Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala
Context, Accomplishments and Challenges
Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala
Context, Accomplishments and Challenges
Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez ISBN 978-979-24-4699-9 41p.
First edition by PRISMA, 2005 Second edition by CIFOR and PRISMA, 2007
Design and layout by Cyprianus Jaya Napiun Photos by PRISMA
Published by Center for International Forestry Research Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia Tel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org Methodology and Acknowledgements
This publication is a collaborative effort by PRISMA in the project “Learning to Build Accompaniment Models for Grassroots Forestry Organizations in Brazil and Central America,” sponsored by the Ford Foundation and executed jointly by the Center for International Forest Research (CIFOR) and the Asociación Coordinadora Indígena Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria Centroamericana (ACICAFOC).
The context analysis of the Asociación de Comunidades Forestales de Petén (ACOFOP) combined a literature review of secondary sources with field work in Petén (March and October 2004). This included participation in workshops for community leaders and self-systematizers, and interviews with Erick Cuellar of the ACOFOP technical team, Richard Grant and Aldo Rodas of Alianza para un Mundo Justo, Luis Romero of the Centro Maya and Héctor Rosado, Director of the National Council for Protected Areas (CONAP) in Petén. The paper was enriched by information provided at international workshops and exchange visits held in San Salvador (May 2004, methodological workshop) and Petén (October 2004).
Peter Taylor (Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, United States) was in charge of methodological assistance and also carefully reviewed draft versions, making extremely useful suggestions that resulted in sounder research findings. The contents of the draft prior to this report were much clearer and better structured thanks to suggestions made by Deborah Barry (Program Officer for Development and Environment, Ford Foundation for México and Central America); Rubén Pasos (Project Coordinator); Marcedonio Cortave, Apolinario Córdova, Erick Cuellar, Walter Aroche, Carlos Kursel and Marío Rivas (ACOFOP); and Virgilio Reyes (FLACSO Guatemala).
For their unflagging collaboration, contributions and information throughout the preparation of this paper, we would especially like to thank Marcedonio Cortave, Executive Director of ACOFOP, along with the ACOFOP Technical and Administrative Team.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges iii
Contents
Methodology and Acknowledgements iii Abbreviations and Acronyms vi Summary vii Introduction 1
Community Forest Concessions: Stages in Their Development 3 Location and Ecology 3 Petén (1954-1989): The Development of a Territorial Role 4 Establishment of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (1989-1994) 5 Creation of Community Forest Concessions (1994-1996) 8 ACOFOP: Origins and Evolution (1996-2004) 10 Funding and Assistance for Community Forest Concessions 17 International Funding and Influence in Petén 17 USAID and its Role in Petén’s Conservation and Development 18 Assistance Models for Community Forest Concessions 19 The Official Assistance Model 20 Pro-Community Assistance 22 Lessons for Strengthening Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Local Livelihoods 23 Social and Environmental Impacts of Community Management on the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) 25 Natural Resource Conservation and Management 25 Changes in Livelihoods Strategies 27 Strengthening Community Organization 28 Challenges to Community Forest Management 29 The Adoption of a Territorial Perspective 29 Redefining Community Institutional Frameworks 34 The Challenge of Community Commercialization 34 Integrating Local Actors into Community Forest Management 37
References 39
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACICAFOC Central American Indigenous and Peasant Coordinator ACOFOP Association of Forest Communities of Petén BCIE Central American Bank for Economic Integration BID Inter-American Development Bank BIOFOR Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry Project CALAS Center for Environmental and Social Legal Action CATIE Tropical Agricultural Center for Research and Higher Education CCAD Central American Commission on Environment and Development CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CI Conservation International CIR Romero Christian Initiative CONAP National Council for Protected Areas CONCOFOP Consultative Council of Forest Communities of Petén DED German Development Service FARES Foundation for Antropological Research and Environmental Studies FORESCOM Community Forestry Concessions Enterprise FSC Forest Stewardship Council FYDEP Promotion and Economic Development of Petén GHF Global Heritage Fund HELVETAS Swiss Cooperation Agency ICCO Inter-Church Organization for Development Cooperation INAB National Forestry Institute INTA Institute for Agrarian Transformation ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization KFW KFW Banking Group MAGA Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food MBR Maya Biosphere Reserve ONG Non Governmental Organization PPP Puebla Panamá Plan PROSELVA Program for the Conservation of the Peten Tropical Forest RUTA Regional Unit for Technical Assistance SEGEPLAN General Secretariat for Economic Planning SIGAP Guatemalan Protected Areas System TLC Free Trade Agreement SUCHILMA Union of Chicle Tappers and Wood Workers TNC The Nature Conservancy UICN The World Conservation Union UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNO United Nations Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development WWF World Wildlife Fund
