidy to plant citrus groves (a project that never was completed). This type of land use normally occurs in private ranches outside of the ejidos and owned by non ejidatarios (i.e. Mennonite communities and business venturers). As mentioned earlier, many ejido members of Botes supplement their income as tempo rary workers on the private and concession lands used for sugar cane plantations. Over the years there have been many issues with chemical runoff from these plantations into the Rio Hondo and Chetumal bay (personal communication, Ingeniero Roque Alamina). Timber Three categories of wood are harvested in the ejidos of southeastern Quintana Roo: precious, tropical hardwoods and tropical softwoods. The principal timber species located within the forests of this region include: chicozapote ( Manilkara zapota ), ramn ( Brosimum alicastrum ), tzalam ( Lysiloma bahamensis ), chechen (Metopium brounei), chaka (Burcera simarouba), sacchaca (Dendropanax arboreus), amapola (Pseudobombax ellipticum) and bayo (Aspidosperma cruentum). The abundance of chicozapote and ramon al so has a direct link to the historical ecology of the region. Chicozapote was used for rubber tapping historically and currently, and the leaves of ram n were used as fodder for mules and horses (main mode of transportation in the 1900s) and currently for cattle and goats. The seeds of ram n were also used by ancient


65 Mayas in times of famine as a substitute for corn flour and are commonly found around archeological areas. The tree s with the highest economic timber value are the precious woods of mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla ) and Spanish cedar ( Cedrela odorata ) 6 T able 4 3 includes a list o f commercial timber and polewood Figure 4 6 demonstrates polewood collected. The quantities of commercially valuable tree species can differ from ejido to ejido depen ding on m icroclimates, soil types, hurricane impacts, and past extraction intensities from para statal companies. I n t he state of Quintana Roo the ejidos of Noh Bec, Naranjal Poniente and X hazil are identified as the three ejidos with the highest density of mahogany. Different species of polewood (palizada) and huano palm (Sabal Mexicana) also play a great role in the construction of houses, palapas (traditional Mayan housing structure) and f ences within communities and have a g reat potential for commercial value. Many hotels in the state use polewood species to create a rustic feel to their housing and beachside structures. By law, ejidos that want to sell timber be it in log form or already processed form (boards, panels, railr oad ties) need to have a forest management plan approved by SEMARNAT. Once their management plan is approved SEMARNAT issues the ejidos forestry remission receipts (remissiones forestales) that log the origin of the wood source. Each commercial transactio n of timber or polewood must have a forestry remission and be signed by an ejido leader. Ejido members are allowed to independently extract polewood from their parcels for construction use within 6 Cedar is listed under the CITES list of endangered timber species therefore it can only be sold if a community has a forest management plan and have permission by SEMARNAT.


66 their households but are not allowed to sell it within or ou tside the ejido. Figures 4 15 4 1 6 and 4 17 demonstrate the types of trees and timber utilized in the ejidos of the region. Apiculture Three species of bees are housed and used for honey gathering: the traditional stingless Mayan bee (Melipona beechei), African honey bee ( Apis mellifera scutellata) and European honey bee (Apis mellifera). The stingless bees are kept within house gardens and in cut up trunks off the ground to protect from ants and other predators, and under roofs to protect the colonies f rom the rain (Figure 4 7 ) The other bees are kept in boxes made of mahogany (Figure 4 8 ) in agricultural plots close to fruit trees or walking distance to their houses. Few households were observed to participate in beekeeping and honey collection as ther e is a competitive honey market due to many cooperatives in the state of Yucatan. Stingless bees are known to be less productive than European and African bees and their honey is used mostly for curative purposes for skin and eye ailments One important h oney cooperative that has been in the state of Quintana Roo for over fifteen years and is located in Carrillo Puerto i currently sell s honey from El Tajonal and artisanal honey products. Rubber tapping Rubber tapping is an important s easonal activity for Mayan and m estizo communities. It is not as heavily relied upon as an income source as in the 40s and 70s during the rubber boom and f ewer individuals participate in its collection as it is considered dangerous and h ard work. In the past people, men and


67 women would spend weeks in the forest during the harvesting season while leaving their children at home with elders and kin. Nowadays, i ndividuals or small groups of men will go on shorter trips to extract it (Figure 4 13 and 4 1 4 ) In order for an ejido to legally sell chicle it needs to have a management plan approved by SEMARNAT. In 2010 few ejidos had management plans and others were illegal ly selling it. A problem observed in one ejido was with neighboring ejido members and repobladores (non ejido members) coming into their forest area and extracting chicle to sell. In the state of Quintana Roo, Chicza is one of the largest chicle buy ers in the region, which then converts it into organic chewing gum sold in the Asian and European marketplace It is located in Chetumal but purchases chicle from 57 cooperatives (1,800 chicle producers) from Quintana Roo and Campeche. Hunting Hunting is m ost commonly relied upon in ejidos further away from large cities and markets. Mayan and m estizo communities both participate in the activity but it is more commonly seen within Mayan ejidos (Figure 4 12 ) Animals that are frequently hunted in the ejidos v narica), tepe s cuintle (Agouti paca) hispidus), javali (pecari tajacu) and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). B irds were also spoken of as hunted but were not observed duri ng fieldwork. It is n ot uncommon to see people with rifles on their bicycles or motorcycles going to and from their milpas (Figure 4 12 ) During harvest season there is more hunting in milpas because animals are attracted to the corn and crops People spoke mostly of their parents and older generations setting up camps and hunting in


68 groups for a few days but it is not such a common practice these days. Caobas is the only ejido that had an UMA for foreigners and Mexicans to hunt in certain areas of their forest but it is no longer funct ioning. Noh Bec and Laguna Kana had UMAs for breeding and selling deer through the technical assistance of a biologist in Chetumal. This allows them to legally sell deer meat but is still very difficult to find leg al deer meat in the market. During the Christmas holiday season it is common to see women in huipiles (traditional Mayan dress ) illegally selling deer and pavo del monte ( w ild turkey) along the highways. Much of the meat that is hunted gets shared within t he nuclear and extended family. Men are in charge of hunting, processing (pe eling and cutting) and cooking t he meat pibil style (underground with charcoal, firewood, and stone ) (Figure 4 23 ) Once the meat is cooked various wome n in the family (and those w ho were invited to come eat) would take part in shredding the meat ( which extends th e meat to feed more mouths), which is eaten with tortillas and the typical homemade hot sauce of habanero pepper, cilantro, tomato, lime and radish Few people spoke of cat ching and eating snakes but when they would set up camp in timber areas or chicle areas or if they came across a large, poisonous snake in the forest where they were going to be working it was not e snakes were not eaten. Meat from monkeys was also never eaten nor considered. Nowadays, if people were going to be in forest areas for a number of days they would just carry in canned goods and tortillas


69 Fish and W aterways In the past lakes and waterwa ys, that filled up during the wet season were important for transportation and commerce between ejidos and Chetumal. In Bacalar people use d water to preserve and transport logs to sawmills and buyers. Lakes and waterways, cenotes (springs) or wells used t o tap into cenotes were important to ejidos to attain water for their habitants, mules and livestock, and to water crops. During the wet season, many lowlands get flooded and additional water holes get filled. Fish commonly found and eaten in the lakes of Quintana Roo are: mojarra, boconas, rallados and bagres (Figure 4 9 ) Crocodiles (Crocodilus moreletti) are illegal to hunt and had been used in the past for eating of their meat and selling of their skins. A common practice in the eleven ejidos visi ted was for people to visit relatives living in seaside areas, such as Playa del Carmen Mahahual, Isla de Mujeres Holbox, Chiquila, or Punta Allen or to go in groups of friends to either trade meat for fish and seafood or to fish and bring back. In none of the eleven ejidos did people sell the fish they caught. It was shared within the household and if large quantities were caught, it was then shared with other relatives or neighbors. This was similar to meat caught and shared amongst family members. Tour ism and R emittances Additional sources of income come from the service industry. The ejido of Felipe Carrillo Puerto opened up Sijil Noh Ha nature reserve in 2006 complete with housing, dining and kayaking services (It is mostly used by local visitors and does not constitute a great addition to income sources to the ejido as it is still being developed and advertised). Carrillo Puerto is different from the other ejidos


70 due to its location and because it is a municipal head. It has a population of over 25,0 00 people, therefore offering its ejido members a variety of employment opportunities. Many people from surrounding ejidos move to Carrillo Puerto or take up temporary residence there. The ejido of Bacalar has an extensive lake system that is a main touris t attraction for national and international tourism. The ejido owns and manages the balneario public o ( the public swimming area), which includes a restaurant and enclosed swimming area. It offers boat tours throu gh individual ejido members who are boat ope rators. There are numerous hotels and lakeside restaurants that can accommodate large numbers of tourists as well as weekend visitors from the city of Chetumal. Bacalar is also a large city in the region with a population of 11,000 and continually growing as more people move out of Chetumal and take up residence in Bacalar and neighboring Buenavista. Several lakefront houses in Bacalar in 2010 were on the market from three million to six million pesos (roughly $300,000 US $600,000). Chacchoben also relies on additional income from tourists visiting their ruins and once the port of Mahahual opened up again after Hurricane Dean, they began to run daily tours to Chacchoben from cruise ship tourists. A dditional income sources from local or international remitt ances do exist in Quintana Roo In predominantly Mayan ejidos of this study (X hazil, Laguna Kanab, Naranjal Poniente) it was very common for adults and young adults to work in the Riviera Maya hotel zone. Hotel buses travel on a daily basis to Carrillo Pu erto, X hazil and Limones and many times people working in Cancun and Playa will rent rooms by the month and travel back to their ejidos every


71 Sunday. In the mestizo and mestizo Mayan ejidos of the southern portion of the state (Caoba, Tres Garantias and S an Francisco Botes) it was very common to meet people who had worked in the U.S. or had family members residing there. Many families receive remi ttances from these relatives and it is very common for men to send their parents, wives or fianc s money to beg in construction of their house for when they return. Ejidal forest governance structure The purpose of this section is to introduce the reader to the organizational structure of forest governance within the ejidos of this region. It allows the reader to better understand how decisions about forest management are made and who and maintain certification and this correlation to certification will be discussed in greater detail in C hapter 5 The Ejido Assembly includes all ejido members and is the ultimate deciding organism of the ejido. Every three years they vote for a new Comisariado President who is legally in charge of overseeing forestry activities for the ejido. His sign ature and approval are needed for signing remissiones forestales ( forestry receipts ) to contract the extraction machinery, to contract the sales of timber, to authorize household use of palizada and timber, as well as to attend to external visitors. His job, along with the Treasurer and Secretary is non stop work for three years. While they are paid positions, they are also considered an act of community service and are not highly coveted jobs due to their intensity and li ttle privacy. They attend to people at the ejido office, at their house and in meetings in other cities. The seguridad de vigilancia (vigilance person) is also voted in for


72 three years and is a paid position. This person acts as the enforcement agent for n atural resource management in the ejido. If people see illegal activity, they will report it to him and he will investigate. He is also responsible for making rounds at the timber extraction site as well as various points in the forest to make sure ejido m embers are abiding by rules and that neighboring ejidos are not infringing on their forest. Other important paid positions associated with timber within the ejidos are the Jefe del Monte (Forest Foreman who is in charge of delineating the forest cutting ar ea in the field as well as cubicaci n or measuring and control of the logs), documentador (document the timber that is being extracted and brought back to the sawmill), field machinery operators, cubicador ( person who measure s the logs in the extraction si te), sawmill operators, and an accountant (usually a person contracted from outside the ejido). The need for these positions depend s on whether an ejido is an active forestry ejido selling value added products or if they are a small forestry ejido that sel ls logs or standing trees. Income generated from these positions and timber revenue depends on the final product. As of 2011, community forest technicians began to be trained through the CONAFOR financing of a month long course offered by TRL technical age ncy (and including various day classes by regional specialists) and open to ejido members in various states of Mexico. This course was offered in 2011 and 2012 to about 30 students and was held in the ejido of Noh Bec, using it as an exemplary ejido o f sus tainable forest management The diploma received allowed ejido members to be able to access CONAFOR proposals


73 (convocatorias) and obtain funding to conduct forestry activities within their ejido. Their income is paid by CONAFOR and this allows the ejido to have a full time technician, although not with the same level of education as a forestry engineer or the external forest technicians (prestadores de servicios tecnicos) from civil agencies. Figures 4 2 and 4 3 demonstrate two of the forest governance type s found in the region. One is of the Mayan forestry ejido of Pe tcacab and the other is of the m estizo forestry ejido of Noh Bec. The main difference is that ejido members within Petcacab are divided into forestry work groups. (This also takes place in Caob as, Tres Garantias, X hazil). This means that the Comisariado is still the highest person in charge of the ejido and timber sales must be authorized or signed through him but everything from the extraction of timber, to the driving of machinery, to the pro cessing in sawmill is directed by a work group leader and conducted by the ejido members pertaining to that group. He is voted in by his group and there are people that have remained in their position for over 15 years and others that change their leaders or split into smaller groups more frequently. Noh Bec differs from all of the ejidos in this study as they are the only ones with a separate forestry office. This allows them to have a full time forestry technician residing within the ejido and overseeing forestry activities as well as a salesperson that is in charge of daily inventory reports and communicating with buyers. The forest office staff are responsible to hand in monthly reports to the ejido and comisariado during assembly meetings. Their positio ns are reviewed on an annual basis.


74 T h ere are ejido members in all ejidos who activities. They can be seen to sell their utilidades (annual payment for timber) in advance for the year or various years and will attend General Assembly meetings but not be as active in the discussion or planning of timber activities. Traditions associated with land ma nagement Vestiges of Yucatec Maya language and culture are found throughout the region. As mentioned earlier Yucatec Maya is the second spoken language in the Yucatan peninsula after Spanish and is frequently used in specific ejidos a s the language of choice. In five out of the eleven ejidos of this study, Mayan is spoken frequently in Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Petcacab, Laguna Kanab Naranjal Poniente and X hazil. Mayan names and expressions are spoken in all of the eleven ejidos and throughout the region, especially related to natural resources. For example, the Mayan names for many flora and fauna species, as well as soil types are used more tha n the Spanish names. In T able 4 3, more than half of the economically important timber and polewood species are known by their listed Mayan name. The names of ejidos such as Bacalar, Noh Bec, X hazil, Laguna Kanab, Chacchoben are Mayan. Bacalar ( b'ak halal ) means "surrounded by reeds." Noh Bec or Nojoch Becan Chacchobe n means Mayan word kan jaa hazil Mixture of Mayan traditions and Catholicism To this day, many rules and regulations regarding traditional Mayan land management (i.e. milpa burning and harvesting practices, timber cutting


75 dependent on moon phase and hunting sp ecific animals and quantities) as well as governance (respect and submission to elders and caciques) can be found in ejidos with high Mayan populations. There is a strong syncretism of Mayan religious traditions and Cath olicism (Figure 4 22 ) This is most evident in ofrendas (offerings to Gods) and primicias ( offerings specifically for rain and good harvest of crops but also for their bees to produce high honey production ) These events are held by male members in the communities, as women were traditionall y not included in these events. Ancient Mayans believed in various deities, many associated with natural phenomena (God of rain, of thunder, of bees, of the sun, of wind). In all of the ejidos, ofrendas were performed on s if the ejido was predominantly of Mayan or mestizo descent. In Mayan ejidos during the month of December, it is very common for families to partake in novenas. A novena is the Catholic tradition of prayer and in this instance it is the nine days of prayer before Christmas. The tradition in December is called maatan chosen to cook for the entire ejido as well as any visitors that come during that time period (Figure 4 24 ) It is common for people to visit their houses with pots or plates during or after prayers and to receive the gift of food. Novenas are also held in Mayan ejidos after the death of a family member. Within the house an altar is created for the recently deceased and candles are burned during time of prayer. Usually each town has a group of women who a re


76 invited to lead the prayers and recitation of the rosary. Afterwards they are invited


77 Figure 4 1. Map of eleven ejidos and their corresponding forest types.


78 Table 4 1. General data on ejido year found ed number of members, population, ethnicity, and past certification status. E jido Year Found ed Number of Members Population Ethnicity Certified Caoba 1940 311 1,322 Mestizo Chacchoben 1941 310 805 Maya /mestizo Naranjal Poniente 1999* 147 685 Maya Noh Bec 1937 200 2,500 Mestizo Laguna Kanab 1999* 190 1,200 Maya Petcacab 1942 207 1,230 Maya Tres Garantias 1943 105 738 Maya /mestizo X Hazil y Anexos 1942* 357 1,422 Maya Bacalar 1936 175 11,084 Mestizo Felipe Carrillo Puerto 1936 234 25,744 Maya S Francisco de Botes 1941 298 1,155 Mestizo Naranjal Poniente y Laguna Kanab originally belonged to Chunhuhuas (founded in 1942) but legally separated in 1999. **E jido originally part of Carrillo Puerto formed in 1936 but legally separated in 1942.


79 Table 4 2. Key characteristics of ejido land use areas and authorized harvest volume in Quintana Roo. Ejido Total area (has) Permanent forest area (has) Total agriculture area (has) Total conservation area (has) Authorized harvest volume (m3) Preciosas (m3) Certified Caoba 68,553 32,500 34,785 100 12,125 310 Chacchoben 18,654 8,670 5,287 2,564 8,362 280 Naranjal Poniente 12,620 7,500 2,680 2,000 4,223 467 Noh Bec 23,100 18,000 2,600 700 19,396 1,545 Laguna Kanab 18,496 10,000 8,000 106 1,555 35 Petcacab 51,117 30,715 5,287 11,600 21,446 2,153 Tres Garantias 44,520 20,000 11,178 400 12,458 568 X Hazil y Anexos 55,019 25,000 10,637 1,400 4,550 601 Bacalar 56,280 10 ,000 15,917 21,160 80 0 79 Felipe Carrillo Puerto 47,040 20,000 9,877 1,287 4,026 290 S Francisco de Botes 18,900 10 ,000 2,000 5,000 9,722 393 Authorized harvest volume includes cubic meter totals for preciosas, blandas, duras and palizada harvested in 2005 from SEMARNAT. H arvest data from 2007 until 2010 is not representative of an average amount due to Hurricane Dean impact Da ta collected for land use areas (total area, permanent forest area, agriculture area, conservation area) for certified ejidos was taken directly from their audit reports and data from non certified ejidos comes from their corresponding technical agents and their most updated PMF (Forest Management Plan).


80 Table 4 3. Commercially important timber and polewood species in Southeast Quintana Roo Precious Scientific Name Polewood Scientific Name 1) Caoba Swietenia macrophylla 1) Bayo Aspidosperma magalocarpum 2) Cedro Cedrela odorata 2) Bobchiche Cocoloba spicta 3) Boob Cocoloba cozumelensis Softwood Scientific Name 4) Caracolillo Sideroxylon guameri 1) Amapola Pseudobombax ellypticum 5) Ekulub Talisia sp. 2) Chac Rojo Bursera simaruba 6) Elemuy Malmea depressa 3) Sac Chaca Dendropanax arboreus 7) Guaya Talisia olivaeformis 4) Jobo Spondias mombin 8) Guayancox Matayba oppsitifolia 9) Laurel Nectandra coriacea Hardwoods Scientific Name 10) Limonaria Trichilia minutiflora 1) Chactecok Sickingia salvadorensis 11) Mambo Pseudolmeda oxiphylaria 2) Chechen Metopium brownei 12) Palo de rosa Cosmocalix spectabilis 3) Zapote Manilkara zapota 13) Palo de sol Blomia cupanioides 4) Jabin Piscidia piscipula 14) Perescutz Croton refrexifolius 5) Katalox Swartzia cubensis 15) Tamay Zuelania guidonia 6) Machiche Lonchocarpus castilloi 16) Tastab Guettarda combisii 7) Pukte Bucida buceras 17) Tusikche Chanekia campechiana 8) Ramon Brosimum alicastrum 18) Yuuy Casimiroa tetrameria 9) Tzalam Lysiloma bahamensis 19) Zapotillo Pouteria unilocularis 10) Yaaxnik Vitex guameri 11) Palo de tinte Aemotoxilon campechianum 12) Granadillo Platymiscium yucatanum 13) Higo Ficus sp. 14) Siricote Cordia dodecandra


81 Figure 4 2 Petcacab forest governance structure. An example of a Mayan ejido with work groups.


82 Figure 4 3 Noh Bec forest governance structure. An example of a mestizo ejido with a separate forest management office.


83 Figure 4 4 Traditional Mayan house made with stone, polewood and thatched roof in Felipe Carrillo Puerto. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 5 Wood house with laminated tin roof in Caoba. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward)


84 Figure 4 6 A common sight: palizada g athered and piled on the side of the road. An ejido member biking from his parcel and bringing firewood t o his cinderblock home. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 7 Traditional stingless mayan bee house in a solar (house garden). (Photo courtesy o f Dawn Ward).


85 Figure 4 8 Family owned carpentry workshop in Noh Bec making bee houses. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 9 (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


86 Figure 4 1 0 Young Milpa field in X hazil. Corn, squash and beans. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 1 1 Carrillo Puerto. The researcher located in the middle with Dulce, a local NGO epresentative. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


87 Figure 4 12 Hunter with rifle coming back from the milpa on the road to Naranjal Poniente. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 13 Rubber tapper with machete in hand in the forest of Caobas. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


88 Figure 4 14 Chico zapote tree recently cut in Petcacab. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 15 (Photo courtesy of Pascual Blanco Reyes).


89 Figure 4 16 Truc k transporting timber to community owned sawmill in Noh Bec (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 17 Cutting chico zapote with chainsaw in Noh Bec. Boards to be used to build an animal watch tower in the Huasteco Reserve. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


90 Figure 4 18 workshop on territorial zoning (ordenamiento territorial) in X hazil. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 19 Making homemade tortillas in a Mayan kitchen wi th traditional fire pit to the right. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


91 Figure 4 20 Making tamal es wrapped in banana leaf in a m estizo kitchen. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 21 Making rope out of sisal (henequen) in a solar (house garden). The rope he is making is the same rope used to tie his sandals. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


92 Figure 4 22 Celebrating the Catholic tradition of Dia de San Juan (St. John the Baptist Feast Day) in traditional dresses (huipiles). St John is the patron saint of water and they celebrate his birth (June 24) to continue to bring the rains. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward). Figure 4 23 Fire pit of stone, charcoal and fuelwood in X hazil. It is used to cook meat aves and left for hours. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


93 Figure 4 24 Meat taken out of the fire pit in F igure 4 26 and to be shared with the hazil. (Photo courtesy of Dawn Ward).


94 CHAPTER 5 THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF SOCIAL ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMU NITY FOREST RY AND CERTIFICATION IN QUINTANA ROO Chapter 5 provides a description of key historical events that precede and relate to the implementation of forest certif ication in Quintana Roo, Mexic o. Specifically, we chose to include political and socioeconomic events that directly affected forest management and community forest governance institutions. The research question this chapter aims to discuss is: what is the role o f social actors and institutions in the attainment and maintenance of certification and do they influence its longevity ? This question is examined here using a historical and political ecology le ns, while it is asked again in C hapter 7 but in a current con text. As mentioned, t his chapter uses a political ecology framework that uses an interdisciplinary lens to connect politics and economy to problems of environmental control and ecological change (Robbins, 2004). It takes into account the various drivers (e conomic, political, ecological, social) and multiple scales (international, national, state and local ) that set the stage for certification. Th e main influence for this methodology and theoretical framework comes directly from the socioeconomic matrix used to idenitfy and understand the multiple resource users, their interactions and historical dynamics t hat influence deforestation drivers in the Brazilian Amazon ( Schmink, 1994 ) The matrix includes global, national, regional and household contexts (scales) Subsequent studies that use elements of this approach are of historical analysis on forest policy, governance structures and civil society to understand forces that drive current sustainable forest manage ment practices in Bra zil (2009). As well as use of a historical analysis to compar e Southeastern


95 10 ) use of political ecology to view property rights intitutions as key mediators between the natur al and human world in Mexico and as a subsequent driving force of envir o nmental change (2011) Methods used in this chapter include an extensive bibliograhic review of research articles and Mexican institutional documen ts from the offices of INEGI, RAN and SEMARNAT as well as semi structured interviews and informal conversations with various forestry specialists and community members residing in eleven ejidos in Quintana Roo and Mexico The chapter is divided into two sections: pre certification (1890 1992) and certification (1993 to 2010) which discuss the multiple scales that drive certification Pre certification : A brief history of events leading up to certification Throughout the history of Mexico, we see a constant shift of power and control occur r ing between landowners and federal and sta te governmental agencies. Laws we re created and years later amended. They we re changed due to social movement uprisings, international economic agreements and environmental pressures, amongst other drivers. The process takes years for information and efficient implementation of these laws to trickle down from the federal level to the community level. Governmental agencies, as well as local civil associations that administer natural resou r ces, are found to end ure the same constant evolution the national laws are going through. At the same time, migration flows, partially due to government colonization programs and economic development in the region also tend to affect land tenure and management practices. In t he Yucatan peninsula, where the forestry ejidos are located, specific booms and busts of natural resource products are documented dating back to the previous century. From the trade of palo tin ta ( Haematoxylum campechianum ) used as a fabric


96 dye to British ruled Belize ( 1750 1810 ) to extensive, privately owned henequen 1 (Agave sisalena) plantations used to create rope, hammocks and clothing in the mid 1800s 1910 to rubber extracted from the trees of c hicozapote (Manilkara zapota) in the newly created ejidos in the 1930 s that hit a low in the 1980s The 1940s also saw an increase in timber extraction for the sale of railroad ties and more recently for the sale of the hig h ly commercialized tropical timber species of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and cedar (Cedrela odorata) for construction purposes In regards to infrastructure and development plans Quintana Roo is a relatively young state in Mexico. Beginning in the late 1960s and going full force until today, infrastructure development (such as high way and airport construction) geared towards increasing a tourism economy in northern and eastern Quintana Roo ha s also yielded positive and negative impacts on local communities livelihoods and natural resource use. exponentially. In Mexico it is the state with the highest population growth rate (4.7%) and and highest net migration rate (2.7) (INEGI 2005). In 1910 the population was estimated at 9,109 ; by 1950 it had grown to 50,169 and in 2010 to 1,325,578 (INEGI 20 10). Much of this growth can be attributed to n in the early 1930s to bring settlers into the region for rubber extraction and later for agricultural and pastoral purposes. Ejidos created for rubber extractio n were larger in size as an estimated 420 hectares per household head were granted by the federal government, while ejidos created after 1 During the land reform restructuring of president Lazaro Cardenas (1934 40) over 61% of henequen lands in the Yucatan were turned over to ejidos ownership, thereby breaking the debt peonage system of henequen haciendas (Topik, 2005).


97 the rubber boom were more agriculture focused and given ~50 hectares per household head. While reading about the nation al and state level activities that affected the forestry sector of Quintana R oo, it is important to keep in mind the timeline of infrastructure deve lopment that ultimately affect ed population growth and livelihood activities. The creation of highways airp orts and government sponsored migration flows into the state facilitate d access to forest resources, while it add ed pressure to land use and subsequently, depletion. International drivers (1980 2011) Figu re 5 1 demonstrates a timeline of important histor ical and political events that lead up to certification It is separated into four scales starting from a broad scale to a specific scale : international, national, state and ejidal Th e events under each scale are listed in chrol onological order The international level begins in the late 1980s with international timber boycotts ocurring in Europe and the U.S. and the founding of Rainforest Alliance, an international organization which creates SmartWood, a pioneer timber certificat ion program In 1992 the Earth Summit takes place in Rio and results in 168 government leaders signing the Convention on Biological Diversity demonstrating a commitment to sustainable development and conserving biodiversity. This event and treaty lead to numerous environment al policies and changes in environmental management. In the same year, FSC is legally founded and CITES lists mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla ) a commercially impor tant tree in Southeast Mexico under the appendix II category Appendix II defines species as potentially threatened with extinction unless trade is closely controlled. This and trade of mahogany. In 1993 NAFTA was signed and implemented. While it is a


98 trade agreement that does not mention or deal with certifica tion, it is increases the amount of timber being imported into Mexico from the U.S., therefore creating more competition within the marketing of timber sources predominantly in northern and central Mexican states. In the mid 1990s there is a plethora of in ternational donor interest and funding directed towards certification schemes. The MacArthur Fund, Ford Foundation, and WWF specifically target Mexico up costs of the certification process This coincides with DFIDs in terest to finance road building and improve forest management practices targeted within the ejidos of Quintana Roo in 1993 97 (state level scale ) Donor interest for certification doesn not return to the region until 2011 when the collaborative project of Rainforest Alliance, CONAFOR and UNDP increase s certification efforts and bring in financing by USAID and GEF. ( At this PROCYMAF program). Two imp ortant i nternational trade policies directly related to promotion of certification occur in the U.S. (the 2008 Lacey A cy) and in Europe (the 2011 FLEGT partnership) that prohinit the trade of illegally sourced timber. These policies increase a demand for c ertified timber worldwide and demonstrate the shift of timber certification from being a soft policy to a hard policy. National drivers (1910 1992) National laws and regulations affecting forest management The 1910 1917 Mexican Revolution led to the first and most extensive agrarian reform in Latin America, creating one of the largest experiments in common prope rty management (de Janvry et al. 2001). The effects of this revolution can be seen in


99 current day Mexican land tenure, agriculture and forestry pol icies and land management. Between 1917 and 1992, some 29,000 ejidos and indigenous 80% of its forests (Bray et al 2005) and granting access to land to 52% of households (de Jan vry et al. 2001). Ejidos are a form of communal land tenure that covers large portions of the rural landscape in many Mexican states and form s the foundation of community forestry (Wilshusen 2005). Most ejidos are divided into collective use lands (forests ) and individual plots of agricultural lands and rangelands forestry law, which was considered to have li ttle regulatory effect (Bray and Wexler 1996 ) The 1936 Agrarian Co de stipulated that formal acts or deci sions made by ejido assemblies had to be ratified by agrarian reform officials and that ejido members had to personally work under their own agricultural parcels rather than sublet them to others ( Wilshusen, 2010; int erviews). In the 1992 revisions these requirements were removed (Cornelius and Mhyre, 1998). From the 1960s to 1980s agrarian reform officials oversaw development activities in ejidos, participated formally in assembly meetings and facilitated access to st ate run banks (Wilshusen, 2010; interviews). Currently, these officials do not need to be in frequent attendance at ejido assemblies. Assembly meeting notes are usually typed up and registered at the RAN office in Chetumal in order for ejido agreements reg arding natural resource management to be registered and legalized Thus, ejidos have more flexibility in expedit ing community meetings and internal decision making by pass ing motions without the presence of a RAN official

PAGE 100

100 Para statal and private timber c ompanies Starting in the 1940s the government had an increasing role in the wood and paper products industries (Bray and Wexler 1996) Forests on ejido lands were controlled by private companies and state owned enterprises (Klooster 2003). This was first seen by a law passed in 1943 that created Forest Exploitation Industrial Units (UIEFs) due to a pulp production shortage during World War II (Bray and Wexler 1996) The UIEFs gave private companies access to large blocks of forests and limited communitie twelve UIEFs were established and were given land concessions from 25 yea rs to 40 years (Bray and Wexler 1996 ). A similar initiative occurred but with parastatal organizations in seven states (Chihuahua, Chiapas, Durango, Guerrero, the state of Mexico, Nayarit and Quintana Roo). By 1977, twenty seven parastatal organizations controlled 56% of forest sector production (Bray and Wexler 1996 ). In Quintana Roo the MIQRO (Maderas Industriali zadas de Quintana Roo) was a 25 year concession, state run enterprise that was created in 1952 and ended by 1983. Needless to say, the UIEFs and parastatal organizations did not use optimal harvesting methods, oftentimes leaving ecologically damaged forest s. Parastatals did, however, participate in training local rural workers in the management of timber production but community members had no decision making power in the management and planning of their forests. In the 1970s the administrators of the Forestry Subsecretariat began to let go of their reins in the timber industry and began to support policies and programs that would empower communities and enhance production. At the same time timber production was being devolved to communities the government created the National Land Clearing Program (Programa Nacional de Desmontes) to transform what they

PAGE 101

1 01 considered low production forests into agricultural or pasture lands. The program was responisble for destroying nearly 28 million cubic meters of timber in five years (Bray and Wexler 1996 ) in the 1970s to early 1980s. The state of Veracruz was home to one of the major tropical colonization projects and masses of Veracruzan immigrants came to the Yucatan peninsula in search of more arable land and better quality of life. During this time the state of Quintana Roo had a second wave of immigration, which led to the formation of smaller sized ejidos. As these ejidos were destined for agriculture use their size is smaller than the chicle based ejido s formed in the 1930 and 1940s. In the ejidos of Caobas, San Francisco de Botes and Noh Bec, t here is a large number of immigrants from Veracruz I mmigrants from Tabasco and Veracruz, where massive deforestation took place, constantly mentioned that hav in g seen what happened in their land back home want to see that happen again in Quintana Roo. To this day people also speak of the National Land Clearing Program (Programa Nacional de Desmonte), PROCAMPO (agricultural subsidy program) and PROGANA DO (pasture and cattle subsidy program) as counter productive programs that promote deforestation instead of sustainable land manegment practices They also pasture It is common knowledge that the top soil is too nutritionally poor for long term successful cattle ranching. During this time period throughout Mexico deforestation was rampantly occuring because of governmental inter vention with the timber industry, low stumpa ge fees being paid to communities, poor forest management practices and programs promoting the clearcutting of lands. A new generation of social foresters, along with grassroot s

PAGE 102

102 organizations, mobilized people and continued to pressure the government to allow them to manage their own forests and receive better prices for their timber production. Additional support to these grassroots mobilizations and reformers also came from government officials, such as Cuauhtemoc Cardenas (Forestry Subsecretary, 1978 1 980) and Leon Jorge Castanos (Forestry Su bsecretary, mid 1980s) (Bray and Wexler 1996 ). The work of these social actors work helped community forestry through the passing of the 1986 Forestry Law 2 The 1986 Forestry Law was important to community forestry for many reasons. It ended private forestry concessions, emphasized environmental consequences of timber programs and impulsed the development of community forest enterprises. This law level organ izing aimed at importance of the ejido as collective natural resource management (Wilshusen 2010 : 775 ). It transferred management responsibility from concessionaires to ejidos an d their support organizations. However, financial constraint and government reogranization limited the full impl ementation of this law (Bray and Wexler 1996 ). This law set the stage for the passing of legal responsibility for technical services from the st ate to for profit comunal associat ions (sociedades civiles) (Wilshusen 2010). 2 However, during the 1980s the Forestry Subsecretary experienced severe cutbacks in funding and staff and in 1985 it was eliminated and transformed into CONAFOR (the National Forestry Commission).

PAGE 103

103 State level drivers (1983 1992) The Plan Piloto Forestal and the return to community controlled forestry in Quintana Roo Right before th e 1986 Forestry L aw was passed an importa nt initiative that helped shape future forest management in southeastern Mexico was created It was called the Plan Piloto Forestal (PPF). In 1983 the PPF or the P ilot C ommunity F orestry Plan was established t hrough funding from the GTZ T he initiative assisted forestry ejidos shift from the previously state owned forest industry (MIQRO) to gain control of their timber s upply and production (Wilshusen 2010). Many accomplishments in sustainable forest management occurred due to the PPF (Galletti 1999). They based forest management program on the 25 year rotation cycle already in use by MIQRO but added in AFPs (Permanent Forest Areas) with sustainable harvesting criteria, such as minimum diameter for cutting trees, forest inventories, and defining and regulating the size of cutting areas. Forest inventories were conducted with teams of ejidatarios (i ncreasing their participation and knowledge) and they started categorizing trees by their diameter and use (i.e. cutting, reserve, repopulation and re generation). In establishing AFPs, it was important for them to determine an area solely for the use of forestry so that ejido members would begin to directly associate income generated due to forestry activities and see the economic value of a productive forest in their hands ( Galletti and Arguelles 1987 ). Ten years after state of Quintana Roo with registered permanent forest areas encompassing 524,864 hectares 3 (Arguelle s and Armijo Canto 1994) As one e x PPF mem ber relates, he saw 3 This number continues to increase. As of 2010 there were 178 ejidos with forest manangement plans that require ejidos to define AFPs and conduct forest inventories. This encompasses over 700,000 hecatres. (This data is mentioned in Chapter 4).

PAGE 104

104 this lles, personal communication). By 1983 MIQRO had exploited over 560,000 hectares of forest in Quintana Roo (Wilshushen 2010) The PPF also encouraged commu nity participation in the decision making a nd activities of timber inventories extraction and production. It was important to not only Canto recount the importance of the inclusion and changing roles of ejido members to accomplish PPFs objectives of sustainable forestry in the region : It was an enormous task to have the campesino producers abandon the passive role they played during the time of the concession (referring to MIQRO) and step u p to the leading role in the administration, log extraction, commercialization and forest management. El abandono del papel pasivo de la epoca de la concesi n, para pasar un protagonismo en la administraci n e xtracci n de troceria, comercializaci n y manejo de la selva, se presentaba como una tarea enorme frente a los productores campesinos (page 6; 2004). The facilitation of certification to the Southeastern region of Mexico can be attribu ted to the new sustainable forest practices pioneered by some of the key players in the PPF Silva emphasizes the importance of key social and political actors in Quintana Roo during this period and attributes sustainable forestry success to the growing gr een political climate (1994). Many of the PPF actors were responsible for promoting certification within the region and t o this day continue working within various levels of the local forestry sector that directly impact the previously certified ejidos. On ce PPF was dissolved, the creation of three civil agencies resulted from prior PPF participants: the Sociedad de Productores Forestales de Quintana Roo (based in Chetumal), Tropical Rural Latinoamerica (based in Chetumal) and the Organizacin de Ejidos Forestales de la Zona Maya (based in Felipe Carrillo Puerto). Creating these civil associations not only provided much needed technical services for groups of ejidos but

PAGE 105

105 they were based on the PPF strategy of creating a power front that would slowly turn i nto a voice for campesinos and ejidatarios in the political and commercial arena 4 F igure s 5 3 5 4, 5 5 are a historical look at the eleven e jidos and their membership with technical societies during th ree periods: 1986, 1994 and 2011 The first network in 1986 shows SPFQROO in Chetumal working with seven of the ejidos (Bacalar, Francisco de Botes, Caobas, Noh Bec, Petcacab, and Tres Garantias) while the OEPFZM in Felipe Carrillo Puerto focuses attention on the remaining four Mayan ejidos of the study (Fe lipe Carrillo Puerto, Naranjal Poniente, Laguna Kanab and X hazil). It should be mentioned that SPFQROO also worked with an additional three ejidos in the state while OEPFZM worked with 17 smaller sized and more agricultural oriented ejidos. By 1994, SPFQR OO maintained six ejidos from this study with Noh Bec leaving them to work with TRL (Tropica Rural LatinoAmerica), a technical agency created by an ex SPFQROO and PPF forester. X hazil left OEPFZM and joined forces with TRL. OEPFZM continued working with t wo ejidos (Naranjal Poniente and Laguna Kanab) while Carrillo Puerto also left them for an independent consultant. By 2011 another technical agent from SPFQROO parted ways with them and took Petcacab with him. Noh Bec also changed from TRL to this independ ent forest technician, who is an ejido member in Petcacab and owns his own sawmill. His ability to work with govern ment agents and timber buyers was an attractive incentive for ejido members to work with him. SPFQROO remained with four ejidos in the south and OEPFZM with two i n the Mayan zone. X hazil left TRL for an independent consultant f rom EcoSur while Bacalar left SPFQROO and connected with TRL. By this point the ejido of Carrillo 4 We see this same strategy existent today in Chapter 7 with the creation of the Sou theastern Forestry Alliance in Quintana Roo in 2011.

PAGE 106

106 NGO located within the city. From 1986 to 2011 there is a general tendency for ejidos to split from the two main agencies started by PPF representatives ( SPFQROO and OEP FZM) and seek technical assistance elsewhere. The first network as demonstrated in Figure s 5 3 5 4, 5 5, went from two groups in 1986 to six groups in 20 11 There is no longer a group cohesive front as originally envisioned by PPF but OEPFZM continue s to wor k with many Mayan ejidos and is a strong, political force in the region. This splitting up of ejidos in group associations can also be attributed to the increase in independent technical service providers ( prestadores de servicios tecnicos ) Quintana Roo has seen over the years These independent consultants along with the civil associations offer ejidos technical advice and assistance in finding funding sources as well as promoting ejidos in other stae run programs This shift from ejidos being more ind ependent can also be seen as a positive event, demonstrating that ejidos are taking control over who they decide to work with and render services from. State forest plans and the creation of forest institutions e programs in Latin America and with a case study focusing on the state of Quintana Roo during the 80s and 90s, he reminds the reader of the importance of key social actors and institutions in promoting these types of programs and eventually lead ing to th e creation and promotion of forest policies and regulations (1994). Governor Miguel Borge Martin (1987 1993) helped to promote the first state forestry plan in 1989. Subsequent state forestry plans of 1999 2005 and 2006 2011 also followed suit and included in their objectives to foment certification within the state, as well as within specific ejidos that have already begun the

PAGE 107

107 certification process. The government was acknowledging certification as an important tool to not only conserve forests but to have a force in the marketplace. In 1996, a year after SEMARNAP was created Procymaf a program under CONAFOR umbrella was created solely for community forest management in Mexico This is a very important program for ejidos because they fund start up costs fo r certification and various ejido forest activities that are necessary to maintain certification (reforestation, envir onmental impact studies, territory gaps or brechas etc). Ejidal level (1992 2010) The certification process for ejidos in Quintana Roo In this section we discuss the first ejidos that underwent t he multi year certification proces s in the state of Quintana Roo and the main certification promoters supporting these efforts. In 1992 the five ejidos of Noh Bec, Tres Garantias, Nueva Guadalajar a, Avila Camacho, and Los Divorciados received their first certification evaluation by auditors from the SmartWood certification program of Rainforest Alliance and Green Cross certification of SCS. In 1994 a second evaluation was c onducted with these five and two more ejidos (Caoba and Petcacab) by Rainforest Alliance and the CCMSS (Consejo Civil Mexicano de Silvicultura Sostenible). This second evaluation was conducted according to by the FSC. By 1995 only four of these ejidos were able to meet the conditions necessary to receive certification status (Noh Bec, Caobas, Petcacab, Tres Garantias). They received group certification as they all belonged to the same civil association (SPEFQR) at that time and shared the same technical services. As mentioned earlier, b y 199 8 Noh Bec no longer required the technical services of SPFQROO and they created their own forestry office within the ejido They

PAGE 108

108 request ed an independent certification status f or their forest management. At this point in time the forester that was part of PPF and also left the SPFQROO began to offer additonal technical services with his newly created business (TRL). It is important to note the changes in ejido forest technical services and which ins t ituti ons they request services from because t he constant changing of personnel within civil societies as well as their creation ultimately affect s to which governmental programs ( i.e. subisidies, land management programs ) and conservation initiatives (i.e. certification, payment for environmental services ) an ejido decides to apply. After the five year certification period ended in the year 2000 ,the ejidos of Tres Garantias, Caobas and Petcacab received certification as single entities. This occurred as the staff members of the civil society they had all belonged to had divided up and certain ejidos took their services to the new agencies that some of these forestry technicians created or decided to go to independent technici ans In 2001 two more ejidos recived certification. They were Laguna Kanab and Naranjal Poniente, both belonging to the OEPFZM civil association. In 2005 X hazil y sus anexos (working with TRL) became certified and in 2006 Chacchoben (working with SPFQROO ) became certified. Since that time much has changed regarding the FSC and Rainforest Alliance certification standards under which ejidos were certified. In 1995 the ejidos were certified und er generic standards but by 2003 they were evaluated under the F SC/Rainforest Alliance Mexico country specific standards. It is important to note these changes and their timeline because it can also affect the differences in responses from informants. As interviewing took place it was evident that not many people were familiar with the certification process or problems associated with

PAGE 109

109 attaining and maintaining it. Informants could not recall the specific reasons or CARS (corrective action requests) from the audit reports of why their ejido had lost certification or even remember the exact dates their ejido had entered or left certification. This lack of recall could be due to the changing certification process and the fact that it has been over 15 years since the first ejidos were certified. Changes within the ejidos du ring the time of certification Throughout the mid 1990s to early 2000 came a number of changes within ejidos that affected their ways to : 1) access finances, 2) conduct forest management practices 3 ) restructure their own forest governance institutions a nd 4) parcelize their ejidal land. It is important to note the changes that occurred within ejidos over time and specifically not necesarrily due to certification but due to the changing forestry and trade laws as well as influential social actors. Changes in financing occurred once ejidos began to take the reigns of their timber management and worked with technicians in the civil agencies. Forestry occupations were created, such as jefe del monte (f orest ry foreman ) machinery operators, sawmill operators, and carpenters. Community forest enterprises were able to take out loans (something that was and still is quite diff icult for ejido members to do). Ejidos had enough capital to create group or ejido bank accounts and felt they were finally take n more seriously by the banks. They also had more access to government funded program s. Changes in forest management practices that were discussed included cr eating permanent forest areas and having ejido members participate in forest inventory. Changes in the technical agencies also led to ejidos becoming more independent and

PAGE 110

110 less cohesive and maiantaining less alliances wi th their neigboring commun ities This was seen in the historical network analysis of the ejidos (Figure 5 3) and the agencies they hired and fired over the years. The main change in governance structure within the ejido is the creation of grupo de trabajos (work groups) that oc curred in 1992 after the PROCEDE law. Here the forest governance structure of certain ejidos became even more divided. Or as one technician said, it is like dealing with many ejidos inside of an ejido. N oh Bec also separated the control of their forestry activities and sales by creating an OMF (forest management office) in order to achieve C hain of C ustody certification and export their timber. While land tenure is not a main focus of this dissertation, policies pertaining to it can also influence l and management decisions and certification. In the 1992 revisions of the Forestry Law (PROCEDE) these requirements were removed (Cornelius and Mhyre 1998 ). Once an ejido has as signed property, e jido members are free to rent out or lend their individual plots to non ejido members, family members, or other ejido members. They are also allowed to sell parts of their land within the human settlement area to non ejido members. In certain ejidos, they can even sell their derecho ejidal (ejido right) with the new owners gaining the right to vote, receive utilidades ( annual timber revenue payments) and use the land assigned to them as they see fit (agriculture, pastureland, The change in law, permits members to gain additional income through property sales. movement of external populations into ejidos in the region (2011). A common concern

PAGE 111

111 by ejidatarios was the types of people that were moving in (i.e. drug traffickers) and their ability to participate and vote in community decision making (2011). If a new person moves into an ejido and has little interest or dependence on sustainable forest management, there is a possibility they will not be interested in the ejido partaking in certification. Discussion How do external and internal drivers affect certification? The r esearch question this chapter aims to answer is : how do external and internal drivers affect forest certification, and subsequently forest management wi thin the ejidos of Quintana Roo? Using a political ecology framework this chapter uses varying levels of drivers (international, national and local) to understand how policies, social actors, and institutions within each level have influenced certification and forest management. In answering this question, some drivers can be seen to have a more direct ties to influencing the promotion of certification than others. This is similar to the question r aised by Bray and Segura ( 2004 ) does one driver weigh more or are they weighed equally? C ertification will persist if support mechanisms exist to promote them and they receive financial and technical support. Certification among the other external and internal drivers of key social actors and institutions have also affected ejido governance structures and actual management practices. During the time period certfication was introduced into Quintana Roo and the global marketplace, this chapter discussed t he many changes that occured within Forestal, Ley General de Equilibrio Ecologico y Proteccion al Ambiente, Norma Mexicana AA 143 SCFI 2008), as well as international laws regarding protected flora

PAGE 112

112 species (CITES for mahogan y and cedar, the two most commercially important timber species in Quint a na Roo ) and commercialization regulations regarding the legal origin of timber (FLEGT in Europe and Lacey Act in the U.S.). Many of these laws and trade regulations slowly trickl ed down to landowner levels and beg an to affect current day certification initiatives in negative and positive manners. Selling timber from a CITES list entails additional studies needed to demonstrate sustainable management and legal origin of the timber. It makes the process more costly and time consuming. One change that could have affected the level of support ejidos received with certification towards the end of their period with certification was when the international headquarters of the FSC moved from Oaxaca, Mexico to Bonn, Germany and the national representation of FSC in Mexico was handed over to the CCMSS (a civil agency in Mexico City that had been working on certification with them and Rain forest Alliance for many years). This shift from Mexico to Germany, could be seen as the new focus on Europe and its timber market as well as the general shift of certification from tropical timber to temperate and boreal timber as discussed in C hapter 2 The lack of presence of the FSC office and its representatives has been argued to have led to a decrease in govern mental, NGO and donor support. In the beginning of (abandoned and forgotten) by the certifying agencies. For them, it was important that the agencies have a presence in the state to demonstrate their relevance and commitment to promoting certification. 5 By 2011, there were three representatives from 5 was facing closure and due to public outcry and letters from various national and internation al stakeholders they put forth the need to keep the office running and RA demonstrating their commitment and presence for certification in the area. The office is currently still open and running.