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges vi Summary
The Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) covers security problems from illegal trafficking in flora, 2,112,940 hectares (ha). It is located in the Peten fauna, archeological resources, undocumented region of northern Guatemala along the border migrants and illegal drugs. This trend was in of Mexico and Belize. The MBR is part of the contrast to the conservation initiatives that Mayan Forest (Selva Maya), shared by these resulted in the establishment of the MBR in countries. In the MBR, 445,804 ha are managed 1990. by community forest concessions, which in just a few years have developed a forest management The creation of the MBR led to a restructuring model that is having a positive impact on of local institutions under the direction of the natural resource conservation and community National Council of Protected Areas (CONAP); livelihood strategies. this centered on land use regulation, which is especially strict for the protected areas and Reducing the impact of forest fires and ending extraction zones. illegal lumbering and the encroachment of new settlements are the primary social and The urgency and efforts to conserve the Petén’s environmental accomplishments of community natural resources, the signing of the Peace management. As a result, families are reorga- Accords and pressure from local residents from nizing and improving their livelihood strategies, the Association of Forest Communities of Petén integrating the forest as their primary natural (ACOFOP) who were fighting for access to land asset. In addition, community concessions have and forest concessions, allowed communities to made successful inroads in the certified timber gain control of 445,804 ha of forest concessions. market and are taking the first steps to organize around its commercialization. International assistance agencies have played an important role in managing the MBR, using The history of how community forest concessions different strategies and contributions that have developed is enmeshed in the changing social evolved over time. One of the most important and political dynamics of a territory that played institutions has been the United States Agency several different roles during the past century. for International Development (USAID), not The once isolated and unknown forest, dominated only because of its financial support, but by the extraction of chicle and precious woods, also because of its involvement in designing became a receiving zone for domestic migrants the institutional management structure. As in the mid-20th century, with intense pressure CONAP’s primary counterpart, USAID focused on the agricultural frontier and serious national mainly on conservation technical assistance,
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges vii Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez provided by international conservation NGOs, These models have each made very different, which in turn worked with local NGOs created yet complementary, contributions. Each type specifically to implement these projects. The most of assistance has facilitated the development of significant advances were in the area of technical components crucial to the success of community training, which includes forest management concessions and ACOFOP, although there are and commercialization. However, NGOs now new and more complex challenges requiring adopted a leadership and technical assistance new types of assistance. Current challenges go style that failed to strengthen community beyond the area occupied by the concessions and capacity for integrated forest management and their management model. ACOFOP has set its organizational and business administration. sights on the Petén as a territory where it needs By 2001, this model had run its course and a to participate politically to address economic new phase began in which communities had to integration and free trade proposals such as develop their production and commercialization the Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP) and the Central capacities more autonomously. America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA); the Mundo Maya Sustainable Development Another type of assistance, more focused on Tourism Program proposed by the Inter- strengthening community capacity, has coexisted American Development Bank (IDB) and the alongside this model, providing valuable input Mirador Basin Park conservation proposal. for the development of community concessions At the same time, the institutional framework and ACOFOP. Different donor agencies have for community forest management needs a provided direct support to ACOFOP and its revamping that focuses on its territorial role and institutions to strengthen their organizational takes an ecosystem or environmental services and advocacy skills and capacity at the Central perspective that guarantees the recognition of American and international level. This has the ecological and social values of community enabled ACOFOP to become the leading concessions. organization in community forest concession management.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges viii Introduction