PAGE 113

113 a Ra inforest Alliance/ UNDP/ CONAFOR inititiative promoting biodiversity in forests through certification. This presence was important to local governing authorities as well since we also see a shift in regional public policies from promoting and supporting ce rtification in the state of Quintana Roo in the 90s to inclusion and support for carbon seq uestration projects in 20 10 (a similar global conservation and marketing mechanism trend). l de Desarrollo Forestal 1999 2005, 2005 2011 and the Plan Estatal de Quintana Roo 2011 2016) promoting forest certification initiatives was included in their objectives in the previous two documents but was not mentioned in the current 2011 2016 Plan It is unclear why this change occured. Instead we see the inclusion and support for carbon sequestration projects. As mentioned in Chapter 6, the promotion of REDD+ and carbon sequestration payments can be associated with certified forests, which are consider ed sustainable and well level authorities have made this connection between REDD+ and certification connection yet. Increased government support could lead to a faster return to certificatio n. Changes in governance structure external to the ejidos, such as the creation of civil agencies to provide technical support for ejidos can affect the implementation and promotion of forest management practices and certification in the region, especial ly when the d irectors of these programs are pro certification. Creation of governmental institutions primarily dealing with projects aimed at community forests, such as PROCYMAF gave ejidos more opportunities to finance the necessary costs for their fores t inventories, environmental impact studies and certification start up costs.

PAGE 114

114 Changes in governmental laws focusing on sustainable forest management initiaties and setting funding aside for certification start up costs and evaluations assisted the initial certified ejidos in attaining funding for certification This, along with financing by international donors and NGOs created allowed them to financially be able to afford the start up costs. As we will see C hapter 6 once t he financing from these agencies began to decrease, ejidos in Quintana Roo had a harder time paying for certification. Without these subsidies and interest from state level to national to international institutions, it is most probable that ejidos would no t have attained certification status. Is certification evolving from a voluntary to a mandatory obligation ? Certified programs, we see a constant evolution of their guidelines ( generic to country specific, inclusion of plantations and High Conservation Valued Forests) as well as increase in their types of certification programs (Forest management, Chain of Custody, Controlled Wood, SLIMF, and SmartStep). While the SLIMF program w as created for smaller sized forest owners to attain a group certification, it is not relevant for the ejidos in this study as an alternative since they contain more than the minimum requirements for hectares (100 1,000 hectares). The TREES program of Rain forest Alliance, can also be considered a support mechanism created and implemented for landowners contemplating certification and assisting in the targeting of improvements of governance structures, production improvements and marketing strategies. (While TREES is focused on improving production and mar keting mechanisms within ejidos, it can only advance if the re is trust, community consensus for the objectives and general willingness to actively adopt suggestions )

PAGE 115

115 Certification can be seen as a global go vernance tool, a soft policy mechanism, a voluntary, market based mechanism to ensure the well forests. It is difficult to measure the important role or weight public policy can play in forest governance and conservation issues bu t they should be considered an important term maintenance. Without some amount of local, state, and/or federal backing it makes the implementation and maintenance a more difficult task. In Mexico, there are alread y hard policies on sustainable forest management in place (Ley de Desarrollo Forestal, Ley GEEPA, Ley Agraria) combined with CITES regulation for mahogany and European and U.S. timber trade regulations (FLEGT and the Lacey Act). A general sentiment was exp ressed that an over regulation of forest manageme nt and commercialization and a doubling of efforts exists. With the 2012 Presidential campaign in Mexico, perhaps a change in political party will affect the promotion and support of specific conservation st rategies within the federal, state and local levels of the country. D o ejidos need forest certification to manage forests sustainably? Analyzing the historical and political events regarding forest management in this chapter, one question is whether or not ejidos really need forest certification to ma nage their forests sustainably ? This study shows that in Mexico there are ample laws and s upport mechanisms in place. C ertification may not be a necessary instrume nt to sustainably manage them since ejidos in Quintana Roo have been adopting sustainable forest management practices since the 1980s. Currently m any recommendations and better management practices lingering on from the PPF time period are still requ ired by SEMARNAT (forest management plan refores tation, environmenta l impact) These requirements are already in place in ejidos when FSC

PAGE 116

116 certification auditors evaluate the Certification acts a s a sign to the state government agencies that an ejido has been evaluated by a thi rd party abiding by state, national and internatio nal environmental regulations and a s an added bonus it also signifies to state agencies that the forest management of an ejdio is contributing to the welfare of its community and the ejido is abiding by int ernational and national social guidelines Ejidos that are registered as forest ejidos in the state, follow sustainable forestry guidelines as regulated by the government, therefore can already be considered to sustainably manage their forests. In regards to enforcement, agents from CONAFOR, SEMARNAT, and PROFEPA have planned and carried out surprise visits to ejidos to ensure they are abiding by sustainable fo rest management regula tions. (Agents were observed visit i ng ejidos to verify timber extraction sit es, that reforestation activities were being conducted, buffer zones were delineated along their forests, and burning was not occurring in parcels during specific periods). PROFEPA agents can sanction an ejido for mi smanagement of flora or fauna observed d uring their trips to the ejido or complaints brought to their office by ejido members and other individuals. Another regulatory mechanism already in place in Mexico is state and federal police who monitor the transportation of timber on the highways and ca ork (forest remissions). R egulatory a nd enforcement mechanisms exist within the Mexican state and national levels but they are also viewed as weak, riddled with corruption, infrequent and at t imes over regulatory. For example, there is a low number of SEMARNAT employees in the Chetumal office to assist the 78 ejidos that have permits to manage over 737,000

PAGE 117

117 hectares of tropical forest and sell timber in Quintana Roo. (Forestry is only one of the ir natural resource management programs). One forester in the PROCYMAF program of CONAFOR in Chetumal was in charge of attending to 120 ejidos in the state for their community forestry activities and their solicitations The total number of PROFEPA security officers in the state to guard the over 3,686,700 hectares of tropical forests and enforce environmental laws was a meager ten people in 2011 (personal communication). A s we will see in C hapter 6 a gene ral frustrat ion with Mexican policies and are their over regulation of their forests This is felt by various levels of stakeholders within the region ( i.e. ejido members, technicians and even governmen t agents). problem with SEMARNAT, the federal Mexican environmental agency, that led to the cancellation of their forest u na vez tuvimos un problema con SE MARNAT por solo una mata If Mexican forests ar e considered over regulated by the landowners, it makes it harder to convince them to voluntarily adopt another regulatory mechanism for their ejido because they already feel like they sustainably manage their forests. Certification audits and annual visit s are infrequent and based on a voluntary commitment by the ejido to enforce their rules. If an auditor observes a non compliance to the FSC standards, the ejido must acknowledge their error and commit to solving the issue within the given time frame. Ther efore, ejidal level mechanisms (such as their vigilance committees) in place to control illegal forest activities can be considered a more effective, regulatory mechanism for sustainable forestry rather than national or

PAGE 118

118 international mechanisms as it occur s on a daily basis and people are more committed to following the rules within their ejido. If an ejido member sees a neighbor illegally cut or sell timber they will report the incident because it eventually affects their potential annual timber income and if caught by external agents can lead to temporary halt of timber activities. (Data on compliance with rules and rule enforcement within ejidos is further examined in C hapter 6). Returning to the question, do ejidos need certification to sustainably man age their forests? This chapter has shown that mechanisms are already in place in varying levels (national, state and ejidal) as well as in forms (ejidal and state governance institutions as well as national laws that incorporate international trade and en vironmental regulations) in Mexico. Ejidos rely on forest technicians (within their communities and outside) as well as their own governance structure to abide by these laws. They do not need FSC certification to sustainably manage their forests. It acts a s an added bonus to their already sustainable management. FSC auditors evaluate their existent management practices and offer advice on improving production and management e if they accept or reject the suggestions by going forward or not with certification, unlike state imposed regulations. In this way, certification is a seal of approval given to ejidos demonstrating their sustainability to national and international marke ts and offers additional technical advice to an ejido.

PAGE 119

119 Figure 5 1. Historical ti meline of of important events leading up to certification with a focus on four scales: international, national, state and ejido.

PAGE 120

120 International Tropical timber boycotts Rainforest Alliance founded CITES (mahogany) FSC founded CBD signed NAFTA Donors cert $ Lacey Act FLEGT CITES (cedar) National Mexican revolution Mexican constitution Article 27 MIQRO starts MIQRO Programa Nacional Desmontes Forestry Law Grassroots movement C. Cardenas Forestry subSec MIQRO ends CONAFOR created Forestry Law J. Castanos Forestry subSec Ley Agraria FSC MX office 1 st Certified ejidos (Oaxaca & QRoo) SEMARNAP created PROCYMAF Ley GEEPA FSC moves to Germany Ley GDFS FSC MX natl. standards MX cert norms 1910 -----1930 ----1950 -------1970 -------1980 ---------1990 --------------2000 -----2011 State Rubber boom begins Rubber boom ends Chicle ejidos Highway construction Agriculture ejidos QR granted statehood Chetumal & Cancun airports Railroad tie boom Gov. Coldwell PPF & technical agencies created Biosphere reserves State forestry plan Gov. Borge GTZ AMA DFID Financing Gov Hendricks Diaz plan (pro cert) plan (pro cert) SE Forestry Alliance Ejidal Work groups 4 ejidos certified 4+ ejidos certified Environmental Hurricane Janet Hurricane Gilberto Hurricane Wilma & Hurricane Dean Figure 5 2 Historical timeline with a chronological focus

PAGE 121

121 Figure 5 3. Historical look at ejidos and their corresponding technical societies (1986).

PAGE 122

122 Figure 5 4. Historical look at ejidos and their corresponding technical societies (1994).

PAGE 123

123 Figure 5 5. Historical look at ejidos and their corresponding technical societies (2011).

PAGE 124

124 CHAPTER 6 STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTI ONS: IS CERTIFICATION SUS TAINABLE ? Chapter 6 focuses on answering the research question : is certification sustainable ? It uses perceptions and past experien ces of stakeholders to gauge motives that influence stakeholders to adopt or promote certification. In this research, there are two categories of stakeholders: interna l, which include community members and leaders and external stakeholders, which include technical, NGO and governmental agents external to the communities. This research challenges and examines factors categorized under social, economic, political and environmental categories additional stake holder perceptions on factors that facilitate and impede sound forest govern ance, including major organizational and environmental problems faced by leaders in ejidos and by forestry technicians in the region. Data col lected for this chapter include inter views with c urrent and past leaders from the eight ejidos (Caobas, Chacchoben, Laguna Kanab, Naranjal Poniente, Noh Bec, Petcacab, Tres Garatias and X hazil y sus Anexos) that were certified Some of these ejido leaders have also worked as timber machiner y operators, sawmill operators or in the case of one ejido (Noh Bec) within their o ficina del m anejo f orestal ( forest management office ) This research deems it important to document what ejido members cite as reasons why they lost or left certification a nd compare it to : 1) other regional government agencies and NGOs that work closely with the ejidos to assist with

PAGE 125

125 certification services and 2) Rainforest Allia nce audit repor ts that list the actual CARS (corrective action requests) needed for each ejido to continue with certification Why vote for certification: f actors that influence the attainment of certification according to ejido members In this section we discuss the main reasons ejido members in eight ejidos chose to vote for their communities to attain the FSC / Rainforest Alliance forest management certification and what benefits they received due to it Out of a total of 30 responses the benefits ejido members were most interested in were: economic benefits (9), no benefit (6), social benefits (6), (5), political benefits (2) and management/production benefits (2). Figure 6 1 demons trates the answers in this section. Economic benefits was the most cited category and ranged from increased timber prices and access to new national and international markets, to increased annual utility payments. The no benefits category included people n ot thinking there were any benefits associated with certification. The third most frequently cited was social benefits safety. The lack of information also had six respo nses and for sake of uniformity with the following sections was entitled lack of information It basically categorizes answers itical benefits include privile ges with governmental agencies, i.e. facilitating timber permission slips from SEMARNAT. Management/production benefits encompass the process of extracting tree trunks to sawill production ; they include improvements in combating fires, reforestation, and general sustainable management practices.

PAGE 126

126 Problems assoc iated with certification according to ejido members This section addresses two main questions It examines the reasons why ejidatarios in eight ejidos believe d their ejidos had lost certification statu s and the second question examines what were the most frequent challenges ejidatarios associate d with maintaining certification. While the two questions are quite similar and reveal certain similarities in their answers, the first question is directly aimed at why they lost certification and the second is aim ed at determining what they deem necessary to sustain it. In regards to the first question, the reasons ejidatarios believe they lost certification status a re ranked in order of most freq u e ntly cited to least: economic, Hurricane Dean (which occurred on A ugust 21, 2007) lack of information, production/ management issues, social reasons and their inability to complete CARS (Correctiv e Action Requests) as required by FSC certification. This information comes from a total of 38 responses and can be see in Figure 6 2 In regards to the second question, the main problems ejidos had with maintaining certification are ranked from most frequently cited to least: economic, CARs completion, lack of information, no problems associated, and management and pro duction This information comes from a total of 34 responses and can be seen in Figure 6 3 Below is a description of what types of comments and information were provided for each category. Economic factors were stated as main problems in both of the questions as to why the lost certification and problems maintaining it An example of reasons cited under the economic categ o ry ha d financial resources or inability to continue paying for certification audits and evaluatio ns Ejido members felt that the changes they needed to make under certification and the actual payments for

PAGE 127

127 waste of money. The average cost of paying for an evalu ation was $50,000 Pesos ($4,545 US dollars) 1 and for an annual audit was $20,000 Pesos Mexicanos ($ 1,810 US dollars) per ejido depending on the amount of hectares their permanent forest area encompass ed. The amount of money they had to invest for making changes in the ejido is unknown. In the past they had received financial assistance from NGOs (i.e. WWF, TNC, MacArthur Fund) for their start up costs and preliminary evaluations but once they were cert ified they were responsible for paying for their annual audits and any infrastructure changes or studies for forest inventory and monitoring required under the guidelines 2 CONAFOR also offered financial assistance for their preliminary audits but this fun ding was no longer made available in 2008. One ejido member had also cited that the funds destined for certification in their ejido had been mismanaged and therefore they could not pay for an audit. The e conomic reasons cited are also correlated to the se cond highest cited category of natural disaster, specifically hurricanes. The impacts of Hurricane Dean were felt most in the central eastern ejidos of Quintana Roo right along the border of the municpals of Othon P. Blanco and Felipe Carrillo Puerto and greatly damaged sections of the forests in Noh Bec, Petcacab, Chacchoben, Nara njal Poniente and Laguna Kanab (It is possible that this category could have been the most frequently 1 Exchange rate for $1US=$11 pesos. 2 In the state required management plans for ejidos commercializing timber ejidos need to include timber inventory data and environmental impact studies that they pay forest technicians or community members to conduct for them. Therefore, some of the costs associated with certif ication are really expenses an ejido would have to pay in order to legally sell timber in Mexico.

PAGE 128

128 cited category but b y this point two of these five ejidos had already lost certification before the hurricane. The economic problems cited with ejido s maintaining certification were ejidos inability to afford it and the lack of good prices for certified timber. They found certification to be money to pay for it. Two people felt that it was only useful to be certified if an ejido exported timber because international buyers wer e more willing to pay premiums. They also brought up the lack of demand for certified timber within the national mark etplace. Rainforest Alliance certification was commented on they would receive a good price for their timber. Another economic problem was competition between certified timber and unc ertified timber in the region. Neighboring same price for their timber as certified ejidos. In both responses, certification is not felt to be economically feasible o r beneficial. Hurricane Dean was only stated as a direct correlation to losing certification status but not as a problem maintaining it. Hurricane Dean affected forests and quality of timber extracted. It led to an economic loss due to low prices received for damaged timber, and lowered annual timber utilities. This decrease in ejidal income affected their ability to pay for certification costs and ability to pay for machinery to get into the forests and conduct inventories. Hurricane Dean impact ed many e jidos because it not only affected the internal economy of ejidos but also affected the economy of the region. M any ejido members and their relatives rely upon income from jobs they hold in touristic dest inations (i.e.

PAGE 129

129 Riviera Maya, Tulum, Mahah ual, Bacalar and Chetumal) and were left without jobs for different time periods Forests were damaged due to high winds and roads into their machinery necessary to clear roads and conduct clean ups in their forests. They petitioned their state government offices to supply them with assistance but were also paralyzed by delayed responses and protocols from SEMARNAT. Ejidos affected by the hurricane had their forest management pla ns cancelled by SEMARNAT and they were required to assess the damage in their forests where they would need to extract t imber to sell even though they had difficulty in reaching them Once ejidos assessed the damage they were then required to fill out no tificaciones ( simple, temporary forest management plans ) to demonstrate that they were only extracting trees that had fallen due to hurricane damage. These notificaciones had a time limit of one year and were rene wed on a yearly basis until 2010 In 2007 and 200 8 a Rainforest Alliance forester visited the affected ejidos and gave the ejidos additional time to recuperate Unfortunately, by 2010 Rainforest Alliance had to drop the remaining cer tified ejido as they had not conducted the required studies to re turn to their forest management plans. ( Rainforest Alliance/FSC guidelines require ejidos to have 5 year management plans ) By the time the ejidos got back on their feet, they felt that their timber was just wasting away at the sawmills and they had lost timber buyers One ejido member stated that We have wood, but nobody is cutting it at the sawmill because there are no buyers 3 Many of the hurricane problems are directly 3 Tenemos madera, pero nadie asseradia porque no hay compradores

PAGE 130

130 correlated to economic proble ms. It should be noted that if this study had occurred before 2007, the reference to the Hurricane w ould not exist. The category of was third most important category out of five in why ejidos lost certification as well as the third most important category out of seven in the problems they had in maintaining it. Four ejido members stated that they just had only entered the ejido seven years ago and was just in his leadership position for it. much about certification. The addit In interview responses for maintaining certification t here were five interview ee s who gave can signify not knowing what problems existed or just not having any comment on the topic. The other respondent understanding of certification can lead to disinterest in voting for an ejido to continue paying for it. The last respondent brought up that he was new to his leadership position Three people answer ed that there were no problems with certification. This can be related to the l were problems and just denied it or they really thought no problems existed but were not able to explain why their ejido was no longer certified. The fourth most important reason as to why ejidos lost certification is entitled production/management and had seven responses This section can also be interpreted

PAGE 131

131 as being tied into the Hurricane category because responses under this category were predominantly related to forest management p lans. E jidos members cited that they T, partially due to finan cial and organizational problem s post hurricane One ejido also had fiscal problems and SEMARNAT cancelled their management plan (and therefore ability to sell timber legally) until they paid their overdue taxes. Production/management was the last response category for problems associated with maintaining certification. It only had two responses People identified having an o ld sawmill (40 years old) as a problem affecting the quality of lumber and therefore buyers not wanting to purchase it or purchase it at a good price. The second respondent mentioned that another problem with timber collected after the hurricane was that many trying to export was not considered to be select, first quality timber. While these replies might not refer to a direct problem associated to the certification process, poor production in the sawmill or damaged timber can limit the amount and prices of certified timber. If ejidos receive low prices for certified timber, it makes it harder to convince them that it was a good investment. The last reason given for loss of c ertification was the CAR reports (corrective action requests) O nly two people specifically cited the inability of their ejido to accomplish the conditi ons in their CARS requirement of forcing sawmill and machinery workers to use safety equipment. In comparison, the CARs cateogry was t he second most frequently cited problem with maintaining certification The rules and requirements necessary to achieve

PAGE 132

132 certification were not complementary to local manageme nt techniques and were listed long to complete CARS and they needed more technical assistance and guidance in completing them. Specific CARS issues that were menti oned w ere coordinating trash removal, conducting a flora/fauna inventory, writing an annual report on timber species and volume harvested and income distribution with sawmill workers, and zoni ng of est. (This section will be compared to the actual CARS audit r eport for four ejidos in this chapter ). Social reasons were only given as responses in the first question as to why people lost certification and was not brought up in regards to being a problem to maintain it P eople cited as a reason there w as a lack of interest from their forest technician and therefore they certification was discussed or promoted within community meetings anymore. One described certification as a disillusion ment, and after a year of In summary, i n the two questions asked about why ejidos lost certification and what problems they associate d with certification, the most frequently cited cate gory wa s econom ic even though it is only of the responses T his is demonstrated in Figure 6 4 that compares the responses as to why they lost the certification and what problems they had maintaining certification Another important constant in both questions is the lack of information that exists within ejidos. People were unable to explain the certification process in greater detail or the actual problems and CARS their ejido had. Part of this is due to the fact th at this information remains with a select few in the ejido and the contracted forest technician, which makes it harder for ejido members

PAGE 133

133 to continue supporting paying for certification if they kn ow little about it or see few ben e fits attached to it. In r egards to perceptions of benefits, w e see that economic factors greatly influence the reason people choose to vote for certification. Ejido members mentioned better prices and access into a niche market for certified products as their reason to certify. Th e second most common reason to certify was for conservation and better management of their forests. Social reasons to certify, such as worker safety and fair wages were infrequently mentioned. In fact social factors were challenges that ejidos had to over come in their CARS in order to achieve certification. This could partially be attribute better working conditions or even production methods to certification. For example while the forest management plan is a requirement of certification it is also a requirement by a state level environmental agency (SEMARNAT) in order for an ejido to sell their timber. Therefore, it may not be attributed to a certification benefit or req uirement. Problems associated with certification according to external stakeholders In this study it was important to capture perceptions of various stakeholders external to the ejidos. Individuals who work with ejido s providing technical services or promoting certification and other natural resource management programs were interviewed to better understand what problems they associate with certification and what factors they believe led to certification s demise within Quintana Roo. The categories that emerged from these interviews were: economic (19) governance (18), social (16 ) production/management (14) lack of information (6), CARS (6), and hurricane (4) as seen in Figure 6 5

PAGE 134

134 Economic factors continue to be an important category in the problems associated by external stakeholders with certification as seen with ejido member replies Three main problems were brought up: the lack of marketing demand for certified products, the n eed for improved marketing strategies by ejidos, and the high costs of certification which made it un affordable or not cost effective in the eyes of its end users Many people agreed the co st was too expensive for ejidos, especially for ejidos with small volumes of timber. A general sentiment on certification can be seen with the quote s from two separate individuals stating and i paperwork for little prod uction. 4 People felt it was a lot of work for ejidos to attain it and ejidos received few benefits from it. One mentioned a major roadblock with certification was the lack of interest from CONAFOR in promoting and funding certification as they had funde d in the past. In 2010, i t had been six years since CONAFOR had placed a public announcement (convocatoria) to assist with certification costs 5 In regards to marketing strategies, ejido leaders being the contact person for buyers, among their many other job responsibilities, was considered proble m atic for the general sale of timber (whether it be certified or not). Not all e jido leaders are deemed well versed in timber or pro active in acquiring new buyers. They typically wait for buyers (and middlemen) t o approach them or come to their ejidos and accept the offered low prices. (This issue is discussed in further detail in the upcoming section problems affect certification ) Another problem brought up 4 5 In 2011, CONAFOR offered financial assistance for certification evaluations. The forestry technician from SPFQROOO locked in funding for three of the ejidos (3 Garantias, Caobas, Botes); they provide technical services to obtain this funding.

PAGE 135

135 was the fact that most of the ejidos in the region only sell timber to regional buyers and not national or international buyers who are assumed to have interest in certified timber and could pay premiums. Another economic problem mentioned was the mis use of certification funds receiv ed by a technical agency to be spent on certification evaluation procedures. The second highest mentioned category of responses for problems with certification falls under the theme of governance. This includes problems external stakeholders pinpointed wit response to hurricane damages and lack of communication and alliances between varying scales of stakeholders: governmental agents ( i.e. SEMARNAT, CONAFOR, PROCYMAF), forest technicians, and ejid o members. Many stakeholders, including government agents, griped about how unequipped they were to handle an emergency natural disaster situation, such as hurricanes and forest fires One even described the post hurricane attitude of the government as w iping their hands of responsibility and leaving the ejidos to resolve their own problems 6 Various individuals worried about not being p repared for what would happen wh en the next hurricane hit and were unsure of how much time to give people to fill out a simple forest management plan and clean up damaged trees from their forests, especially as this debris left in the forest are deemed a fire threat. They brought up the need for SEMARNAT, along with other stakeholders to write a post hurricane emergency protocol including instructions, including how an ejido and their tecnician should cancel 6

PAGE 136

136 or modify their forest manag ement plan, and the pros and cons of submitting a simple forest management plan or notification Another major problem under governance was a common criticism by m any people who felt that there were too many laws, rules and duplicat ed effor ts 7 in regards to forest mana gement rules and certification. They want ed to make certification guidli nes more complementary to the Mexican Forestry Law, so that it would be more practical and less expensive. One forest technician complained of being oversaturated and worn out with all the paperwork they have to fi ll out for forestry activities and permissions. As stated in Spanish: La preocupacin por los permisos para los tcnicos And one felt that the ejidos tend to blame the forest technicians as the bad guys in a movie, ir certification regulations. Los tcnicos son los malos de la pelcula si no cumplen con las reglas de certificacion le echan la culpa a el the forest technicians responsibility that the ejido they work in get certified and follow the auditors suggestions, it is socially expected of them to provide the auditors paperwork and advice to the ejidos on how to fulfill the CARs In addition to t he duplicati on of efforts pointed out by technicians, one commented that international certification schemes should be combined with national strategies so that it would be less expensive for ejidos. It should be noted that in 2008 the Mexican government a nnounced a voluntary, national Mexican forest and chain of custody c ertification standard ( Sistema Nacional de Certificacin Forestal y Cadena de Custodia under the norm entitled NMX AA 143 SCFI 2008 ) that would be implemented by 7

PAGE 137

137 SEMARNAT and have third party forest technicians registered to conduct audits called ATP ( Auditoria Tecnica Preventiva). By 201 1 only one forest technician in the three states of the Yucatan Peninsula had been registered as an ATP. Many people in governmental agencies and civil associations, when asked to describe this national standard and process were unable to do so. Very little information had been d ivulged in the region about it and i t was unclear to many stakeholders how this fit into international certification sta ndards and if there was a market demand for it. Two respondents noted that in order to maintain certification in the region it would be beneficial to create a regional certification work group that could create a strategic certification state plan and have strong institutional backing. This desire for more stakeholder communication and participation in the creation of forestry regulation, while supported by governmental institutions is not necessarily a criticism of exis ting certification schemes but demon strates the potential role governmental support could play with regional certification. Social problems are the third highest mentioned category for problems ejidos encountered with certification. C orruption within ejidos and their relations with external agencies was mentioned as affecting certification. A perception of certification affected the maintenance of certification in the region. M any ejido member s saw certification guidelines as restrictive ; be nefits or improvements because of it and therefore lost interest and stopped demanding it from their technicians. One person noted that certification existed in an ejido while they were with a specific forest technician but once he left, their interest in certification left with him. This idea had been repeated in various conversations. It

PAGE 138

138 demonstrates the influence certification promoters can have in its l ong term maintenance and is further discussed in C hapter 6 There was general consensus that certific ation was not sufficiently promoted by the actual certifiying agents and the few times it had been promoted people were only told falsehoods, such as that their certified timber would receive better prices. The regional technicians also felt there was a l ack of presence within the region and would have preferred more constant communication and relat ions with a representative. (In 2010 Rainforest Alliance established a Southeastern Regional Representative for their TRE ES program in Che tumal and by 2011 two additional representatives from a UNDP/CONAFOR/RA program were hired to pro mote certification in the region. This is also further discussed in Chapter 6 ). Additional responses referred to management/production issues This includes s tarting from the extraction of trees in the forest to the processing of timber in the sawmills. One problem certification in the region encountered was blamed on the generic FSC guidelines that were originally implemented in all forest types throughout take into account the specific regional differences existing in Quintana Roo. Different forest manangement systems exist in a tropical forest compared to temperate forests. In Mexico, it has been difficult to create forest conservation areas (a certi fication regulation principle 9 ) due to increased species diversity and complex ecosystems in tropical forests, while temperate forests have less species and it is easier to see and measure natural re generation. Another problem with maintaining certification that was brought up are the forest management plans People were skeptical on their validity and mentioned the need to re evaluate them to see if they are

PAGE 139

139 really function ing For example, are 25 ye ar rotation cycles really sufficient for certain timber spec ies to achieve acceptable DBH and therefore be harvested? This rotation cycle had been implemented during the time of MIQRO in the 1950s and continued with the PPF. Another problem was that the m ajority of the ejidos have implemented a monitoring system for their permanent forest areas where certification takes place but there is also a need for more studies on multiple use ecological systems because many ejidos in the region rely upon various fo rest and agricultural products. One technician mentioned it is e asy to comply with NOM 152 8 but difficult to predict timber volume per area. While these complaints are not necessarily directed towards certification guidelines, they deal with processes nece ssary to achieve certification. An ejido needs to have an approved management plan by SEMARNAT in order to c omply with certification. But if people are questioning the validity, effectiveness or even sustainability of these management plans, it questions c i ty as well. One aspect to keep in mind that can affect the ef fectiveness of certification is that there are v arying levels of knowledge between forest technicians in the area and if an ejido is solely relying upon them to assist them to make changes or fill out paperwork to attain certification, these technicians also need assistance. Again, people voiced the need that frequently to assist in these gaps. Another management/production reason why certification failed in this region was attributed to ejidos with low amounts of mahogany a high commercial value timber 8 NOM is the Norma Oficial Mexicana (Official Mexican Rule) 152 SEMARNAT 2006. It established the criteria and specifications for the Forest Management Plans for the extraction of wood forest products in forests and arid zone vegetation.

PAGE 140

140 species. This factor is greatly linked to the economic category because if an ejido ha s few commercially valuable timber species, it makes it more difficult to pay for certification costs. While CONAFOR has a reforestation program that includes giving predominantly mahogany and cedar saplings to communities, these are slow growing species a nd it will take over twenty years to reap the benefits. One mentioned that ejido how to properly process hardwoods, which affects the prices they receive and limits their market potential. The need to plant, harvest a nd commercialize various timber species was also brought up as a factor that could influence certification long term maintenance, but again is highly related to economic problems. L ack of information on certification is repeatedly brought up as a problem by ejido members and ext ernal stakeholders in Quintana Roo. It was cited six times duri ng interviews with external stakeholders, where they felt that ejido members are not well informed or well aware of what certifica tion really is and entails. The certification been sufficiently explained nor reasons why ejido members should certify their ejidos and wha t purpose it serve d If this information was known perhaps certification would be in a high demand by forest technicians but on the actual certifying agencies to hold meetings or present at General Assemblies. One person brought up the problem of illiteracy as a problem in the region that can affect the impl ementation of new rules and regulations, i.e. certification standards A ll of the regulations of certification are writt en down and not very well known ; therefore certification agencies need to improve their method s of

PAGE 141

141 information dissemination to ensure t hat all understand and comprehend (not just le aving booklets or written document s) The second to last category is CAR s People cited too many regulations within the certification guidelines which made it difficult for ejidos to implement in a timely mann er. extract fallen timber, not extract standing trees as in a normal forest mana gement plan. The only specific CAR regulation that was mentioned to be difficult for an ejido to adopt was ensuring that safety equipment was used in the workplace. While hurricanes were only mentioned four times as a problem certification had in the regio n they are also related to the pr oblems in the economic and management /production categories. Hurricane Dean affected the types of species harvested, quality of logs extracted and sold, and the delay in financing and physically being able to get to the fo rest and conduct studies for their management plans. Stakeholders blamed the l oss of softwood species on the hurricane as well as the loss of their management plan CARS : problems with certification according to auditor reports As repeatedly mentioned in this dissertation while interviewing took place it was evident that not many people were familiar with the certification process or problems associated with attaining and maintaining it. Informants could not recall the specific re asons or CARS (corrective action requests) from the audit reports of why their ejido had lost certification or even remember the exact dates their ejido had entered or left certification. This lack of recall could be due to the changing certification proce ss and the fact that it has been over 15 years since the first ejidos were certified. Therefore,

PAGE 142

142 this study deemed it necessary to include various stakeholders who had some level of experience within the certification process as well as include an analysi s of the audit reports. It should be noted th at only four ejido reports were included in this section in order to correctly analzye uniform information. The other four ejidos had lost certification before the new indicators in the audits were created. T herefore, their audits are not measured similarly nor do they include some of the same information that the four longer termed ejidos had in their reports. The CAR s report s for Noh Bec, Caoba, Petcacab and X hazil are analyzed in this section. The f ormer t wo ejidos are primarily m estizo ejidos while the latter two are predominan tly of Mayan descent. Figure 6 7 demonstrates the CARs reports: problems with certification in Quintana Roo. The figure lists the ten FSC principles that the ejidos are evaluated on by the categori es of: governance, social, socioeconomic, environment, and management. (The researcher chose to list these categories as they are similar categories to the problems ejido members faced with certification and would make comparison more unifo rm ). To the right of the FSC principle column, there is the problem column that is sepa rated by CAR (major action needed to resolve the problem) and COND (minor condition needed n its evaluation or will lose certification status if they have a CAR on their annual audit. It is a major issue. A condition signifies that a requirement needs to be fulfilled but it is a minor issue. Ejidos can be granted certification with conditions. T hey are generally given 6 months to a year t o demonstrate that the problem has been resolved or has been attended to. Under the CAR and COND column are numbers representative of the

PAGE 143

143 number of problems found within the criteria and indicators in the corresp onding FSC principle. The other columns include the four ejidos in this study but the researcher chose to keep them anonymous as this can be regarded as sensitive information. According to the CARs diagram, there are four principles that the ejidos tend to have more problems with accomplishing : 1) benefits from the forest (socioeconomic), 2) environmental impact (environment), 3) management plan (management) and 4) monitoring and assessment (management). Numerous problems are defined with an of four or more. In accordance to this rule, the principle on community relations and workers rights (social) is also problematic for only one ejido to accomplish. In this analysis, management is the main problem the four ejidos have in acquiring certifica tion status. This includes completing or having a forest management plan as well as a completed forest inventory and a monitoring and assessment plan for other biodiversity species Certificat ion requires multi year year forest management plans (from five to ten to twenty year plans) because certification is given for a minimum of five year s. Having a one commitment to sustainably manage their forests long have these complete because it costs a lot of money and can take up to a few months to coordinate ejido members to travel to the five forest plots, delineate, create buffers, do mapping, do forest inventories and fauna inventories. Management should not be a major issue for e jidos as it is a requirement by the state environmental government agency (SEMARNAT) to create forest management plans (1 25 year plans) and funding is available by CONAFOR to subsidize some of these costs. This demonstrates that even though there is a sup port mechanism in place and it is a hard policy (obligation not

PAGE 144

144 requirement if they want to sell timber), it can still be a problem for ejidos. The other problems ejidos faced, according to the CARs reports, were environmental impact. This includes the aud itor visiting past timber extraction sites and ensuring reforestation took place as well as little environmental impact in the bacadillas y clareos ( temporary tree trunk and timber storage areas and clearings at the extraction site ) as well as water areas. Many times they will look at a small thing such leave behind garbage. The other problem was benefits from the forest, a socioeconomic category. This includes ejidos demonstrating that income from their forestry activities is returned to service the community (as in infrastructure development, health clinic and school needs). This can come in the forms of donating timber or timber products, money or their time. A n area in which was in P rinciple 10, which deals with plantations ; and ejidos were not certifying plantations. There were very few problems with the maintenance of high conservation f orests (environment category), a nd there were barely any problems in completing the principle on indigenous p (social) as well as the principle on tenure and use rights (social). This is probably due to the fact that land tenure security comes from long standing laws since the 1930s and 40s when the ejidos were formed In regards to the influence of ethnicity in being a factor that influences the facility of attaining certification, it is unclear that it plays a role in this comparison. Ejido D is a Mayan ejido, and assessing Figure 6 7, it would be the first ejido to at tain certification as it has no CARs. Ejido B is the second ejido to h ave the least amount of CARs and they are a mestizo ejido. Ejidos A and C have the most amount of CARS (30 and 35)

PAGE 145

145 and it will take more time and investment for them to resolve their ce rtification conditions and corrective actions. Ejidos A and C are a Mayan ejido and a m estizo ejido. It is difficult to determine if ethnicity plays a role in the attainment and maintenance of certification according to the CARs reports. F actors that facil itate and impede forest management and governance Ejido leader perceptions As seen in previous sections in this chapter, the p robl em s with certification were not directly associated with attaining certification guideline implementation (CARs) but many tim es had to do with socioeconomic and governance problems found within the ejidos ( i.e. corruption and levels of trust changing organization al structure s post disaster protocols, lack of information dissemination ). Therefore, ejido leaders were also interv iewed about main problems they confront ed during their periods of service to the community and problems they recall ed being brought up at General Assembly meetings The need to identify problems ejidos are faced with and how they challenge d their governance of natural resources (specifically, forest management and timber commercialization ) was also noted by external agents during interviews and during a FODA 9 (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ) exercise with the eight ejidos and the ir technicians at a regional Forestry Alliance meeting in Bacalar, May 2011 Table 6 1 d emonstrates the actual list of problems cited by all eight ejido le aders (there were a total of 93 responses by 37 l eaders) and t hese problems were 9 In Spanish: FODA (Fortalezas, oportunidades, debilidades, amenazas) and in English SWOT is a strategic planning technique used to identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or organization in order to develop next steps in their development.

PAGE 146

146 categorized according to theme s they addressed to maintain uniformity and facilitate c omparison between perceptions in previous sections of this chapter. The se 93 responses were categori zed and their frequency cited is shown in Figure 6 8 The categories are: Governa nce /Rule ( 21 ), Social ( 17 ) Hurricane (10), Governance/Economic (9), Economic (8), Fire (8), Economic/Market (7), Management/Production (6), Governance/Structure (3), None (2), No Answer (1), and Drought (1) of my first intervi ew with him had just been elected to finish th e term of a comisariado voted ou t early in his three year position due to community members being unsatisfied with his leadership skills ) Governance was divided into three separate categories as the problems pertained to governance issues but were directly related to 1) economic, 2) org anization/ejidal structure and 3) rule adherence/enforcement. For example, Governance/ Economic dealt with mismanagement of money by leaders or civil agencies that led an ejido into fiscal debt. Governance/ Structure dealt with individuals feeling the eji do was not well organized and needed a separate forestry office from current governance structure. A nd Governance/Rule the largest category dealt with problems of various social actors not adhering to forest management and general ejidal and federal regu lations of respecting boundaries and not cutting or selling illegally harvested timber The Economic category was also divided into two categories: 1) Economic and 2) Economic/Market. Economic problems mostly pertained to the need for start up capital to buy machinery, pay forestry related job salaries, pay for environmental federal agency paperwork to extract

PAGE 147

147 cities. Economic/ Market directly relates to problems with timb er buyers, prices received and timber competition (from within the ejidos to the international market, i.e. Guatemala, Peru, Chile). For a more complete list of problems cited see Table 6 1. As these 12 categories are so inter related and com plex, it was best to synthesize and discuss the six main problems current forest governance incur s and how they can indirectly affect the long term maintenance of certification. For example, while fire, drought and hurricane problems can be categorized under natural di sasters due to environmental damage they cause, these problems also affect or at times are a result of economic problems, marketing problems (damaged timber leads to poor prices, abandonment of buyers and lower ejidal annual utility payments) and governan ce problems (incompliance of regulations or bad management practices). The categorized problems cited by ejido leaders are discussed in detail in the following six sections: 1) compliance with rules and enforcement within ejidos, 2) revolving door and inst itutional memory, 3) mistrust and corruption with internal and external authorities, 4) organizational structure: division of work groups and forestry office, and 5) bureaucracy and paperwork with government agencies and 6) ethnicity relations. Compliance with rules and rule enforcement within ejidos The first fore st governance problem concerns the compliance with natural resource management rules W e see mostly two consistently mentioned issues: 1) escaped fire from agricultural practices, hunti ng and/or drought and 2) illegal (clandestine) logging by neighboring ejidos. (There were very few times a leader own ejido membe r illegally cutting or selling timber, possibly because when ejido members see another neighbor conducting ill egal timber activities, they are

PAGE 148

148 known to inform the ejidal forestry security officer seguridad de vigilancia ) 10 It is har der to keep watch over neighboring ejido members especially if an ejidal forestland is close to a road or highway ; it is more prone to land invasion and timber extraction. It should be noted that ejido members are allowed to cut trees if they are on their zoned agricultural parcels. They can only use the timber for construction or fuelwood purposes for their family and are not allowed to transport it off ejidal lands or to try to sell it. If there is an escaped fire from a neighboring ejido it is harder for the ejido to identify who started it and sanction them. It is easier to enforce rules within ejidos, if a problem is caused by an ejido member because they are usually fined by taking money out of their bi annual utility payment but it is harder to ensure non ejido members or neighbors pay for the damages. In May 2010, there was a large fire that burnt a large palapa (traditional ho using structure using polewood, timber and a thatched roof) that Pueblo Chiclero a tourist destination in Chacchoben. The fire was started by a hunter and the Comisariado made an act at an Assembly a s well as a federal lawsuit with PROFEPA so that PROFEPA would blame and fine the actual person and not the ejido. (By 2011, the hunter had been arrested bu t then the ejido dropped the charges and he returned. He has never paid a fine nor lost his derecho ejidal ( ejidal right ), a s some people c omplained he should have be cause of all the revenue they lost This demonstrates that rules do exist but are at times only partially enforce d in the ejido. A positive instance of rule enforcement occurred in another ejido and due to an escaped agricultura l fire, where one leader described the enforcement process: 10 An example demonstrating that people are aware of illegal timber rules took place while I was walk ing in one ejido during the daytime and heard a chainsaw. A man was working on a large rubber tree trunk in level of vigilance by fellow ejido members and neighbors that exist in the communities.

PAGE 149

149 y held a meeting with the [accused] person take it out of his utility payments 11 A nother similar rule enforcement was seen in another ejido but was due to cutting a tree. This occurred shortly before the researcher arrived and the leader described the process o g a ny tree and they [ejido committee leaders] held a meeting. They know who it was and they are going to measure it and discount it 12 In another instance, when a leader spoke of a land conflict and a person entering an area of the forest they are not allowed to, he mention ed if they are not able to come to an arrangement within the ejido, then they would take the problem to the Procuradaria Agraria ( Agraria Reform Office) He said the settling and enforcement of regulations with external agents usually happens w hen a proble m involves a neighbor ing community or individual O ne leader mentioned the problem of enforcing a punishment on a previous Committee President, who had committed a fraud of $6.5 million Mexican Pesos ($590,000 US dollars ) He was sent to jail but a few da ys later ejido members pardoned him and asked that he be continue to not comply with rules and regulations if strict enforcement does not exist within their ejido. 11 s e quemo el monte alto se hace una reunin con la gente y se la asigna una multa. Si no lo cumple, se les descuenta de sus utilidades. 12 a mata de caoba y hicieron una reunion Ya saben quien fue y se lo van a medir y se lo van a descontar de sus utilidades.

PAGE 150

150 Revolving door and institutional memory within ejidos A constant and rapid revolving door of various leader and forestry positions occurred in the eight ejidos interviewed While communities want to ens ure everyone has employment opportunities, the constant change of positions means weakened institutional memory, since job responsibilities and the current ejido management, production, and commercialization situation needs to be taught and updated to the next person. This was constantly discussed as not being a common practice and many people complained of having to learn what their role and position entailed without a real training period. One leader commented on his experience: ng me my tasks. I looked for information at the Procuradaria Agraria the previous Comisariados 13 It was constantly described as a trial and error experience and at times they would heavily rely upon forest technicians to guide them. (This is also an added pressure and time consumption for forest technicians, who already feel oversaturated with their w ork in ejidos and can also be have been known to change or use a number of forest technicians at a time for a variety of forestry activities). The changing of fores t technicians or hiring of various technicians for various projects as a problem was brought up by an ejido member who works at both an internal and external perspective of forest governa nce problems. This can also lead to the loss of institutional memory due to a revolving door of forest technicians not communicating or leaving results. The revolving door problem is also highly related to 13 Nadie me ayudo para decir me mis funciones Busque informacin en la P rocuradura Agraria y los comis ariados anteriores n o te dan informacin.

PAGE 151

151 trust issues and organizational structure. Leader positions are for th ree year terms but d ue full term or at times people resigned due to personal reasons. (reglamientos internos). At times, i t was difficult for ejido members to discuss their internal rule s because in many ejidos they were const antly being updated or they were including additional information Ultimately, the i nternal rule had to be approved by a General Assembly meeting but if a member was not in attendace that day, they would not be p rivy to all of that information And if a member does not read, they would have to rely upon another member to orally inform the m of the new rules, which is a common practice. M istrust and corruption with internal and external authorities The problem of lack of trust by ejido members with many different levels of stakeholders is a recurrent theme Leaders complain of the mistrust t heir communities have with them due to past exp eriences with mismanagement and/or misuse of funds by past leaders as well as with technical agents, and civil associations They complain trust or have confidence in th e work they are doing in the ejidos as PROFEPA and SEMARNAT (even certifiying auditors) are know n to stop by for surprise visits. This section discusses problems categorized under social t with new, unknown buyers at times can also affect their marketing success by paralyzing their sales. One ejido leader mentioned the experience of selling timber to a timber buyer Another newly appointed ejido President demonstrated his frustration of being in his position because

PAGE 152

152 no one trusted him due to problems with a past leader and technical agent. He stated: airado I have too m a ny problems here. 14 ( A bad sign for a new leader to be exhausted with his position so early on in his appointment ) Little trust exists internally and externally within many levels of stakeholders. Lack of trust has even been shown to be responsible for affect ing niz ational structure Due to past experiences wi th corrupt ejido leaders, ejido s in Quintana Roo and close friends and create grupos de trabajo (work groups) in the early 1990s. (This work g roup formation was also supported by PROCEDE in 1992, which legalized the parcelization of ejidal lands and encouraged the separation of communities). This leads us to the next section. O rganizational struc ture: division of work groups and forestry office s The organizational structure of forest management and governance varies within the eight ejidos of Quintana Roo and has been identified by stakeholders as a roadbloack to sound management, eventually affecting certification. All legally formed ejidos hav e a comisariado committee (President, Secretary and Treasurer) and a seguro de vigilancia (natural resource vigilance manager). They are all elected positions, which conist s of three year terms, and are financially renumerated even though they are consider ed community service positions. These positions were created by Mexican law and are therefore, a government created governance structure within an ejido but have come to be adopted since the 1940s (the first wave of immigrants into Quintana Roo). Mayan co mmunities, by law, are required to have the above committees 14

PAGE 153

153 and some also have a Cacique system of elderly ejido members whose op inions and expertise are highly taken into consideration at General Assemblies. Three of the eight ejidos are separated int o work groups and one, Petcacab is predominantly of Mayan ethnicity located in the Municipality of Felipe Carrillo Puerto Petcacab has an independent forest technician, who is originally from Petcacab and used to work at SPFQROO The other two Tr es Garantias and Caoba, are of m estizo descent, are located next to each other in Othon P. Blanco and their forest technician, originally from Caoba, belongs to the SPFQROO They still have the Comisariado committee, Seguro de vigilancia (Vigilance committee) and General Assembly responsible for decision making within the e jido but work groups have their own leaders and are focused on all activities associated with timber management processing and commercialization. One ejido, Noh Bec, predominantly m estizo a nd located in the municipal of Othon P. Blanco has the general governance structure. I n 1998 they were the first ejido to create their own OMF (Office of Forest Management) to separate their forestry services from the comisariado committee, alleviating the President of partial responsibility 15 The reason for creating this OMF can be attributed to FSC/RA certification and a need for more transparent timber transactions. Their OMF allows them to also obtain chain of custody certification to export certified t imber. In C hapter 4 figures 4 5 and 4 6 demonstrate the different governance structures of Noh Bec and Petcacab. The other three ejidos X hazil, Naranjal Poniente, and Laguna Kanab, have the general governance structure mentioned above, without work grou ps and without a 15 After Hurricane Dean, Noh Bec closed their OMF due to lack of funds. They also left their forestry technical provider TRL and contracted an independent forester, who works with neighboring Petcacab. In 2012 they opened their OMF as they now have a forest management plan and plan to return to selling certified products.