One of the greatest environmental challenges managed forests to convert them into protected faced by tropical countries is the design of areas, and the institutional and community development models that fight rural poverty management models weakness in responding while preserving natural resources (Scherr et to newly-proposed economic integration, free al., 2004). Accordingly, the loss and degradation trade and tourism initiatives. of tropical forests is currently one of the international community’s major conservation Given these major issues, it is of utmost concerns (Guariguata and Kattan, 2002). This importance to systematize successful deterioration has many causes, and as with community forest management experiences other environmental problems, they are related that currently face the dilemma of having to social, ecological and economic processes that to confront the abovementioned challenges. originate locally and extend to a global scale Through this analysis, not only can the context (Bebbington and Batterbury, 2001). and factors affecting these processes be better understood, but solutions and actions to ensure Recently, experiences have been documented that community strategies work well can also be where communities have developed forest explored. management techniques that sustain their livelihoods and, at the same time, conserve the Even though the experience of community forest. A number of publications have identified forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere similar processes in India (Poffenberger and Reserve (MBR) has been widely analyzed McGean, 1998), Cameroon (Jum et al., 2003) and (Gretzinger, 1999; Reyna Contreras et al., 1999; Mexico (Bray et al., 2003), to mention a few. All Finger-Stich, 2003), there has been no up-to- of these cases show that peasant and indigenous date systematization of the process. This paper communities can make a rational use of forest attempts to fill part of this gap by providing a resources and conserve them. historical analysis of the social, economic and political context in which concessions operate. However, the question remains as to just how This will provide a better understanding of the sustainable these types of strategies are for experience, origins and role of the concession- the future and how forest communities will holding communities, and useful lessons for face important present-day challenges. These people in the Petén and in other communities challenges include the communities’ capacity engaged in similar efforts. Finally, this analysis to commercialize products, a resurging will hopefully aid international assistance “conservationist wave” vying for control of agencies and government institutions.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges
Community Forest Concessions: Stages in Their Development
Location and Ecology The department of Petén is located in northern of the population is female and young and are Guatemala; bordering Belize to the east and Maya Indians from the Kekchi, Itzá and Mopán Mexico to the north and west, and, internally, ethnic groups, living primarily in rural areas. with the departments of Alta Verapaz and Izabal This large territory consists of at least two to the south (Map 1). It is the largest department broad ecological zones – tropical moist forests of Guatemala, covering 35,854 km2. Lacking and tropical wet forests – with variations in roads through the dense forest, the Petén was precipitation and seasonality (Universidad extremely isolated until the 1960s. Rafael Landívar, 1984). The Petén is known worldwide for its huge biological diversity and According to the official census, 366,735 people cultural wealth, with some 1,400 known plant were living in Petén in 2002 (INE, 2002), most species and approximately 450 animal species, of them migrants from other departments. Half including birds (Elías et al., 1997).
Map 1. Location of Petén in Guatemala
United States The Bahamas
Mexico Cuba PETÉN Jamaica Haiti
Maya Biosphere Nicaragua Reserve Petén, Guatemala Costa Rica Mexico Belize Panama Colombia
Guatemala
Honduras
El Salvador
Source: Modified from http://www.propeten.org/mapas.htm. Consulted June 30,.2004.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Petén (1954-1989): The aim of the rural colonization policy was to control the conflicts caused by the demand for The Development of a Territorial Role land in socially vulnerable regions, including This period witnessed historical processes the Verapaz region, the highlands and the Pacific that brought about the institutional and coast. In 1959, with support from the United environmental transformation of the Petén. States Agency for International Development The evolution of the Petén’s territorial role is (USAID), the Enterprise for the Promotion and closely related to its gradual integration into Development of El Petén (FYDEP) was created. Guatemala’s social and political life. This autonomous agency served as the only governmental entity in Petén from 1959 to 1987. The once isolated unknown forest, which FYDEP’s objectives included the following