PAGE 154

154 separate forestry office. All three are predominantly characterized as Mayan ejidos. X hazil has contracted a forestry technician from EcoSur and the other two belong to OEPFZM, a highly political and powerful civil association located in Felipe Carrillo Puerto and focused on providing technical services to predmoninantly Mayan ejidos. It is important to note these governance structure differences because they influence and slightly change the problems ejidos had with forest management and certification. For example, having an OMF includes a full time forest technician, who supervises daily forestry extraction works on forest management plans with the contracted forester, is directed by the G e neral Assembly, and alleviates the responsibilit y of the Comis ariado President. It also includes a separate person in charge of sales and inventory at the sawmill, creating better and more stable customer relations commercialization (necessary for certification) because both of these people are not voted in but hired, so their jobs can last for more than three years. Bureaucracy and pap erwork with government agencies Bureaucracy and paperwork with governmental agencies was frequently brought up as a problem for ejido members (as well as forest technicians) that leads to a major time drain for comisariado members. They constantly have to leave their ejidos and travel to Chetumal to arrange paperwork and meet with officials or technicians there as well as conduct all of their banking needs there. Ethnicity relations (Social Problems) using ethnicity as a factor influencing the decision to certify and maintain certification, it should be noted that there was a generalized differentiation that exists b etween predominantly Mayan and m estizo ejidos

PAGE 155

155 in the state of Quintana Roo. Predominan tly, it can be observed that Mayan ejidos are more inclined to rely upon agricultural activities (milpa) and hunting wildlife for consumption. At one regional meeting, there was even a tense divide between agricultural ejidos and forestry ejidos the agric ultural ejidos being represented by predominantly Mayan individu als and the forestry ejidos by m estizo individuals. While agricultural ejidos also participate in various forestry activities, including timber extraction, they might not use that livelihood a ctivity to define themselves or their ejido. Suffice to say, hunting and agric ultural activities do occur in m estizo communities just not at the same intensity level as in predominantly Mayan communities. While livelihood activities and ethnicities or stat e of origin w ere expressed as points of pride for people, there still does exist a level of discrimination an d separation between ethnicities and/or place of origin Speaking with an ejidal leader of one of the eight ejidos he discussed the problem his eji do had due to inclusion of a neighboring town (with a population of people from another state and ethnicity) into their ejido. He stated : It was an error to include [town name] inside [ejido name] because they are different people and discriminate against Mayans and try to dominate them. The majority of [town name] are from Michoacan and those from [ejido name] are from the region Yucatan, Quintana Roo, and Campeche. They call us Mayitas to our face. They want land parcelization, there are divisions betwe en them this is going to calm the problem with the forest area 16 His quote demonstrates the differences that exist between land management and tenure between ethnic groups and how that can lead to a division and land 16 Fue un error meter [town name] dentro de su ejido porque son gente diferente y discriminan a las mayas y tratan de tener el dominio. La mayora de [town name] son de Michoacan y los de [ ejido name] las tierras, hay divisiones entre ellos y necesitamos ordenar terreno esto va calmar el problema con el area foresta l

PAGE 156

156 manageme nt problem within an ejido. It also demonstrates the discriminatory behavior certain individuals have towards Mayans in this region. In an interview with an ejido member fr o m another community he discussed the problem with race relations he had over thirty years ago when he met his wife. Her parents were opposed to their marriage because he was of Mayan ethnicity from Quintana Roo and her family had recently emigrated from Ve racruz. Eventually, they were married and he was accepted into the family but it does demonstrate a certain level of discrimination that occurred historically and current ly. His response to her family and to others who think similarly ted Chichen Itza. What did the Olmecans [indigenous group in Veracruz] ever create This a lso demonstrates how histor ical events are still brought up in this culturally rich and diverse region. Throughout interviews and infor mal conversations in the region, many people brought up the g eneralizations strong headed rebels re clusive and felt that some groups prefer red to remain isolated in rural areas They were also described as less willing t o change their rules or enter new markets. (These generalizations allude to attitudes and discrimination dating back to the Caste War) F rom interviews with ejido leaders in predominantly Mayan ejidos, there was a tendency to prefer to resolve community co nflicts within ejidos an d not with external intervention and enforcement. (This could lead to difficulty in adopting certification guidelines and governance). On the other ha nd, generalizations have been made about some of the immigrants who came from other Mexican states. Some of them were thought to be

PAGE 157

157 escaping problems and conf lict from their home states. T herefore they were viewed as potentially criminal or corrupt indivi duals 17 This generalization seemed to be taken lightly and joked about by even the same immigrant groups Stakeholder perceptions on ejidal governance problems In continuation with ejidal governance problems, some of the main problems cited by ejido membe rs were also brought up by their forestry technicians and other regional stakeholders. One of the most frequently cited problem s by both external stakeholder perceptions and ejido member perceptions were of the excessive paperwork (papeleo) and tasks (tra mites) ejido leaders and even their technicians had to participate in. These tasks were time consuming, especially as most of the paperwork had to be brought to governmental offices in Chetumal. The mistrust and misuse of funds was brought up by leaders an d relations were not brought up directly by stakeholders as affecting forest management and governance but differences in an livelihood activities due to ethnicity were commented on by a handful Organizational structure at times was referred to as a problem but was more frequently commented on as a difference between ejidos and their management rather than as a negative issue O ne forestry technician did state that the i nternal division that work groups created in one ejido, made his work more challenging and time consuming because h jidal leaders was de aling with but seven little ejidos (the number of work groups). A different forest 17 Quintana Roo and the Yucatan peninsula have a similar reputation that American states like Alaska or populated territory mystique to it.

PAGE 158

158 s /suffocate s the business and they need a separation between the fores try enterprise and the ejido. 18 T hese comments are similar to sentiments stated in the previous ejido leader section about organizational structure problems. The organizational structure of an ejido can be a very slow and difficult issue to resolve due to the lack of trust and transparency that exists within all levels of the community administration Compliance with existing rules and rule enforcement was in frequently mentioned as a problem but lack of information about rules in regards to certification w as discussed as a problem. One problem with external enforcement of regulations was brought up regarding PROFEPA and hunting. The stakeholder said that in some ejidos a lot of hunting and selling of deer, turkey, wild boar occurs and PROFEPA knows about it but does little to control it. (This is especially prevalent in ejidos by highways due to easier access to buyers. This meat is also highly valued and at times can get the same price per kilo as beef). An issue and frustration, as discussed earlier in thi s chapter that was brought up by various people was the problem with n ational laws that are not congruent with local laws and the constant changing and evolution of forest laws and state regulations and protocols It was difficult for stakeholders to keep updated as well as ensure this information trickled down from upper levels to lower levels of administration and state to ejido level. These problems are similar to what happened with the FSC certification requirements and the slow process of attainment. 18 E necesitan la separacin de la empresa forestal y el ejido.

PAGE 159

159 A ll of the above institutional arrangments and governance problems m entioned by ejido members and stakeholders can affect certification term maintenance If the current ejido leader s and forestry field and sawmill staff are not fully aware of their own ejido rules or are not sufficiently informed and trained in certification definitions and guidelines o r there are a number of work groups involved with the timber management and production within a divided ejido it can stall the certif ication process by taking an ejido longer amounts of time to fulfill their CAR s The dissemination of information (as discussed in the previous sections of this chapter) is also related to the functioning of sound institutional and governance arrangements. Discussion Comparison of stakeholder perceptions with CARs: is there a difference? Reviewing the questions asked of ejido members and stakeholders, it was important to determine if reasons why the y chose certification were related to why they left it a nd how these relate s levels of satisfaction and expectations were not being met and therefore they a reason to continue. Comparing the categories that emerged from why ejido members chose certification (benefits they received ), why they lost certification and what problems they ha d in maintaining certification, it is evident that economic reasons are the first and fore most important and frequently cited answers Answers also demonstrate tha t the majority of factors are inter related, therefore it is d ifficult to separate categories and themes because of how they directly affect one another For example, hurricane problems directly affect the economic situation of an ejido and their management and production practices as well as their organizational structure.

PAGE 160

160 In F igure 5 7, we see a comparison of ejido and stakeholder problems with certific ation, with 35% of responses for ejido members being economic and 23% being economic for stakeholders. Both rated economic, lack of info, management/production and CARS in the same order of highest to lowest. The only differences were that ejido members c ited no problems as their fifth and last response, while external stakeholders included governance, social and hurricane problems as barriers to receive certification. As one technical agent stated in regards to the internal forest governance structure of Comparing the CARS report to ejido member and stakeholder perceptions, the main problem four ejidos had with attaining certificat ion was under the management category. Ejido members cited management /production as the fourth most heavily ranked problem out of five (economic, CARS, lack of info, no problems, and management) and stakeholders ranked management as fourth out of seven pro blems (economic, governance, social, management, CARs, lack of information and hurricane). Completing the management requirements also takes capital, therefore it is greatly related to economic factors. In order for ejidos to pass certification they had to complete a five year management plan, which requires a lot of funding and workforce. The other two problems, according to CARs, fall under the category of environment and socioeconomi c Again, these requirements are heavily related to economic factors of ejidos being able to afford and complete their environmental impact assessment fieldwork and reports and a socioeconomic report, demonstrating the socioeconomic benefits ejido members and their inhabitants receive from their forestry management.

PAGE 161

161 (The latte r report, requries an ejido to show financial investment into their community but also was difficult for their technical agents to complete because they were unsure of what data to include. Many of the agents are foresters and agronomists and work with lit tle socioeconomic data). In conclusion, economic factors greatly influence the problems people perceive with certification as well as being the drivers behind attaining a good evaluation without CARs. How do community leaders problems affect the maintena nce of certification ? Sound institutional arrangements, such as: 1) defined leadership roles and responsibilities, 2) ensuring a training period for new leaders by old leaders 3) transparency mechanisms of financial transactions, 4) separate forest ry office, 5) work group cohesion or dissolution, and 6) increased participation in the creation of ejidal forest management regulations in accordance to state regulations, 7) increased information dissemination, and 8) strict enforcement of regulations ca n lead to increased efficiency of forest management and timber commercialization. Having all of the above in a written document woul d comply with federal regulation of reglamientos internos (internal rules), as well as comply with ne s of adhering to national and local laws, resolution of community conflict and good neighbor/ border relations. leadership and forestry related positions and even facilitate certification evaluation visits so that the ejiido can easily provide auditors the re quired paperwork and if these rules a greater compliance with these more accepted ru les. In conclusion, we see that the economic, governance, environmental and social problems that exist within an ejido can greatly

PAGE 162

162 affect the efficiency of forest management and timber commercialization, which in turn aintenance of certification.

PAGE 163

163 Fig ure 6 1 Why chose certification and benefit categories 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Economic benefits No benefits Social benefits Lack of info Political benefits Mgmt/Prod benefits

PAGE 164

164 Figure 6 2 Reasons why ejidos are no longer certified according to ejido members. Figure 6 3 Problems with maintaining certification according to ejido members. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Economic Hurricane Lack of info Prod/Mgmt Social CARS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Economic CARS Lack of info No problems Management/ Production

PAGE 165

165 Figure 6 4 Why ejidos lost certification vs problems ejidos had maintaining certification. Figure 6 5 Why certification failed in Quintana Roo according to external stakeholders. 26% 19% 18% 5% 21% 11% Why no longer certified Economic Lack of info Management / Production CARS Hurricane Social 35% 21% 6% 29% 9% Problems maintaining certification Economic Lack of info Management / Production CARS No problems 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

PAGE 166

166 Figure 6 6 versus e xternal ejidal 35% 21% 6% 29% 9% Problems with certification (ejido members) Economic Lack of info Management/ Production CARS No problems 23% 7% 17% 7% 22% 19% 5% Problems with certification (stakeholders) Economic Lack of info Management/Produc tion CARS Governance Social Hurricane

PAGE 167

167 Categories FSC Principle Problem Ejido A Ejido B Ejido C Ejido D Governance 1. Compliance with laws & FSC principles CARS 2 0 3 0 COND 2 2 2 0 Social 2. Tenure and use rights and responsibilities CARS 0 0 1 0 COND 0 0 0 2 Social 3. Indigenous people's rights CARS 0 0 0 0 COND 1 0 0 1 Social 4. Community relations and worker's rights CARS 3 2 3 0 COND 0 2 0 4 Economic 5. Benefits from the forest CARS 7 0 8 0 COND 6 3 3 6 Environment 6. Environmental impact CARS 6 0 7 0 COND 6 5 4 8 Management 7. Management plan CARS 6 2 7 0 COND 3 5 3 4 Management 8. Monitoring & assessment CARS 4 2 6 0 COND 2 4 1 5 Environment 9. Maintenance of high conservation value forests CARS 0 0 0 0 COND 0 2 0 0 Management 10. Plantations CARS 0 0 0 0 COND 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CARS 30 6 35 0 TOTAL COND 20 23 13 30 Figure 6 7 CARS reports: problems with certification in four ejidos in Quintana Roo.

PAGE 168

168 Figure 6 8 Categories of forest governance problems cited by ejido leaders. 0 5 10 15 20 25

PAGE 169

169 Table 6 1. List of forest governance problems cited by ejido leaders # CATEGORIES PROBLEMS CITED 1 ECON Debt with buyer and taxes 2 ECON Need machinery 3 ECON People leaving ejido, no work here 4 ECON Forest management plan is expensive (~50,000 pesos) 5 ECON If we want to work with wood we need loans 6 ECON Need start up capital to begin CFE 7 ECON Adelantados (utilidades) 8 ECON SEMARNAT & PROFEPA sanctions affect ability to pay techs & paperwork 9 ECON/MKT Low timber sales 10 ECON/MKT Buyers gave low price to bad quality wood 11 ECON/MKT Timber buyers didn't pay remaining account 12 ECON/MKT Wood piling up at sawmill because no buyers 13 ECON/MKT 14 ECON/MKT Timber competition (guatemala & peru) 15 ECON/MKT 16 GOV/STRUC Need EFC (forest enterprises) 17 GOV/STRUC We are not well organized 18 GOV/STRUC Need more govt support 19 GOV/ECON Fiscal debt 20 GOV/ECON Bad management of funds=ejido in debt 21 GOV/ECON Mismanagement of money at Civil Agency 22 GOV/ECON Fined for bad remissions (timber volume) 23 GOV/ECON Mismanagement of money at Civil Agency 24 GOV/ECON Mismanagement of funds

PAGE 170

170 Table 6 1. Continued # CATEGORIES PROBLEMS CITED 26 GOV/ECON Mismanagement of funds by Comis 27 GOV/ECON Work groups =more divided in prices 28 GOV/RULE Clandestine selling of timber 29 GOV/RULE Cancelled a permiso because didn't reforest 30 GOV/RULE Lack of permission to sell timber 31 GOV/RULE Neighboring ejido cutting down our trees 32 GOV/RULE Clandestine wood by ejido members 33 GOV/RULE Land conflict with neighbors 34 GOV/RULE 2 or 3 members cut wood but solved internally 35 GOV/RULE Cut trees without Comis permission 36 GOV/RULE Ejido members don't respect terreno border 37 GOV/RULE Ejido members don't respect the rules in forests 38 GOV/RULE Cut wood by side of highway 39 GOV/RULE Ejido member cut a mahaogany tree (meeting) 40 GOV/RULE Don't follow rules in the forest 41 GOV/RULE Problem with SEMARNAT for cutting 1 tree 42 GOV/RULE Neighbors cut our wood by highway 43 GOV/RULE Strict harvesting rules by SEMARNAT 44 GOV/RULE Land invasion 45 GOV/RULE Clandestine timber denouncement 46 GOV/RULE Neighbors cut wood in agriculture parcel 47 GOV/RULE Neighbors illegally cutting our trees 48 GOV/RULE Ejido doesn't enforce sanctions against its members 49 DROUGHT Drought

PAGE 171

171 Table 6 1. Continued # CATEGORIES PROBLEMS CITED 51 FIRE Fire damaged comunal palapa & property (caused by hunter) 52 FIRE Fire damaged 3/4 of their Permanent Forest Area 53 FIRE 2000 has destroyed by fire 54 FIRE Escaped milpa fire into forest area 55 FIRE Forest fire 56 FIRE Forest fires 57 FIRE Fires 58 HURR Still have fallen trees in their forest 59 HURR Less chicle sales due to hurricane 60 HURR 40% of forest damaged by hurricane 61 HURR Haven't sold timber for 2 years because of hurricane 62 HURR Cancelled forest management plan because of hurricane 63 HURR Lost buyer interest after hurricane 64 HURR Poor quality timber after the hurricane; small diameters 65 HURR Lower annual utilities because of hurricane 66 HURR Have to pay for a new evaluation after hurricane 67 HURR Ejidos with notifications created competition for well managed timber 68 MGT/PROD People don't do good borders around milpa (fire escapes) 69 MGT/PROD Need more forest protection 70 MGT/PROD Unable to extract all the wood (profit loss) 71 MGT/PROD Don't have internal rule doc or forest mgmt plan 72 MGT/PROD Cattle escape and forest/milpa damage 73 MGT/PROD Need better fire management & brigade 74 N/A New comis, just began hasn't seen anything

PAGE 172

172 Table 6 1. Continued # CATEGORIES PROBLEMS CITED 76 NONE We don't have problems because we have good communication 77 SOC No one taught him/ helped him learn Comis tasks 78 SOC Mistrust in comis & civil agency 79 SOC Tired of being comisariado and fighting 80 SOC Lack of community participation/interest in assemblies 81 SOC Govt favors high production forestry ejidos 82 SOC Violence due to alcoholism 83 SOC Comis committee committed fraud, sent to jail but then ejidatarios set free 84 SOC Discrimination between mayan and mestizo members 85 SOC People move to bigger cities, better living conditions 86 SOC Disagreements between ejido members 87 SOC Community is very divided (1 tattled on 1 person to SEMARNAT) 88 SOC Theft at sawmill 89 SOC Lack of trust by government: Surprise visits of PROFEPA & SEMARNAT 90 SOC Don't trust Comis to sell timber 91 SOC Mistrust between ejido members and money management 92 SOC Low attendance rate at Assembly 93 SOC Govt doesn't appreciate or value ejidos

PAGE 173

173 CHAPTER 7 THE CURRENT ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS AND SOC IAL ACTORS IN RETURN ING TO CERTIFICATION This section discusses the current situation of the attempt of forestry ejidos in the state of Quintana Roo to return to forest certification. It documents the regional focus of a national Mexican initiative that is promoting certification within specific regions in the country. In this section, we see certification being promoted as an external force and while it is not being directly requested from within forestry communities, the external agents are incorporating stakeholder participatory methods in the evolution of their project. The researcher observed and participated in various community meetings and workshops held by the project recording meeting notes at each event Eji do leaders, community members, and regional stakeholders (i.e. forest technicians, government agents and certifying agents) that attended the meetings were also informally interviewed on their opinions of this initiative and factors that influence their participation during meeting breaks, car rides and separate ejido visits The researcher also attended meetings with potenti al and current timber buyers. The information collected for this chapter started in January 2011 and ended in March 2012. Ejido members that were from previously certified ejidos were specifically asked why they would consider re certification now as oppos ed to earlier on and what differences, if any, t hey th ought this F orestry A lliance would make i n their success with certification. The C reation of the Southeast Forestry Alliance In 2011 the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) joined forces w ith the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Rainforest Alliance (RA) through

PAGE 174

174 1 In January 2011 they hired a Regional Director in charge of the project for Southeastern Mexico (including the states of Quintana Roo and Campeche) and in April 2011 they hired a Specialist in Community Forest Enterprises for the southeastern region. 2 This two person team was to focus on transforming the management of biodiversity rich production forests through the creation of national capacities and the use of market based instruments. They worked directly under the supervision of the CONAFOR/UNDP headquarter s in Guadalajara Mexico and side by side with the Southeast Regional Coordinator of the TREES (Training, Extension, Enterprises and Sources) Program of the Rainforest Alliance. (All three staff members were of Mexican nationality). The TREES Coordinator was based in Che tumal and since December 2010 she had been working within specific ejidos that had been Rainforest Alliance/FSC Certified in the past in Quintana Roo. The TREES Coordinator focused efforts on improving timber production and on organizational development. In the beginning of the process she had institutional support from the Director of the SPFQROO (Sociedad de Productores Forestales de Quintana Roo) who had previous ties with Rainforest Alliance and has provided technical support to certified and uncertifi ed ejidos in the region for over 25 years This relations hip changed in 2011 shortly after the p roject was initiated ( as personal relationships interfered). Initially, there were eight ejidos from the state of Quintana Roo that were invited to participate in the project (Bacalar, Botes, Caobas, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Noh Bec, 1 Proyecto Biodiversidad en Bosques de Produccin Forestal y Mercados Certificados 2 Especialista en Empresas Forestales Comun itarias en la Region Sureste.

PAGE 175

175 Petcacab, Tres Garantias, X hazil y anexos). These forestry ejidos, as mentioned in previous chapters, had either been certified or pre certified and therefore had some level of experience with the certification process. They were partially targeted by the project because presumably they would have more of a propensity to and more easily be able to achieve certifi cation status. After a series of meetings and workshops from April to July, 2011, the number thinned down to five ejidos (Bacalar, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Noh Bec, Petcacab and X hazil y anexos) as shown in Table 7 1 The three e j idos that pulled out from this p roje ct belonged to the SPFQROO who se Director was not in accordance with one of the p member s As documented in T able 7 1 no SPFQROO ejido member continued on with the five ejido Forestry Alliance. The remaining fi v e ejidos included (in Chetumal), along with an independent forestry technician originally from Petcacab (and previously the technician from SPFQROO until 2008), as well as a forestry technician from the reasearch institute of ECOSUR. All of these forest technicians had good standing relationships with the Director and some had worked on past projects together. None of the ejidos that had previously be en certified and work ed with the OEP F ZM were selected to participate. It is unclear if this was due to the existing relationship s between staff members of both organizations or due to this association lack of interest to support certification initiatives The s ocial relationships between these regional stakeholders could have influenced the ej id os selection to participate in this initiative.

PAGE 176

176 By mid July these five ejidos and their technicans had formally created a Forestry Alliance and they were introdu ced to the general public [ as seen in Appendix C: Newspaper clipping from Por Este ] Through participant workshops that included community forest leaders and their forestry technicians and consultants the five ejidos along with the Project coordinators pr oposed the following objectives for the Alliance (as translated from Spanish) : 1. T he principal objective is to generate community forestry developme nt, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable for all members (forest management policy). 2. To won production chain with a registered trademark). 3. To exchange experiences between members of the Forestry Alliance, in order to improve the capacities and knowledge to achieve the Development of a Good Forest Management (group certification). I entitled M ighty F ive) because of their reputation within the state as strong ejidos and their potential to produce and market timber product s (Before when they were eight ejidos I used to call them the G8 after the 8 leading industrialized nations. They seem to have a certain privilege when dealing with government fundi ng programs and a bit of a hierarchy amongst other ejidos). This powerful standing has to do with the size of their forests, the high value tree species they contain, forestry equipment they own and have access to, and location to markets. Combined these five ejidos have 1,220 ejido members, they have 113,000 hectares of permanent forest area (where timber extraction activities are permitted to take place) and 50,000 hectares of community conservation areas (where conservation activities, such as payment f or hydrological and environmental services are permitted to take place). This potential power capacity of a Forestry Alliance group

PAGE 177

177 was used as a strategy to encourage ejido members to participate. ( The above mentioned variables of forest size, high value tree species, ownership of forestry equipment and sawmills, along with this negotiating power are discussed in further detail in the discussion section of this chapter ) In order for the Forestry Alliance to become a legal entity they needed to inform eji do members of the proposed activities and get their approval. Each ejido l eader (Comisariado) was responsi ble to obtain the necessary approval of their communities so that they could sign Alliance documents. General Assembly meetings were held to inform co as well as to leave room for community members to voice their concern. Certain ejidos had more problems t h an others convincing ejido members. Specifically, the two ejidos that are predominantly of Ma yan ethnicity were cautious about joining the Alliance and sharing what th ey considered to be private or sensitive informatio n 3 It took these two ejidos more time to convince their ejido members and t his delay also led to these two ejidos not becom ing a part of the chain of production program of the Alliance (as we will see later on in this chapter). In June and July, the certification p roject staff and TREES coordinator held a series of meetings wi thin the ejidos to discuss the Forestry Alliance and c ertific ation p roject, as well as to get approval for a timber production and cost study. This study would include ejidos sharing timber prices and labor and production costs. It was finally 3 One of these ejidos had fiscal/tax evasion problems with their main buyer and was penalized heavily by the government in 2010. Additionally, an ejido member in this same ejido had been arrested by PROFEPA (environmental regu lation agency) for making milpa (traditional agriculture) in a forest designated area of the ejido in 2011. (These may be factors that influenced ejido members to be wary of joining the Alliance and sharing information or bringing more outside attention to their forest management).

PAGE 178

178 approved to allow the forest technicians of two civil associations to con duct the study This sharing of timber prices among all five communities is also another potential reason ejidos were cautious to participate. It was necessary to verify real timber product prices being sold by various ejidos and not rely upon buyers to se t the regional market price. An end objective was to have these forest ejidos cosolidate and agree upon timber prices at which they would all sell their certified timber in the future. It was hoped that this uniting force would influence timber buyers to b uy at substantially higher prices t h an they offered in the past. A series of meetings had been held in three ejidos in August this time inviting ejido woodworkers to see if there was interest in creating a certified chain of custody company to buy timber from the Forestry Alliance and sell certified products in the national marketplace (It is unclear if this initiative took off or its current status ). In September the Municipal President of Carrillo Puerto created the Office of the Lia i son of Forest Certification and Responsible Markets. 4 The Lia i son hired for this office was an ejido member from one of the Forestry Alliance ejidos (Noh Bec) The Forestry Alliance was beginning to be more recognized by legal entities not just in the state but afar. An d by December 2011, the President of CONAFOR flew into Chetumal to meet with the regional CONAFOR office heads, the major timber buyers of the region, and the Forestry Alliance members and their forestry technicians to discuss the advancement and importanc e o f certification within Mexico 5 M eeting with the CONAFOR President was not only a highlight for ejido leaders to distinguish and 4 Oficina de Enlace de Certificacin Forestal y Mercados Responsables 5 The researcher was not present at this meeting.

PAGE 179

179 differentiate themselves from other ejidos of the region but it also sent a message to participating members that certifica tion wa s being backed up and taken seriously by government officials. This leads us into the next two sections of discussing what motives influence ejido members and stakeholders to return to certification. Why are e jido m embers consider ing certification and Alliance membership ? This section discusses what differences ejido members feel exist ed in this time period as opposed to the past when they decided to certify their forests. People cited here was more talk about access to sawmill equipment, i.e. kilns and modern, high powered saws, which would and infrastructure support was also being highlighted by the Forestry Alliance and TREES repr esentative. This, they felt had been lacking for previous years, and is an important necessity in order for certification and timber commercialization to advance For ejido members, access to funding to recertify was important and was also being heavily p romoted in these meetings economic categories being first and foremost on their response list. Another ejido member discussed r eturn to this special status they once had as certified ejidos. They enjoy having national and international visitors see their forest management and production practices. It ma de them feel special and proud and distinguished their forestry practices from neighboring communities This last motivating factor is similar to what Overdevest and Rickenbach found within U.S. timber companies and buyers and why they chose to certify their operations (2006). They want to improve their image to buyers and distinguish their practices from their competition. Creating a sp ecial status

PAGE 180

180 for ejidos and businesses alike, allows them to enter a niche market of certified products. would get certified people saw the b enefit s and potential of benefits of associat ing with this Forestry Alliance For ejidos and their technicians membership had potential social capital and capital gains. Again while they are not economic benefits directly associated with certification there is a correlation to it. Membership of the Alliance permits special status and facility with environmental government programs T he TREES C oordinator assist ed one ejido in locating a company willing to loan them funds for electricity install ation for their new sawmill. (In the end, conflict of ejido members led to a vote not to accept the loan offer, and the sawmill was left without electricity and not running for three months ). Another benefit of associating with the Alliance led to two ejidos attaining funding to open up a community center that included the purchase and installment of computers and internet service, as well as the training of a computer a lliance and organizations (Rainfore st Alliance) that promoted it. Currently, international discussion of using forest certification schemes as a precursor to REDD+ payments is being put forth. During 2010 and 2011 there were a number of REDD+ meetings and workshops held throughout Mexico and in Quintana Roo. There was even a Yucatan Peninsula REDD+ W orkgroup created including regional forest technicians. If REDD+ programs and support increase, the possibility is immense for certified ejidos to reap additional economic benefits for their p ermament forest areas and conservation areas This is an additional reason being discussed at

PAGE 181

181 the Forestry Alliance meetings and acts as another factor that influences an ejido Why are forest technicians part icipat ing in re certification efforts? It is important to understand which motives, such as potential benefits or social certification initiative within an ejido they w ork in when they were fully aware that certification had failed in the region e specially since in previous interviews forest technicians had complained of being blamed if the ejido they worked in did not accomplish their CAR requirements and lost certif ication status. Therefore, why would external stakeholders participate this time around? Part of this reason can be explained by reasons discuss ed in the previous section, which influence ejido members to re certify: social and economic benefits This i ncludi es the status of being associated with a succesffully certified ejido and the potential to access additional funding with future projects. Social relationships between the social actors are mentioned as well as maintaining their reputation as a compe tent technician. These reasons are discussed in greater detail below. T echnicians chose to partake in the Alliance due to the personal relationships some of these technicians have had with the Director of the i nitiative and his reputation in the region Th e Director is trusted by many to accomplish goals and objectiv es for projects he spearheads and/or with which he affiliates himself. He has been working in this region for over 25 years, was involved with the PPF project in the 1980s and their reworking of the management plans still used today was one of the founding members of the SPFQROO and through his forest technician work he is extremely knowledgeable about the certification process. His hig h level of social capital with

PAGE 182

182 various levels of regional, national and international stakeholders is well known. At one point he became an ejido member with one of the ejidos in the Forestry Alliance and was the ir forest technician for many years. He is heavily invested and associated with this ejido, which c an a ct as an impediment with other ejidos but help s him working with this ejido. And i f other ejidos see that he has brought income, projects, fame, and positive results to an ejido they are more likely to follow his advice or associate themselves with him T he re is an important role reputation plays in this region for forestry technicians and independent consultants. It is a small region where ever yone knows each business. I f a technician has a bad reputation, has cheated an ejido before or caused problems, he/she is less likely to be contracted again. Some of the well established technicians of the region have been working in Quintan a Roo since they were university students While some individuals might complain certain technicians have a monopoloy of technical services, these technicians have invested in the region and have tight social bonds with differe nt generations of ejido members 6 This social bond between certain technical agents and social capital of forest technicians is one factor that in fluences ejido members to participate in specific programs they are associated with, but influences their colleagues (other forest technicians) as well. Anothe r reason technicians chose to associate themselves with the project are personal benefits they wo uld directly receive. For example, working with an elite or 6 I have had numerous conversations with elderly ejido members who told me how they remember specific forest of these technicians with a touch of pride and high esteem, noting the hard working conditions and perserverance of these technicians. Another ejido member mention ed how he felt that one forest technician was a father figure for him because he encouraged and supported his decision to study forestry at a local technical institute.

PAGE 183

183 successful ejido in the region can also improve their reputation or status of being an effective technician as well as increase their social networking potential. By attending meetings and worksh ops, it allowed them to meet and/or re establish contact with upper level government officials. (This greatly helps them to connect with people for future project applications or when they are applying for financ ial resources on behalf of the ejidos with w hich they work ). While they are not paid to attend the meetings, they can use this time to discuss amongst the other technicians about new rules, upcoming convocatorias (proposal announcements) and problems they are confronting. One technician obtained add itional work projects with an ejido as she was able to network with the ejido leaders at these meetings Another stakeholder had interest in expanding carbon sequestration projects from the one ejido his association worked with to other ejidos and saw pro moting certification as a good s egway to attain this. In the future, he would financially benefit through payment of technical services on these projects. One technician was promised political backing in his career if he promoted certification with the eji dos he worked with (all behind closed doors) And another technician who is also a private sawmill owner attended in hopes that being able to process certify timber would allow him to receive better prices in the future and expand his clientele. It should be noted that a technician will attend the meetings if asked by a community leader so that he/she may maintain a good working relationship with them and to ensure their position working with that specific ejido, as there exists a mild competition and terr itoriality between forestry technicians in the region. Again, the decision to assist ejidos in these meetings was not fully due to their interest or belief in

PAGE 184

184 d a variety of personal and pr ofessional motives. Quintana Roo Certification Status: Are T hey R e certified Y et? As of December 31, 2011 two coordinators were no longer working within the UNDP/CONAFOR/RA Project. This resignation of two out of three staff members will have a temporary delaying effect on the progress of the Forestry Alliance and certification in the region. As of this date, no ejidos in the region were certified. Only two ejidos (Caobas and Tres Garantias) in Quintana Roo had undergone a pre certification audit by Rainfo rest Alliance (October 2010) Neither of the two ejidos ac hieved certification status as they were unable to sufficiently show improvement in fix ing their CARs (Corrective A ction R equests) within the year deadline (December 2011). It is unsure what fees an d processes they will have to undergo in order to be considered for certification again. It should be noted that t hese two ejidos went to the Forestry Alliance meetings early on but were two that had left due to allegiance to their forest technician and ne ver formally belonged to the Forestry Alliance. They contract ed their forest SPFQROO These two ejidos had recieved financial assistance to pay for the audit by CONAFOR and both had been directly working with the Southeastern TREES Coordinator on improving production practices and following certification guidelines for over a year. While they did not participa te in the Forestry Alliance or benefit from any association of it, working with the TREES Coordinator did impact their propensity to re certify and allowed constant communication and queries to be attended. One delay in the certification process for the five ejidos involved in the Forestry Alliance is that many ejidos were waiting for their forestry management plan to be

PAGE 185

185 approved by SEMARNAT officials (Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources). This management plan is a main requirement for certification, therefore it makes no sense for ejidos to pay for an audit until they have the appropriate paperwork approved by local authorities. Most ejidos had conducted their forest inventories between the months of March and June 2011. Inventory data had to be analyzed and written up, handed over to SEMARNAT, then wait for a SEMARNAT officials to visit the ejido forest sec tions that are to be harvested from and verify data. Once this visit occurs then the ejido must wait for the managment plans to be approved. Normally, there are errors that need to be fixed before final approval. This is not only a time consuming process b ut also a costly one for ejidos. They need to be able to pay their forest technicians and additional laymen to participate in the inventories and then spend time And as mentioned ear l ier, s low ly ejidos are financially recuperating from the 2007 hurricane impacts on their forests, timber and tourism, the 2009 H1N1 flu impact on tourism, and the 2008 lack of willingess to pay premiums. All of these events affect ed inco me channeling into the ejidos. Another delay in the certification process was that most ejidos had missed the forest management plans and certification start up costs (i.e. paying for audits). Four of the five ejid os were waiting for the 2012 call for grant applicat ion to be announced. Only one ejido was willing to pay out of pocket expenses for the certification audit as they were the only ejido that had a forest enterprise that exported their timber and therefore had already received high prices for their products. It was economically feasible for them to pay the audit fee if it ensured

PAGE 186

18 6 they could sell certified timber abroad. (They had voted at an Assembly meeting on using some income from their payment for environmental services installment to go towards certificatio n di agnostic although this decisio n changed once the opportunity to sell Controlled Wood became an option). The entrance of Controlled Wood and Timber Buyers Currently, in Quintana Roo, we see the return to certification being driven not just through the Forestry Alliance initiative (UNDP/CONAFOR/RA) but also driven through a market based mechanism. A German timber buyer has been incentivating ejidos to speed up their certification process because they are interested in purchasing certified timber This co mpany is interested in purchasing two timber species (siricote and granadillo) for use in the wood paneling installed inside luxury cars. The incentive the company offers is a price premium they will pay for certified timber, with the hopes that the ejidos will be able to make a shipment by a specific date. The company has obtained two other timber buyers in Germany to share in paying the start u p costs for the Controlled Wood (CW) been to off er one price for the first shipment of uncertified timber and a higher price for the second shipment of certified timber. To date, a company representative made two visits to Quintana Roo (the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012) to see the quality and q uantity of the specific timber species his company was interested in purchasing 7 While the objective of the Forestry Alliance and the TREES program coordinator was to promote forest management certification and not controlled woods certification, 7 This buyer was brought into the region through a contact that referred him to the ex Forestry Alliance Director. Negotiatons continue with the German buyer and this ex Director, showing his commitment to endorsing certification throughout the region.

PAGE 187

187 t owards the end of 2011 Controlled Wood (CW) certification was being considered by ejidos in the Alliance as an alternative to Forest Management certification. (It should also be noted that the cur rent entrance of CW certification has no thing to do with the remain ing c ertification representative in the region who was focusing more on bringing forest management certification to ejidos in the neighboring state of Campeche) There is a great difference between both types of certification. CW is a newer certification program introduced by FSC in 2004 and had approved standards by 2006 (source: FSC watch website) 8 C W is also offered by Rainforest Alliance and is usually used as a precurso r to forest owners wanting to achieve Forest Management certifica tion in the long run but who do term. For timber buyers it allows them to mix sources of FSC certified timber and non certified (or controlled wood). C W and their rul es are less stringent and fewer in number than Forest Management certification. Ejidos only need to comply with five principles (instead of 10) and those principles were already exist sent in the ejidos of Quintana Roo and therefore easier and faster for t hem to attain (s ee Appendix D for detailed five principles standards ) According to FSC, CW specifies that the following five origins must be avoided: 1. Illegally harvested wood 2. Wood harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights 3. Wood harvested in fo rests in which High Conservation Values (areas particularly worth of protection) are threatened through management activities 4. Wood harvested from conversion of natural forests 8 W e bsite: http://www.fsc dry_is _open_for_business

PAGE 188

188 5. Wood harvested from areas where genetically modified trees are planted Accesed M arch 1, 2012: (website: ) A ccording to the Rainforest Alliance, CW enables companies to demonstrate that : their wood products have been controlled to avoid sourcing wood that has been illegally harvested, harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights, harvested in forests where high conservation values are threatened by management activities, harvested in forests being converted to plantations or non forest use, and harvested f rom forests where genetic ally modified trees are planted ( website: http://www.rainforest ) Similar to Forest Management ce rtification it also involves a five year contract with annual auditing. By ejidos opting for CW it is almost as if they are taking a step back in their forest management standards They are opting for an easier, cheaper and faster solution with the hopes t o return to forest management certification and ultimately get to the stage of having their own chain of custody certification. This is a more realis tic and feasible option for them to attain certification. H ow much is this ejido decision to return to cert ification due to a specific forest unanimous that many ejido members wanted to return to certification, even though they vote t o return to certification. It u ltimately to certify because they have the power to vote for its implementation or not but technicians and timber buyers are a recognizable driver. Technicians who are pro certification are a driver because they will constantly be bringing up certification at General Assembly meetings and will meet with smaller groups and have them start to convince others. Technicians will actively search for start up costs fun ding and if the technician is knowledgeable in the certification process, will assist the community to complete their CARS (certification

PAGE 189

189 non compliances) in a timely fashion. Timber buyers wanting to buy certified wood are also drivers because having a bu yer ready to pay a premium for certified wood can certification. Discussion : What really influences the future of certification in Quintana Roo ? In this section we d iscuss some of the c haracteristics of communities that are considered more prepared for certification Here we look to see if certification just serves ejidos that are doing relatively well compared to other ejidos. For example, is there a difference betwe en predominantly f orestry ejidos versus predominantly agriculture, or is there a difference if one ejido has a large r forest area than a small er forested ejido ? Does population density or other socioeconomic factors matter such as comunally owned machiner y versus renting privately owned machinery? And while natural and monetary resources are important, what e ffect do social capital and ? In the end, we need to question who does certification really serve and is it just for the crop eji do s that are considered to already practices? In a sense, do ejidos need certification to accomplish sustainable forest management or are they already sustainably managing their forests? I t is too early to tell what difference the Forestry Alliance will make in the succe ss of an ejido certification attainment and maintenance The Alliance was o n a momentary hold in January and Febru ary 2012 while new staff members were selected. The remaining representative had been focusing her attention on ejidos in Campeche. Thinking in terms of the second section of this discussion, on social networks, it leads us to

PAGE 190

190 question who is really pullin g the strings in influencing ejido members, regional stakeholders and even government officials to adopt and promote certification? Cream of the crop: variables that influence an ejido s ability to maintain certification This section discusses forestry enterprise variables that can influence an ejido, whether they are participating in the Forestry Alliance or not, and more specifically t heir ability to maintain certification. Many of these variables had been mentioned by regio nal stakeholders in Chapter 5 as necessary or possible pre requisites that ejidos should have before deciding to adopt certification as it would make certification more financially feasi ble. Some variables mentioned we re: modern sawmill, timber extraction machinery, high co mmercial value timber species, and high quality timber production capacity It is evident that some of these variables were previously considered by the Forestry Alliance Director. Table 7 2 lists the eleven ejidos in this study and includes the main fore stry enterprise variables that are important to the economic feasibility of timber comm Forestry Alliance. Additional variables included are: forest size, permanent community own ed sawmill, primary product, value added products, carpentry workshops and if year round timber extraction occurs in an ejido. In this table, we see that Botes and Laguna Kanab (non members of the Alliance) do not have permanent sawmills. Laguna Kanab memb ers use chainsaws to cut timber at sights and Botes has a portable sawmill but both of these practices produce l ess valuable timber. Chacchoben and Naranjal Poniente are not members of the Alliance and mostly sell logs to buyers, decreasing their income ge nerated from timber sales. Petcacab an d X hazil (members of the

PAGE 191

191 Alliance) not only have community owned sawmills but have private sawmills as well demonstrating the investment and high quantity of timber being sold in their ejidos. Ejidos with community ow ned sawmills also attain additional income from neighboring added products (furniture and railroad ties) were members of the Alliance. Three of the four ejidos that have over five family owned carpentry workshops that produce bee boxes, furniture, artisanry, etc. are also members of the Alliance. Additionally, the ejidos of Botes and Caobas which are not Alliance members and are the only ejidos that d t have year round timbe r extraction in their ejidos ( due to the soil type found in their area and difficulty of driving heavy machinery during the rainy season ) Table 7 2 demonstrates that ejidos with less timber income are less propense to participate in the Forestry Alliance. Out of the five remaining ejidos that participated in the Forestry Alliance four have had previous experience with certification that would presumably give them a propensity to become certified more easi ly capital and experience with certification as an in fl uential factor in the decisi o n to re certify, we see ejidos with high amounts of natural capital participating in the program. They are well known and strong forestry ejidos in Quintana Roo, each bringing something to the table. Some ejidos have a high quantity of commercially valuable timber, some ejidos have the equipment to process logs and lumber. Others have a large area of forest that can be exploited or used for conservation areas with high biodiver sity value (i.e. they can obtain additional income through payment for environmental services) Two ejidos are ideally located on the highway -one serving the northern market sector of Playa del

PAGE 192

192 Carmen and Cancun and the other the southern sector of the st ate to access markets in Chetumal and Campeche 9 is well known and well located, has a booming tourism and real estate industry. All of these qualities are important for them to not only cre ate a strong front in the marketplace that allows them to consolidate fair prices and export high volumes of timber but it also creates a strong front with government agencies. For example, the larger the amount of forests the Alliance has, the more power and facility they have in accessing government funds for conservation and development initiatives. At the end of the year, government agencies need to be able to show numbers : numbers of forests conserved and n umbers of people positively affected by their grants. Also, particpating in this Alliance improves access to financing. If a bank or government agency is financing a loan to the Forestry Alliance, they are more comfortable doing so with ejidos that have the capital to repay the loan (Arguelles, perso nal communication, 2011). In this instance, ejidos use timber and their utilidades (biannual timbe r payments to ejido members) as capital for them to pay back a loan Reviewing the factors that can influence n to return to certificat ion, it leaves the ques tion: does certification only serve the strong or privile ged communities that have high amounts of social, natural and economic capital? This relates to the challenge certification in Mexico has received in a 2003 study by Chapela and Ma drid They warned that cer tification was only focusing In addition, d oes certification make much of a difference forest management and production practices and on a country wide level does it make a 9 Proximity to important markets was a strategy recognized by the Forestry Alliance Director. Future funding projects of attaining kilns and newer saws were contemplated as well.

PAGE 193

193 difference to Mexican forests ? One governmental official compared the act of receiving certification status to the act of on top of a sundae For him, the ejidos that are chosen to participate in certification already had good forest management prac were dealing with illegal logging and poor management issues for example some of the smaller ejido s in the southeast r egion Ejidos that participated in or were chosen to participate in certification already had a propensity to be successful. Perhaps, certifying agents t arget group s of ejidos already completing specific certification requisites in orde r to ensure the feasibility of certification? This leaves us to question, what about the remaining forests are the already existent state regulations on forest management sufficient for sustainable forest management? Social networks: the role of key play ers promoting certification In t his section we discuss the important influence forest technicians, timber buyers government officials and certifying agents can play in promoting and assisting in the attainment of and maintain ence of certification. In the end we see that the final ejidos chosen to participate in the Forestry Alliance are ejidos and their forest technicians, who have good, social standing relationships with the project staff members. Ejido members did remember having for e st technicians be t he first people to introduce and promote certification in their ejidos. Forest technicians acted as a bridge for certification agencies to enter the ejidos. Also discussed in Chapter 5 was the rec ollection of ejido members saying that when their ejido cha

PAGE 194

194 perceptions of their forest technician not being interested or bringing certification up at meetings w as seen as an unmotivating factor to return to certification. These e x periences demonstrate the importance of social relationships and preferences of forest technicians in the adoption of a conservation project. In this study, it is observed that timber b uyers can act as a roadblock to certification if they are unwilling to pay p remiums for certified timber (such as the three main local timber buyers in Quintana Roo) but buyers can also encourage its adoption through market demand and preference to certif ied producers (as seen with the Controlled Wood buyer in Quintana Roo) During the interview s conducted as to why ejido members voted for certification the first time around no ejido member mentioned buyers influencing their decision to adopt certification A certification representative did discuss how international timber buyers and years later (2007) a regional government procurement policy (in Oaxaca) had played an important role in promoting certification throughout Mexico. During th e fir st c ertification wave in the 19 90s /early 2000s, some international buyers assisted with c ertification start up costs Some buyers added pressure for ejidos they were already buying timber from to certify but with financial ass istance. As mentioned in Chapter 4 timber buyers played a similar role as international donor and environmental organizations did in Quintana Roo during their certification process in the early 1990s Currently, in Quintana Roo, we see certification bein g promoted as a market based mechanism by a German timber buyer incentivating ejidos to speed up their certification process Could this concrete purchase and investment be the pivotal factor that influences ejidos to return to certification? This relates to the importance economic

PAGE 195

195 factors play in motivati and problems ejido member s and stakeholders encountered wi th certification. As discussed in the literature review of Chapter 2 this movement enforce s the idea of market based mechanisms being an important global governance driver (Cashore 2002, Gereffi and Mayer, 2004 )? While this study notes the importance external actors play in the certification process, the intentions are not to downplay or negate the role the actual landowners (ejio members) play in adopting this conservation practice. In the end, certification is meant to benefit their community and livelihoods but one has to question what role they really play in promoting certification and ascer taining that certification programs meet their needs and complement their traditional or sustainable forestry management practices While ejido members are the decision making actors -thos e who vote for certification, decide to funnel funds towards its i mplementation and make changes in their management and production practices -the actual impetus to seek out certification has not been observed to come from the m As demonstrated in this chapter Controlled Wood certification is currently being promoted by the Alliance Director, an external stakeholder. Certification is being promoted by actors external to the community but ultimately supported by ejido members If ejido members did not feel that their forest management was already so over regulated by go vernmental regulations and if they valued certification more by seeing it as a more cost effective and useful tool they would be more prone and proactive to maintain it

PAGE 196

196 Table 7 1 Past and Current Forestry Alliance members. Ejido Agency forest technician works at Member of the Forestry Alliance? 1. Bacalar Tropica Rural Latinoamerica Yes 2. Botes Sociedad de Productores Forestales de Quintana Roo No 3. Caobas Sociedad de Productores Forestales de Quintana Roo No 4. Felipe Carrillo Puerto Yes 5. NohBec Independent Yes 6. Petcacab Indep endent Yes 7. Tres Garantias Sociedad de Productores Forestales de Quintana Roo No 8. X hazil y sus anexos Ecosur Yes

PAGE 197

197 Table 7 2 Forestry enterprise variables checklist Certified ejidos Forestry Alliance Forest size Perm C O sawmill Primary product Value added products Carpentry workshops Year round Timber Caoba logs & sawnwood Chacchoben logs Naranjal Poniente logs Noh Bec sawnwood Laguna Kanab logs & sawnwood Petcacab logs & sawnwood Tres Garantias logs & sawnwood X Hazil y Anexos logs & sawnwood Non certified Bacalar logs & sawnwood F.C. Puerto logs & sawnwood S.F. Botes logs & sawnwood Value added products: = railroad ties, = furniture Carpentry workshops: = 1 4, = over 5 Forest size: =over 15,000 hectares (ejidos ranged from 7,500 32,500 hectares).