traditionally had served for the extraction of (Schwartz, 2000): chicle gum (Manilkara spp.) around 1898 and other non-timber products (Schwartz, 2000), • Integrate the Petén region to the country, rapidly turned into a zone of migration in due to its extreme historical isolation; the mid-20th century. Additionally, there was • Promote the settlement and economic intense pressure on the agricultural frontier and development of the region through the sale serious national security problems due to the of land; proliferation of activities related to organized crime, drug trafficking and the movement of • Harvest precious woods; undocumented migrants. This trend was in • Increase basic grain production in sharp contrast to the conservation initiatives that Guatemala. led to the establishment of the MBR in 1990. According to Elías et al. (1997), the FYDEP sold Until the 1950s, the Petén had been an area a total of 1,980,000 ha to 39,000 beneficiaries. totally isolated from Guatemala’s productive However, Schwartz (2000: 30-32) and Elías et al. life. Its ecological richness had fueled different (1997) hold that the FYDEP, charged with the task extractive activities, such as chicle tapping, of selling land, gave preference to large plots for illegal logging of precious woods and the the middle- and upper-class mestizo population. indiscriminate hunting of wild animals such as Thus, the rural colonization policy put strong alligators and turtles (Elías et al., 1997). Due to the pressure on the forests of southern Petén, since absence of government institutions which could one of the requirements for obtaining a plot control development patterns in the region, was to clear the forest and prepare the land for the first human settlements began to grow up planting. This practice caused a dramatic shift around the hunting of wild animals. It was at in land use, which led to the development of this time that communities like Carmelita and precarious human settlements on land that did Uaxactún were founded, populated primarily not have the potential for long-term, sustained by extractors and small farmers. farming. Petén’s territorial role began to change in 1954, Additionally, the FYDEP was assigned to set when the area turned into what Elías et al. (1997) up cooperatives along the banks of the Pasión have called “the escape valve for Guatemala’s and Usumacinta rivers to prevent Mexico from agrarian problems” by becoming the main building a hydroelectric plant. During this supplier of government lands for poor, landless period, oil exploration also began in an area peasant and indigenous populations. This between what are now two large national parks: agrarian colonization policy was successfully Laguna del Tigre and Sierra del Lacandón. promoted by the government during the military dictatorship (1954-1986), and as a result, Petén’s The dynamics of production in Petén were closely population increased from approximately 25,000 linked to extractive activities at different scales, inhabitants in the 1960s to an estimated 730,000 in 1999 (Shriar, 2001; Sundberg, 2003). However, 1 it led to serious social conflict and had important The development of these cooperatives was motivated by the Guatemalan government’s desire to prevent Mexico from ecological impacts since the forest was cleared to building a dam on its side of the Usumacinta River and the grow subsistence crops and create pastures. immigration of Mexican peasants (Schwartz, 2000).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez complemented by extensive livestock production thirteen massacres took place, such as the and subsistence agriculture. Foreign companies 1982 Dos Erres Massacre in the department of and Guatemalan private companies controlled La Libertad, where a Kaibil commando unit the extraction of chicle gum, timber and oil, murdered 350 people, including children, whereas small local groups were involved accusing them of being guerrillas (Amnesty in the harvest and commercialization of xate International, 2002). palm and allspice, illegal logging, subsistence agriculture and extensive livestock production. Because of the violence, thousands of families Power groups included chicle gum companies, abandoned their communities and fled into the oil industry, loggers, landowners and the the forest; fearing further persecution, many military, who enjoyed great autonomy in the fled to Mexico as refugees, staying there for absence of government regulation. In addition, some 10 years. This situation led to a further a large organized labor force was expanding breakdown in governance across the country around chicle production. and to increasing pressure to seek solutions to the social causes of the conflict. By the late 1980s, the agrarian colonization policy was beginning to run out of steam, while at the same time international conservation tendencies were coming to the forefront. Organizations such Establishment of the Maya as Conservation International (CI), The Nature Biosphere Reserve (1989-1994) Conservancy (TNC), the Rodale Institute and In the 1970s, the United Nations Educational, CARE International (Sundberg, 1998) started to Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) exert pressure in light of the loss of biodiversity formed the Man and the Biosphere Program, resulting from the settlement pattern and which set up the World Network of Biosphere