PAGE 198

198 Figure 7 1 Bimodal network of ejidos in 2009

PAGE 199

199 Figure 7 2 Five ejidos involved in t he Southeast Forestry Alliance

PAGE 200

200 Figure 7 3 Timeline of Re certification efforts in Quintana Roo.

PAGE 201

201 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS This study was guided by three goals: to 1) analyze the sustainability of forest certification according to stakeholder perceptions, 2) to understand under what conditions residents at the local level decide to support forest certification programs and 3) to identify the influential certificati on promoters from the lower to upper levels of decision making that affect community forest management And the research questions driving this study are: what is the role of social acto rs and institutions in the attainment and maintenance of certification and how do stakeholder perceptions and existing local governance institutions influence the adoption and longevity of the Forest Stewardship Cou ? In conclusio n, this study has found that social actors and barriers, play an immense role in the attainment and maintenance of certification. While certification is a market based me chanism aimed at conserving forests and improving forest management, it will not be feasible or sustainable without the promotion of key stakeholders in the region and internal ejidal and external institutional arrangments to support it in the long term. B elow we answer the feasibility question of certification and Is certification feasible among southeastern Mexican ejidos ? In order for certification to be considered sustain able or self suffici ent, it needs to be able to function without subsidies. Up to this point, no ejido has received certification without financial assistance. The community perception is that the start up and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits of certification. I f an ej ido is not exporting timber or receiving premiums, they cannot afford to pay for evaluations, audits and the

PAGE 202

202 necessary infrastructure changes required by certification Division between technical ion in the region, especiall y in regards to the feasibl ilty question. As seen in the study, if a technical agent or civil association promote it in the communities they work in. The division between agents includes their short term versus long term visition. There are agents who see the potential of achieving short term benefits with certification which usually are economic (higher prices) and those who see the potential of achievin g long term benefits which are ecological ( more productive and healthy forests ) Very few people connect the rippling (social benefits). Those that see long term bene fits are more likely to promote certification for the duration of the proess. In general, it has been seen that i f subsidies are not offered, no ejido has been willing to pay for certification costs out of pocket. Without community and technician percepti on of certification being economically feasible and attainable, it is less likely that certification will be actively s ought And while the promotion of certification through an ejido alliance (i.e. Sout heastern Forestry Alliance) facilitates the certifica tion start up their livelihood activities (i.e. Felipe Carrillo Puerto) or their traditional management (X hazil). This leads us to question if certification i s feasible within the existing and traditional ejido governance structure and common property regime? What needs to happen to make certification more sustainable? While FSC Principle 1 states ejidos

PAGE 203

203 must abide by all international and national laws and reg rights and forest management and conservation, it does not take into consideration the existing governance structure and internal rules within an ejido. This study found three different governance types existing within the eleve n ejidos: 1) separation of forestry office, 2) work groups, and 3) traditional Mayan Cacique. All of these three types include the general governance structure of comisariado (president, secretary, and treasurer) and (seguridad de vigilancia) vigilance committee, where these groups are in charge of enforcing internal and external regulations pertaining to natural resource use and bringing up land management conflicts to the community. The difference that exists in these governance structures is t ype 1 se parates marketing decision making from the ejido; type 2 divides the ejidos into smaller ejidos in regards to forestry activities; and type 3 leaves ultimate decision making to the respected elder leaders in the ejido. These types have the capability of fa cilitating or blocking certification. Therefore, there is a need to understand how can certification be tailored to fit the existing ejido governance structure and how would certification differ if this occured From a cultural perspective, this would make certi fication more socially feasible. Lessons L earned and Recommendations to make certification more sustainable Without a doubt the process to manage and market timber consumes time, energy and financial resources of ejido communities and their technicia ns. While t hese programs are created for the conservation and sustainable management of forests they have left many in the region questioning their validity, actual benefits and feasibility. In conclusion, general sentiment within interviews state that w h ile the desire to attain certification within communities does exist, there are a number of i ssues that need to be addressed, specifically the attainment of premiums and better prices for certified timber,

PAGE 204

204 as economic reasons were constantly listed as fact ors that influence the attainment and maintenance of certification by internal and external stakeholders. In order to make certif ication work, it is su ggested that the issues in the following sections be addressed : 1) increased information dissemination of certification process for all levels of stakeholders ; 2 ) sound ejido organizational structure that supports transparency and increased trust among all actors with the recommendation of separate forestry offices (Oficina s del Manejo F orestal) ; 3 ) governement financial and technical support through purchases of certified timber, and training in management, production, marketing, as well as an increased certifying agency presence ; 4) well defined natural disaster protocols within an ejid o and governm ental agencies, adequate assis tance during these time periods and improved disseminat application process and 5) combining conservation strategies to make certification more feasible. These are five suggestions the study recommends in order to make certification more feasible and sustainable in the region They are discussed below. The importance of information dissemination and perception of benefits Throughout this dissertation we see examples of ejidos where certification will work internal and external drivers. Ejidos in Quintana Roo are not being pro active and approaching certification programs asking to be certified. Only one of the eleven ejidos inter viewed was willing to pay for certification costs out of their own pockets. While almost every community member interviewed said they wanted certification and forc es, i.e. forestry technicians or the actual certification program. An important question for future research could include a comparison of case studies investigat ing if

PAGE 205

205 certification is more successful or sustainable in the long term if it begins by an internal community desire or if it is i nitiated by external players This study focused more on the reasons why individuals chose certification and whether or not these reasons affect its longevity and viabilit y. Through observations of the recertification process in this study the actual driving force came from external promoters. It was also observed that many times knowledge of certification seemed to be captured within specific groups of people, such as specific regional forest technicians, community leaders that had to sign off on certification paperwork and interact with certif ication auditors and agencies during their term, and members who were involved in forestry activities (management and / or production) pre and post certification. For future implementation of certification it is important that not only community leaders an d technicians be targeted as entry points into the community but other people involved with timber activities as they will have a better understanding of its effect and or relevance on community forestry practices. Certifying agencies should hold ejidal m eetings within the communities to introduce the topic to a greater audience rather than just invite current leaders to a meeting or workshop outside of the ejido. Certainly it is also important that there be a basic knowledge of what certification is sinc e ejido members m u st vote for it at a General Assembly. L ess knowledge of certitfication could translate into people less likely to vote for it The importance of sound institutional organization in communal forests I n this dissertation we see the i nfluen ce internal and external governance and institutional arrangments can have on natural resource management decision making, implementation and even enforcement of ru les. The eight ejidos studied have defined their institutional roles (i.e. leadership positi ons, forestry field and sawmill positions,

PAGE 206

206 forest management plans) to a degree or are in the prcoess of defining them due to requirements of the Ley Agraria and FSC Certification guidelines A nd even though community members had to vote to accept these rules many times it seemed there was a lack of knowledge transfer between past and current leaders a nd ejido members when asked about it. It is also important to note that the community members that filled those positions were all decided upon by a commun ity vote One problem within these positions is the low level of trust a community has for their elected leaders and the high revolving door of various leader and forestry positions. While communities want to ensure that everyone has employment opportuni ties, the constant change of positions means weakened institutional memory, since job responsibilities and the current ejido management, production, and commercialization situation need to be taught and updated to the next person. This was constantly discu ssed as not being a common practice and many people complained of having to learn what their role and position entailed without a real training period. It was constantly described as a trial and error experience and at times they would heavily rely upon a forest technician to guide them. (This is an added pressure and time consump tion for forest technicians, who already feel oversaturated with their work in ejidos and it figure. Fu rthermore, e jidos have been known to change or use a number of forest technicians at a time for a variety of forestry activities). Another problem with these institutional arrangements is that instead of communit ie s creating or following their own traditi onal governance structure, it can be seen as a hybrid of state imposed positions, forest technician creativity a nd community

PAGE 207

207 decision making. It is difficult to determine what a traditional governa nce structure is or whether they exist in certain ejidos si are composed of different waves of immigrants from various Mexican states In these cases, what level of customs and forest management rules do people bring from their old territories and does that affect consensus and compliance in governance structure? It is possible that in a predominantly Mayan ejido there i s a traditional form of governance that leads to greater consensus and compliance with traditional governance structures but once they are mi xed with government imposed rules or other forms of regulations (i.e. certification) conflict can arise. For example, t he law requires all ejidos to have an internal rule (reglamento interno) but most internal rules are written by forest technicians following a national generic template and many members were not aware of the defined positions and rules governing their natural s internal rule document. In this reasearch, i t was difficult for ejido members to d internal rule ( reglamiento interno ) because in many ejidos it was const antly being updated or they were including additional information Ultimately, the internal rule had to be approved by a General Assembly meeting but if a member was not in attendace that day, they would not be p rivy to all of that information And if a member does not read, they would have to rely upon another member to orally inform them of the new rules, which is a common practice. Additionally, as discussed in C hapter 5 there are some problems in the current insitutional arrangements of the ejido that if resolved, could potentially improve crease timber profitability. One potential solution

PAGE 208

208 would be in di ssolving workgroups that exist in four out of the eight formally certified ejidos. The division of ejidos into work groups creates comp etition for timber sales within an ejido as well as complicates the production process of timber The problem with this s olution is that it o suit the needs of a community, instead it adds pressures to the community to change in order to adopt certification standards. Should already existent structures be required to meld into new conservation s tructures ? Another potential solution in the institutional arrangement would be to create an OMF (forest management office) that would relieve the comisariado of daily forestry oversight and create a stable position for a forestry technician within the eji do and a marketing specialist who deals with buyers and commercialization strategies. This office existed in only one of the eight previously certified ejidos but was shut down due to financial problems after Hurricane Dean. It reopened in 2011 and is cur rently functioning. Creating a separate office that is still responsible to show production and financial data to the General Assembly and Comisariado allows transparency and demonstrates stability to external buyers. It also reinforces the need for instit utional memory for timber sales and keeps the information in one place (making it easier for certifying agents to review necessary documents and have a point person in the ejdio). All of the above institutional arrangments and governance structures can af fect certification term maintenance I f the current ejido leader s and forestry field and sawmill staff are not fully aware of their own ejido rules or are not sufficiently informed and trained in certification definitions and guidelines o r there are a number of work groups involved with the timber management and production within a divided ejido it can stall the certification process by taking an ejido longer amounts of

PAGE 209

209 time to fulfill their CAR s The dissemination of informa tion (as discussed in the previous section) is also related to the functioning of sound institutional arrangements The im portance of public policy and ejido support mechanism s In the beginning of this study, ejidos in Quintana Roo complained of feeling them, it was important that the agencies have a presence in the state to demonstrate their relevance and commitment to promoting certification. By 2011, there were three re presentatives from a Rainforest Alliance/ UNDP/ CONAFOR inititiative promoting biodiversity in forests through certification. This presence was important to local governing authorities as well since we also see a shift in regional public policies from prom oting and supporting certification in the state of Quintana Roo in the 90s to inclusion and support for carbon sequestra tion projects in 2005 20 10 (a similar global conservation and marketing mechanism trend). As we r eview ed sector dev elopment plans in C hapter 5, we saw that forest certification was included in their objectives and financing for 199 9 2005 and 2005 2011 but was not mentioned in the current 2011 2016 state forestry plan. T his change on emphasis of certification most likel y occurred as there were no governing bodies or NGOs championing certification in the state Instead we see the inclusion and support for carbon sequestration projects and REDD+ programs (a similar global trend). Perhaps interest in certification will return within the state level authorities once they connect the fact that certification can be a pre requisite for REDD+ payments as it demonstrates well managed forests. Increased government support could lead to a f aster return to certification. Continuing with the desire of ejido members needing more technical attention and assistance, there is validity to their complaints. There is a low number of SEMARNAT

PAGE 210

210 employees in the Chetumal office to assist the 78 ejidos t hat have permits to manage over 737,000 hectares of tropical forest and sell timber in Quintana Roo a nd forestry is only one of their natural resource management programs. As mentioned in C hapter 5, o ne forester in the PROCYMAF pr ogram of CONAFOR in Chetum al was in charge of attending to 120 ejidos in the state for their community forestry activities and their solicitudes is just not enough And t he total number of PROFEPA security officers in the state to guard the over 3,686,700 hectares of tropical fores ts and enforce environmental laws was a meager ten people in 2011. While federal police provide additional assistance to review transit documents of trucks carrying timber through out the state there is still a need for support to federal government agenc ies Out of all the programs that exist in natural resource management, there is no t one that fulfills an extension agent position, as in the US Forest Service. It is highly recommended that this role be fulfilled in Mexico as it would fill the major gap o f information dissemination of new federal and state regulations and facilitate the necessary paperwork ejidos have to fill out. At the moment, the only individuals that fulfill this role are independent forest technicians, but at a cost for the ejido and they are not federal employees. They, too have a learning curve for protocols and regulations. And lastly, the perceptions by key stakeholders (ejido members, technical agents and governmental agents) that M exico's forests (and nat ural resources ) are over regulated and include (paperwork) and bureaucracy can ultimately affect the compliance or non compliance with rules regarding forest management and certification. The importance of natural disaster protocols and dissemination of informa tion Repeatedly throughout the study, forest technicians, ejido leader s and even governmental workers brought up the issue of natural disaster problems in the area and

PAGE 211

211 how they affected land management practices. The two main natural disaster problems dis cussed were hurricanes and forest fires resu lting from drought conditions, escaped fires or hurricane damaged fallen trees 1 Notifications were created under the Ley de Desarrollo Forestal and are dispersed by SEMARNAT to authorize ejidos to extract and sell timber without a management plan. They were created to assist in the reduction of potential risks in forests during times of emergency Forest technicians and even some of the government agents had not used notifications in the past and had to lear n t he process. (It is unclear if there is a maximum number of years an ejido can use a notification before SEMARNAT requires them to apply for forest management plans). Certifying agencies also needed to be clear er as to how long they would allow ejidos to us e notifications before losing their certification status. Two previou s ly certified ejidos used notifications for four years (and still have damaged timber in their forests) but are now back to their forest management plans There is a need for better emer gency protocol s for post natural disasters and dissemination of the procedures ejidos and their forest technicians must take at the state level. In regards to certification agencies, it would be wise to implement a known exemption period or extension in t heir CARS for ejidos undergoing recovery from these natural disasters. It would be benficial to also take into consideration supplying a discount or financial assistance in evaluation services post natural disaster, so that ejidos can get back to normal op erations and overcome any related financial crises. 1 Ejidos felt that fire management assistance was gi ven priority to touristic destinations first and leftover funds and assistance came to them.

PAGE 212

212 The importance of mixing conservation strategies Seeing how communities rely upon subisidies from CONAFOR, loans from banks urrent forest management and production practices are not feasible, therefore making certification on its own not economically feasible for communities. This section quickly discusses conservation programs and strategies in which ejidos are currently part icipating or have plans to participate. It is recommended that combining community participation in certification with other conservation programs, i.e. payment for environmental sevices, and REDD+ payments, and can be a goo d strategy for ejidos to take advantage of areas already des ignated as under good forest management mak ing certification more economically feasible and sustainable. One main problem with certification was that ejidos were unable to receive good timber pre miums for certified timber and therefore felt it was not economically viable to continue paying for certification. Without a good timber income, they were also unable to invest in improving production issues. If ejido members were able to take advantage o f programs that can alleviate costs for forest management, it might mak e certification more feasible. One example of this occurred in Caoba. s group rec e ived a small grant from the SEDARIS (Secretaria de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Rural e Indigena) office in Chetumal to create a nursery for mahogany and cedar saplings. This generated additional income for women and supplied the ejido with additional saplings for their reforestation areas (that is a certific ation requirement) In Mexico, there exist many programs and subsidies that can finance parts of certification and forest management activities E jido members and their forest technicians need to have strong social networks in order to connect to these sour ces

PAGE 213

213 and/or be aware of the programs available and their corresponding application deadlines.

PAGE 214

214 APPENDIX A TEN PRINCIPLES OF FS C CERTIFICATION Principle #1: Compliance with laws and FSC Principles Principle #2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities Principle #3: Indigenous peoples' rights Principle #4: Community relations and worker's rights Principle #5: Benefits from the forest Principle #6: Environmental impact Principle #7: Management plan Principle #8: Monitoring and assessment Principle #9: Maintenance of high conservation value forests Principle #10: Plantations 1 Principle #1: Compliance with laws and FSC Principles Forest management shall respect all applicable laws of the country in which they occur, and international treaties and agreements to which the country is a signatory, and comply with all FSC Principles and Criteria. 1.1 Forest management shall respect all national and local laws and administrative requirements. 1.2 All applicable and legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges shall be paid. 1.3 In signatory countries, the provisions of all binding international agreements such as CITES, ILO Conventions, ITTA, and Convention on Biological Diversity, shall be respected. 1.4 Conflicts between laws, regu lations and the FSC Principles and Criteria shall be evaluated for the purposes of certification, on a case by case basis, by the certifiers and the involved or affected parties. 1.5 Forest management areas should be protected from illegal harvesting, se ttlement and other unauthorized activities. 1.6 Forest managers shall demonstrate a long term commitment to adhere to the FSC Principles and Criteria.

PAGE 215

215 2 Principle #2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities Long term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources shall be clearly defined, documented and legally established. 2.1 Clear evidence of long term forest use rights to the land (e.g. land title, customary rights, or lease agreements) shall be demonstrated. 2.2 Local communities with legal or customary tenure or use rights shall maintain control, to the extent necessary to protect their rights or resources, over forest operations unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies. 2.3 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed to resolve disputes over tenure claims and use rights. The circumstances and status of any outstanding disputes will be explicitly considered in the certification evaluation. Disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify an operation from being certified. 3 Principle #3: Indigenous peoples' rights The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and re sources shall be recognized and respected. 3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies. 3.2 Forest management shall not threaten or d iminish, either directly or indirectly, the resources or tenure rights of indigenous peoples. 3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples shall be clearly identified in cooperation with such peoples and recognized and protected by forest managers. 3.4 Indigenous peoples shall be compensated for the application of their traditional knowledge regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations. This compensation shall be f ormally agreed upon with their free and informed consent before forest operations commence. 4 Principle #4: Community relations and worker's rights Forest management operations shall maintain or enhance the long term social and economic well being of fore st workers and local communities. 4.1 The communities within, or adjacent to, the forest management area should be given opportunities for employment, training, and other services. 4.2 Forest management should meet or exceed all applicable laws and/or r egulations

PAGE 216

216 covering health and safety of employees and their families. 4.3 The rights of workers to organize and voluntarily negotiate with their employers shall be guaranteed as outlined in Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). 4.4 Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of social impact. Consultations shall be maintained with people and groups (both men and women) directly affected by management operations1. 4.5 Appropriate mech anisms shall be employed for resolving grievances and for providing fair compensation in the case of loss or damage affecting the legal or customary rights, property, resources, or livelihoods of local peoples. Measures shall be taken to avoid such loss or damage. 1 Criterion modified by FSC 2002 General Assembly. 5 Principle #5: Benefits from the forest Forest management operations shall encourage the efficient use of the forest's multiple products and services to ensure economic viability and a wide range of environmental and social benefits. 5.1 Forest management should strive toward economic viability, while taking into account the full environmental, social, and operational costs of production, and ensuring the investments necessary to maintain th e ecological productivity of the forest. 5.2 Forest management and marketing operations should encourage the optimal use and local processing of the forest's diversity of products. 5.3 Forest management should minimize waste associated with harvesting and on site processing operations and avoid damage to other forest resources. 5.4 Forest management should strive to strengthen and diversify the local economy, avoiding dependence o n a single forest product. 5.5 Forest management operations shall recognize, maintain, and, where appropriate, enhance the value of forest services and resources such as watersheds and fisheries. 5.6 The rate of harvest of forest products shall not exc eed levels which can be permanently sustained. 6 Principle #6: Environmental impact Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and, by so doing

PAGE 217

217 maintain the ecological functions and the integrity of the forest. 6.1 Assessment of environmental impacts shall be completed -appropriate to the scale, intensity of forest management and the uniqueness of the affected resources -and adequately inte grated into management systems. Assessments shall include landscape level considerations as well as the impacts of on site processing facilities. Environmental impacts shall be assessed prior to commencement of site disturbing operations. 6.2 Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Conservation zones and protection areas shall be established, appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management and the unique ness of the affected resources. Inappropriate hunting, fishing, trapping and collecting shall be controlled. 6.3 Ecological functions and values shall be maintained intact, enhanced, or restored, including: a) Forest regeneration and succession. b) Gene tic, species, and ecosystem diversity. c) Natural cycles that affect the productivity of the forest ecosystem. 6.4 Representative samples of existing ecosystems within the landscape shall be protected in their natural state and recorded on maps, appropri ate to the scale and intensity of operations and the uniqueness of the affected resources. 6.5 Written guidelines shall be prepared and implemented to: control erosion; minimize forest damage during harvesting, road construction, and all other mechanical disturbances; and protect water resources. 6.6 Management systems shall promote the development and adoption of environmentally friendly non chemical methods of pest management and strive to avoid the use of chemical pesticides. World Health Organizatio n Type 1A and 1B and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides; pesticides that are persistent, toxic or whose derivatives remain biologically active and accumulate in the food chain beyond their intended use; as well as any pesticides banned by international agr eement, shall be prohibited. If chemicals are used, proper equipment and training shall be provided to minimize health and environmental risks. 6.7 Chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non organic wastes including fuel and oil shall be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner at off site locations. 6.8 Use of biological control agents shall be documented, minimized, monitored and strictly controlled in accordance with national laws and internationally accepted scientific protocols. Use of genetically modified organisms shall be prohibited. 6.9 The use of exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively monitored to avoid adverse ecological impacts.

PAGE 218

218 6.102 Forest conversion to plantations or non forest land uses shall not occur, except in circumstances where conversion: a) entails a very limited portion of the forest management unit; and b) does not occur on high conservation value forest areas; and c) will enable clear, substantial, additional, secure, long term conservation bene fits across the forest management unit. 7 Principle #7: Management plan A management plan -appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations -shall be written, implemented and kept up to date. The long term objectives of management, and the mea ns of achieving them, shall be clearly stated. 7.1 The management plan and supporting documents shall provide: a) Management objectives. b) Description of the forest resources to be managed, environmental limitations, land use and ownership status, socio e conomic conditions, and a profile of adjacent lands. c) Description of silvicultural and/or other management system, based on the ecology of the forest in question and information gathered through resource inventories. d) Rationale for rate of annual harve st and species selection. e) Provisions for monitoring of forest growth and dynamics. 2 Criterion 6.10 was ratified by the FSC Members and Board of Directors in January 1999. f) Environmental safeguards based on environmental assessments. g) Plans for the identification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species. h) Maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management activities and land ownership. i) Description and justification of harvesting techniques and equipment to be used. 7.2 The management plan shall be periodically revised to incorporate the results of monitoring or new scientific and technical information, as well as to respond to changing environmental, social and economic circumstances. 7.3 Fo rest workers shall receive adequate training and supervision to ensure proper implementation of the management plan. 7.4 While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make

PAGE 219

219 publicly available a summary of the primary elements of the management plan, including those listed in Criterion 7.1. 8 Principle #8: Monitoring and assessment Monitoring shall be conducted -appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management -to assess the condition of the forest, yields of for est products, chain of custody, management activities and their social and environmental impacts. 8.1 The frequency and intensity of monitoring should be determined by the scale and intensity of forest management operations as well as the relative complex ity and fragility of the affected environment. Monitoring procedures should be consistent and replicable over time to allow comparison of results and assessment of change. 8.2 Forest management should include the research and data collection needed to mo nitor, at a minimum, the following indicators: a) Yield of all forest products harvested. b) Growth rates, regeneration and condition of the forest. c) Composition and observed changes in the flora and fauna. d) Environmental and social impacts of harvest ing and other operations. e) Costs, productivity, and efficiency of forest management. 8.3 Documentation shall be provided by the forest manager to enable monitoring and certifying organizations to trace each forest product from its origin, a process kno wn as the "chain of custody." 8.4 The results of monitoring shall be incorporated into the implementation and revision of the management plan. 8.5 While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly available a summary of the results of monitoring indicators, including those listed in Criterion 8.2. 9 Principle #9: Maintenance of high conservation value forests3 Management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain or enhance the attributes whic h define such forests. Decisions regarding high conservation value forests shall always be considered in the context of a precautionary approach. 9.1 Assessment to determine the presence of the attributes consistent with High Conservation Value Forests wi ll be completed, appropriate to scale and intensity of forest management. 9.2 The consultative portion of the certification process must place emphasis on the identified conservation attributes, and options for the maintenance thereof. 9.3 The manageme nt plan shall include and implement specific measures that ensure the maintenance and/or enhancement of the applicable conservation

PAGE 220

220 attributes consistent with the precautionary approach. These measures shall be specifically included in the publicly availab le management plan summary. 9.4 Annual monitoring shall be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the measures employed to maintain or enhance the applicable conservation attributes. 10 Principle #10: Plantations 4 Plantations shall be planned and man aged in accordance with Principles and Criteria 1 9, and Principle 10 and its Criteria. While plantations can provide an array of social and economic benefits, and can contribute to satisfying the world's needs for forest products, they should complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests. 10.1 The management objectives of the plantation, including natural forest conservation and restoration objectives, shall be explicitly stated in the management plan, and clearly demonstrated in the implementation of the plan. 10.2 The design and layout of plantations should promote the protection, restoration and conservation of natural forests, and not increase pressures on natural forests. Wildlif e corridors, streamside zones and a mosaic of stands of different ages and rotation periods, shall be used in the layout of the plantation, consistent with the scale of the operation. The scale and layout of plantation blocks shall be consistent with the p atterns of forest stands found within the natural landscape. 10.3 Diversity in the composition of plantations is preferred, so as to enhance economic, ecological and social stability. Such diversity may include the size and spatial distribution of manage ment units within the landscape, number and genetic composition of species, age classes and structures. 10.4 The selection of species for planting shall be based on their overall suitability for the site and their appropriateness to the management object ives. In order to enhance the conservation of biological diversity, native species are preferred over exotic species in the establishment of plantations and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Exotic species, which shall be used only when their perform ance is greater than that of native species, shall be carefully monitored to detect unusual mortality, disease, or insect outbreaks and adverse ecological impacts. 10.5 A proportion of the overall forest management area, appropriate to the scale of the p lantation and to be determined in regional standards, shall be managed so as to restore the site to a natural forest cover. 3 The FSC Members and Board of Directors ratified the revised Principle 9 in January 1999. 4 The FSC Members and Board of Directors ratified Principle 10 in February 1996. 10.6 Measures shall be taken to maintain or improve soil structure, fertility, and

PAGE 221

221 biological activity. The techniques and rate of harvesting, road and trail construction and maintenance, and the choice of species shall not result in long term soil degradation or adverse impacts on water quality, quantity or substantial deviation from st ream course drainage patterns. 10.7 Measures shall be taken to prevent and minimize outbreaks of pests, diseases, fire and invasive plant introductions. Integrated pest management shall form an essential part of the management plan, with primary reliance on prevention and biological control methods rather than chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Plantation management should make every effort to move away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers, including their use in nurseries. The use of chemicals is a lso covered in Criteria 6.6 and 6.7. 10.8 Appropriate to the scale and diversity of the operation, monitoring of plantations shall include regular assessment of potential on site and off site ecological and social impacts, (e.g. natural regeneration, eff ects on water resources and soil fertility, and impacts on local welfare and social well being), in addition to those elements addressed in principles 8, 6 and 4. No species should be planted on a large scale until local trials and/or experience have shown that they are ecologically well adapted to the site, are not invasive, and do not have significant negative ecological impacts on other ecosystems. Special attention will be paid to social issues of land acquisition for plantations, especially the protect ion of local rights of ownership, use or access. 10.95 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994 normally shall not qualify for certification. Certification may be allowed in circumstances where sufficient evidenc e is submitted to the certification body that the manager/owner is not responsible directly or indirectly of such conversion. The ten principles of FSC Certification taken from the FSC website: data/public/document_center/international_FSC_policies/standards/FSC_STD_01_001_ V4_0_EN_FSC_Principles_and_Criteria .pdf Accessed 19 February 2012.

PAGE 222

222 APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION LETTER AND FIELD SURVEY USED Estudio de factores que influyen en los ejidos forestales y su toma de decisiones acerca de su manejo del bosque comunitario Dawn Rodrguez Ward, Cel: 983 112 0187 Investigacin de Doctorado, Universidad de Florida Enero 2010 Solicitud de apoyo: Estoy realizando un estudio sobre los factores que influyen los ejidos forestales y su toma de de cisiones acerca de su manejo y acceso al bosque comunitario y su decisin de adoptar la certificacion de la madera (especficamente el sello de Forest Stewardship Council). Creo que los resultados de este estudio sern tiles para la formulacin de poltic as y acciones relacionadas a los ejidos forestales y su manejo de los recursos naturales. Una beca de la Fundacin Nacional de Ciencias (NSF) de los EEUU esta financiando mi trabajo del campo en Quintana Roo, Mxico. Para facilitar este estudio, solicito su apoyo en proporcionar los datos relevantes a mi estudio y proveer los contactos de diferentes ejidos forestales certificados y no certificados, y las organizaciones involucradas con ellas. Adems, me gustara recibir sus ideas, consejos y reacciones sob re el estudio. Agradecer mucho su apoyo y consideracin. A continuacion detallo una descripcion del trabajo que llevare a cabo. Preguntas del estudio: Certificacion: Por que los ejidos forestales adoptaron o no la certificacin de madera (especficamente la certificacin de buen manejo bajo el esquema SmartWood Forest Stewardship Council)? Cuales factores influyeron en su toma de decisin? Cuales problemas y/o beneficios se han obtenido a travs de la certificacin? Reglas del bosque comunitario: Cuales normas y reglas tienen los ejidos forestales sobre el manejo y acceso al bosque comunitario? Qu estructura poltica y organizacional tienen para implementar y hacer cumplir las reglas del manejo de bosque? Cuales actors y/o organism os influyen a la toma de decisiones del ejido sobre sus recursos naturales? La participacin en este estudio incluye a: Ejidatarios y pobladores, comisariados y consejos de vigilancia, tcnicos de las asociaciones civiles, auditores de programas de certif icacin, miembros de las organizaciones no gubernamentales, donantes, y compradores de la madera certificada. Datos confidenciales: Es importante aclarar que mantendr confidenciales los datos de mi estudio del campo. Significa que la identidad de las per sonas y las organizaciones entrevistadas no sern vinculadas a los resultados especficos.

PAGE 223

223 Tambien no voy a compartir la informacin especfica con otras personas ajenas a este estudio. Resultados: Las conclusiones y recomendaciones sern compartidas al f inal del estudio con todos los participantes. La informacin estara disponible en espaol, maya e ingles. Adems, implementare talleres en Quintana Roo para revisar y platicar sobre los resultados preliminares. Tambien pretendo publicar dos o tres artculo s sobre los resultados en revistas cientficas. Nombre: Otros puestos: 1. Edad: 2. Donde naci: 3. Ejidatario desde: Parcela agrcola (has): Comis desde q fecha: Ao fundado: Has total del ejido : Has del bosque/uso com n: Has. de area de reserva: Mayores actividades que genera ingresos en el ejido: 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. 6. Programas del gobierno que participan: 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. 6. CERTIFICACION y TOMA DE DECISIONES 1. Ud. Sabe que significa la certificacin de madera (sello verde)? 2. Que es la diferencia entre un ejido certificado de FSC y uno que no est certificado? 3. Ud recuerda porque (nombre de ejido) voto por la certificacin? Quien fue l a persona o grupo que introdujo el tema de la certificacin al ejido? 4. Cuales beneficios han tenido gracias a la certificacin? 5. Cuales problemas han tenido al debido a la certificacin? Como pueden superarlas? CARS. 6. Porque terminaron la certi ficacin en su ejido? Quien tomo esa decisin (dentro y fuera de la comunidad)?

PAGE 224

224 7. Piensa que los ejidatarios quieren volver a la certificacin? Por que? Que o quienes influyeran esa decisin? 8. A quien recomiendas debo hablar mas sobre este tema? ESTR UCTURA POLITICA 9A. Puede describir su puesto? Que es el rol/trabajo del Comis? 9B. Que es el rol de Asamblea General? 9 C Porque decidi tomar el puesto de comis? Como paso? Y que influyo su decisin? 9D. Ha trabajado en otro puesto de la comunidad? Cul? 9E. Ha trabajado en un puesto del gobierno/ asociacion civil/ comprador de madera? 10 A Hay beneficios de ser un comisariado? Cules son? 10B. Con que frecuencia reunes con los tecnicos (CA) o gobierno (CONAFOR)? 11. Durante su tiempo de comis que han sido los problemas o quejas que tiene la gente? Cuales han sido ms frecuentemente hablado en las asambleas? Cules son las quejas o problemas ms relacionados al bosque/uso comn? Existe un documento donde les escribe? 12. Que son las re glas de acceso al bosque (uso comn) uso y manejo? Como la gente sabe que puede/ no puede hacer en el bosque (i.e. reglas de faejina, arreglamiento ejidal/territorial)? Cazar: Extraer madera: Palisada: Otros productos forestales: 13. En su opinin, p orque la gente obedecen o no obedecen las reglas del bosque de uso comn? (de tierras agrcolas, etc.)? Que o quienes les vigilan? 14. Cmo ves la situacin del bosque/uso comn en los prximos 20 aos? 15. Donde uno puede conseguir: a) el plan de manejo b) reglamiento interno c) notas de las asambleas 16. Me puedes explicar (dibujar) la estructura politica del ejido incluyendo los grupos/trabajos asociados con la madera? (i.e. puestos asociado con la gobernabilidad del ejido)

PAGE 225

225 17. Nombres del comisariado Presidente: # Cel: Secretaria: # Cel: Tesorero: # Cel: Nombre de Consejo de Vigilancia: # Cel: Nombre de Delegado: Administradores de la madera: Grupos del trabajo: Quien es el tcnico que trabaja en el plan de manejo: Nombre de asociacin civil que pertenece: #Tel: E mail: MADERA: Metros cubicos de caoba: _____ m3 ( que corresponde a cada ejidatario) Metros cubicos de los demas maderas: _______m3 Utilidades que recibian en 2006 (antes del huraca n): __________ Pesos Utilidades que recibian en 2009 (durante el huracan): __________ Pesos # Aserraderos: # Carpinteras: A quienes mayormente vende su madera? Quienes compran la madera certificada? Si exportan Madera, hasta cuales paises? # Gente que trabajan directamente con la madera en tu ejido: Nombre de tipos de puestos asociado con este trabajo:

PAGE 226


PAGE 227

227 LIST OF REFERENCES forests. Science 320(5882): 1460 1462. Agrawal, A. and C.C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservat ion. World Development 27(4): 629 649. Araujo, M., Kant, S. and L. Couto. 2009. Why Brazilian companies are certifying their forests? Forest Policy and Economics 11: 579 585. Arnold, J.E.M. 1992. Banerjee, O., Macpherson A. and J. Alavalapati. 2009. Towar d a policy of sustainable forest management in Brazil: a historical analysis. Journal of Environment and Development 18(2): 130 153. Bartley, T. 2003. Certifying forests and factories: states, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the ap parel and forest products fields. Politics & Society 31 (3): 433 464. Bass, S., K. Thornber, M. Markopolous, S. Roberts and M. Grieg Gran. 2001. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series London: IIED. Bernard, H.R. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantatative Approaches Lanham: AltaMira Press. Berkes, F. and M. Kislalioglu. 1991. Community based management and sustainable development, in J.R. Du rand, J. Lemoalle and J. Weber (eds.), La Recherche face a la peche artisanale pp. 567 Bolland, L.P., E. Ellis, M.R. Guariguata, I. Ruiz Mallen, S. Negrete Yankelevich and V. Reyes Garcia. 2011. Community managed forests and protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management. In press. Borgatti, S.P. 1996. ANTHROPAC 4.0 Methods guide Columbia: Analytic Technology. Bray, D.B, C. Antinori, and J.M. Torres Rojo. 2006. The Mexican model of community forest management: the role of agrarian policy, forest policy and entrepreneurial organization. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 470 484. Bray, D.B., L. Merino Perez and D. B arry. 2005. The community forests of Mexico: Managing for sustainable landscapes. Austin : University of Texas Press.

PAGE 228

228 Bray, D.B., L. Merino Perez, P. Negreros Castillo, G. Segura Warnholtz, J.M. Torres managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conservation Biology 17(3): 672 677. Bray, D.B. and M.B. Wexler. 1996. Forest Policies in Mexico, in L. Randall (ed.), pp. 217 228. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non State Market Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems (Eco labeling Programs) Gain Rule Making Authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and In stitutions. 15(4): 503 529. Cashore, B., G. Auld and D. Newsom. 2004. Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non state authority. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cashore, B., F. Gale, E. Meidniger and D. Newsom (eds.). 200 6. Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Countries New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Publication Series. Cabarle, B., F. Chapela and S. Madrid, 1997. Introduccin: el manejo forestal y la certificacin, in L. Merino, G. Alatorre, B. Cabarle, F. Chapela and S. Madrid (eds.), El manejo forestal comunitario en Mxico y sus perspectivas de sustentabilidad, pp. 17 33. Cuernavaca: Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias UNAM. Charnley, S. and M. Poe. 2007. Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 301 354. CONAFOR. 2007. mal: Comisin Nacional Forestal. de Janvry, A. E. Sadoulet and W. Wolford. 2001. The changing role of the state in Latin American land reforms, in A. de Janvry, G. Gordillo, J.P. Platteau and E.Sadoulet (eds.), Access to land: rural poverty and rural action pp. 279 303. New York: Oxford University P ress. agrarian reform in Quintana Roo, Yucatan Peninsula. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Florida. Elliot, C. 2000. Forest Certification: A Policy Perspective. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Ellis, E. A. and L. Porter Bolland 2008. Is community based forest management more effective than protected areas? A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1971 1983.

PAGE 229

229 Fl achsenberg, H. and H. Galletti. 1998 Forest Man agement in Quintana Roo, Mexico in Primack, R.B., D. Bray, H. Galletti and I. Ponciano (eds ) Timber, Tourists, and Temple s, pp.47 60. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Fonseca, S.A. 2006. Certification in Mexico, in B. Cashore, F. Gale, E. Meidinger, and D. Newsom (eds.), Confronting Sustainability: Forest certification in developing and transitioning countries pp 407 434. New Haven: Yale Forestry and Environmental Studies Publications. F orest S tewardship Council. 200 7. About FSC: benefits. ( file:///Users/chileward/Desktop/MEXIC O/FSC_benefits.webarchive ). Accessed 11 February 2007. __________ 2011. Global FSC certificates: type and distribution. ( data/public/document_center/powerpoints_graphs/facts_figures/2011 07 15 Global FSC Certificates EN.pdf ). Accessed 15 August 2011. __________. 2012. FSC International Standard: FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship FSC STD 01 001 (version 4 0) EN. ( data/public/document_center/international_FSC_policies/standards/FSC_STD_01_001_ V4_0_EN_FSC_Principles_and_Criteria.pdf ) Accessed 19 February 2012. Foster, D. and B.L. Turner. 2004 The Long View: Human Environment Rela tionships in the Region, 1000 BC AD 1900 in Turner, B.L., J. Geoghehan and D. Foster (eds ) Integrated Land Change Science and Tropical Deforestation in the Southern Yucatn, pp.23 37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gale, F. 1998. The Tropical Timber T rade Regime Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Galletti, H.A. 1999. La selva maya en Quintana Roo (1983 1996) trece aos de conservacin y desarrollo comunal, in R.B. Primack, D. Bray, H. Galletti, I. Ponciano (eds.), La Selva Maya: conservacion y desarrollo pp. 1 21 Mexico D.F.: Siglo XXI Editores. Gereffi, G. and F. Mayer. 2004. The Demand for global governance. Working papers series SAN04 02. Durham : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke. Hayward, J. and I. Vertinsky. 1999. High exp ectations, unexpected benefits: what managers and owners think of certification. Journal of Forestry 97(2): 13 17. Humphries, S.S. 2010. Community based Forest Enterprises in Brazil and Mexico: Timber Production and Commercialization models, market engage ment, and financial viability. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Florida.

PAGE 230

230 Humphries, S.S. and K. Kainer. 2006. Local perceptions of forest certification for community based enterprises. Forest Ecology and Management 235: 30 43. INEGI. 2005. Conteo de poblacion y vivienda 2005. ( l/bvinegi/productos/censos/pobla cion/2010/princi_result/qroo/23_principales_resultados_cpv2010.pdf ). Accessed 1 February 2011. ________. 2010. Principales resultados del censo de poblacion y vivienda 2010. ( cion/2010 /princi_result/qroo/23_principales_resultados_cpv2010.pdf ). Accessed 1 February 2011. INEGI. 2012. La vegetacion en Mexico. ( rafia/espanol/datosgeogra/vegfauna/veget1.cfm ). Accessed 1 October 2012. Irvine, D. 1999. Certification and community forestry: Current trends, challenges, and potential. Background paper for the World Bank/WWF Alliance. Workshop on Independent Certificat ion. Washington D.C., Nov. 9 10, 1999. Keck, M.E. and K. Sikkink, 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in International Politics Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Klooster, D. 2003. Campesinos and Mexican forest policy during the 20th centu ry. Latin American Research Review 38: 94 126. ________. 2004. The intangible benefits of forest certification in Mexico: Fame, challenges, risks and opportunities: The 10 th Conference of the International Association for the study of common property, Oaxaca, Mexico. ( ). Accessed 27 July 2007. ________ 2005. Environmenta l certification of forests: the evolution of environmental governance in a commodity network. Journal of Rural Studies (21): 403 417. ________ 2006. Environmental certification of forests in Mexico: the Political Ecology of Nongovernmental market interve ntion. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3): 541 565. Madrid, S. and F. Chapela. 2003. Certification in Mexico: the case of Durango and Oaxaca, in A. Molnar (ed.), Forest certification and communities: looking forward to the next decade pp. 68 78. Washington. D.C.: Forest Trends. Markopolous, M. 2003. The role of certification in community based forest enterprise, in E. Meidinger, C. Elliott, and G. Oesten, (eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification pp. 105 130. V erlag: Remagen Oberwinter.

PAGE 231

231 Meidinger, E. 2003. Forest certification as a global civil society regulatory institution, in E. Meidinger, C. Elliott, and G. Oesten, (eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification pp. 265 289. Verlag: Remagen Oberwinter. Molnar, A. 2003. Forest certification and communities: looking forward to the next decade. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends. ( http://www.forest ublication_details.php?publicationID=126 ). Accessed 15 January 2008. Morell, M. 1992. Grassroots forest management initiatives in Central America: the role of local people's organizations. Unasylva 43(171): 11 20. Newson, D. and D. Hewitt. 2005. The global impacts of SmartWood Certification: final report New York: Rainforest Alliance. Nussbaum, R. and M. Simula, 2004. Forest certification: a review of impacts and assessment frameworks. Research Paper. New Haven: Yale University School of Forestry a nd Environmental Studies. Ostrom, E. and E. Schlager. 1996. The formation of property rights, in S. Hanna, C. Folke, and K.G. Maler (eds.), Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment, pp. 127 156. Washington D.C.: Island Press.Overdevest, C. and M. Rickenbach, 2006. Forest certification and institutional governance: An empirical study of forest stewardship council certificate holders in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 93 102. Pattberg, P. 2005. What Role for Private Rule Making in Global Environmental Governance? Analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). International Environmental Agreements 5: 175 189. Perera, P. and R.P. Vlosky. 2006. A history of forest certific ation. Louisiana Forest Products Development Center. Working paper No. 71. ( ). Accessed 12 February 2012. Poffenberg er M. 2006. People in the forest: community forestry experiences from Southeast Asia. International Journal of Environmental and Sustainable Development 5(1): 57 69. Rainforest Alliance. 2011. Facts: Our Global Reach. ( ). Accessed 15 September 2011. Robbins, P. 2004. Political Ecology: a critical introduction West Sussex: Wiley and Blackwell. Romney, A.K., S. Weller, and W.H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88(2): 313 338.

PAGE 232

232 Schmink, M. 1994. The socioeconomic matriz of deforestation, in L. Arizpe, P.M. Stone and D.C. Ma jor (ed), Population and Environment pp.253 271. Boulder, Westview Press. Segura, G. 2004. Forest certification and governments: the real and potential influence on regulatory frameworks and forest policies. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends. Silva, E. 199 4. Thinking politically about sustainable development in the tropical forests of Latin America. Development and Change 25(4): 697 721. Spradley, J. 1979. The ethnographic interview New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Stone, S. 2003. From Tapping to cutting trees: participation and agency in two community based timber management projects in Acre, Brazil. PhD thesis, University of Florida. Swallow, B.M. and D.W. Bromley. 1995. I nstitutions, governance and incentives in common property regimes for Afri can rangeland. Environmental and Resource Economics 6(2): 99 118. Thornber, K. and M. Markopolous. 2001. Certification: its impacts and prospects for community forests, stakeholders and markets. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Topik, S. 2005. The Revolution, the State and Economic Development in Mexico. History Compass 3(1): 11 39. Van Dam, J. and H. Savenije. 2011. Enhancing the trade of legally produced timber: a guide to initiatives. Wageninen: Tropenbos Inter national. Vogel, David. 2005. The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility Washington: Brookings. Watts, M. 2002. Green capitalism, green governmentality. The American Behavioral Scientist 45: 131 3 17. n DC: Forest Trends. Wilshusen, P. 2005. Community adaptation or collective breakdown? The emergence of Merino and D. Barry (eds.), The community forests of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Landscapes pp. 151 179. Austin: University of Texas Press. Wilshusen, P. 2010. The Receiving End of Reform: Everyday responses to neoliberalism in Southeastern Mexico. Antipode 42(3): 767 799.

PAGE 233

233 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dawn Ward was born in Vi a del Mar, Chile and raised in the concrete jungle of New York City. Her love for the outdoors was instilled by family walks in whichever green spaces they could find ; Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Queens, Palisades Parkway, N.J. and Bear Mountain, N.Y. She became interested in environmental issues at the ripe old age of 13 when she first learned about the holes in the ozone layer and the massive deforestation occurring in the Amazon. Dawn has always mixed her studies with the natural and social sciences. She received a B.A. in a nthropology and in e nvironmental s ciences from New York Unive rsity and a M.A. in Social Anthropology and Development from the Universidad de Chile. She received h er PhD in Interdisciplinary Ecology from the University of Florida School of Natural Resources and the Environment in 2012 She has conducted fieldwork with small scale famers and foresters in Peru, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Florida. Most of her work has been focused on examining the use and management of natural resources In Latin America as well as certification schemes for agricultural, timber and non timber forest products.