uncontrolled extraction. Together with other Reserves (UNESCO, 1996). Central America, in international assistance agencies, including the late 1980s and early 1990s, defined a regional USAID, which had supported rural colonization, conservation policy based on the environmental they launched an offensive to protect Petén agenda developed at the Earth Summit. Using forests. Adding to plans for building a highway this framework, biosphere reserves were created to Petén, which would facilitate access by human in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa groups to the territory, were conservationist Rica. Complementary to these policies, other concerns to protect the Petén forest, which plans are being developed to ensure the future provided the initial driving force for establishing of forests outside the reserve areas. the Maya Biosphere Reserve. During this period Petén went from being During this period, several guerrilla corridors Guatemala’s agricultural frontier to being a ran through areas of the Petén. Additionally, conservation zone of international interest. there was a strong presence by the army, the According to Klein (2000), the international state institution that historically had had the community and the Guatemalan government greatest coverage, resources and profile in the were very concerned with the preservation of territory (MINUGUA, 2004b). During the war, the Petén’s forest, which led to an institutional the army had important military bases in the overhaul that began with the dissolution of region, such as the Kaibil Center for Training the FYDEP and the establishment of new and Special Operations, the training center of government institutions. Guatemala’s army’s counterinsurgency force, commonly known as the Kaibiles. Additionally, thousands of civil patrols were created, which 2 Biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal/marine received direct orders from the army. ecosystems or a combination thereof, internationally recognized as such. They are intended to fulfill three complementary functions: conservation, sustainable economic and human The militarization of the Petén created an development, and logistic support for research and education environment that led to the proliferation of (UNESCO, 1996). 3 accusations and revenge by local residents, These include the Forestry Action Plan for Central America (PAFCA) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture especially because of the stiff competition Organization (FAO), the Maya Forestry Action Plan and between migrants for land. During the war, CATIE’s Madeleña Regional Program (Pasos, in preparation).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
In 1989, the National Council on Protected CONAP zoned the MBR with the objective Areas (CONAP) was established as the highest of encouraging and executing “activities and administrative and coordinating authority of the programs conducive to preventing negative Guatemalan Protected Areas System (SIGAP). effects on the natural resources in the Maya With USAID support, CONAP established the Biosphere Reserve” (CONAP, 1996:17). Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) in 1990, through Following is a description taken from CONAP Decree 5-90 (Klein, 2000; Soza, 2003). The MBR (1996:17) of each of the three zones that were covers 2,112,940 ha and its creation has led to established for this purpose (see Map 2): a new distribution of the uses of the territory (UNESCO, 2002). 1) Core Zones (CZ). “These are strict conservation areas located at the heart of the MBR. They are As a result, CONAP became the most important heavily protected wilderness and archeological government body in Petén. The new institutional areas kept free of human intervention. structure was centered on regulating land Demarcation of the strict conservation zones shall use, with a strong focus on protected areas be done in the field, this being a priority activity; and extraction zones. In order to control land likewise, CONAP will define a management pressure and conflicts resulting from the eviction strategy for the purpose of interconnecting the of inhabitants from the protected zones, the core zones to improve fulfillment of the MBR’s National Institute for Agrarian Transformation objectives”. (INTA) took over the land transfer functions of the FYDEP, although with less authority and 2) Multiple Use Zones (MUZ). “These areas fewer resources (Elías et al., 1997). function as a buffer for the core zones and are intended for a variety of sustainable activities According to CONAP (1996:15-16), these were and uses, depending on their resource potential. the MBR´s management objectives: They constitute approximately 50 per cent of the Maya Biosphere Reserve and are devoted to the • Conserve the archaeological and natural sustainable harvest of xate palm (Chamaedorea wealth of the MBR, so that they can provide spp.), allspice (Pimienta dioica), chicle gum opportunities for sustainable development (Manilkara spp.), wicker (Philodendron spp.) and to the country’s present and future other wild plants, seeds, timber and fauna, generations; and contain restricted areas for carrying out • Safeguard the different tropical ecosystems traditional activities and the utilization of non- in the MBR; renewable resources under strict controls. The MUZ in turn is divided into Special Use Zones • Develop the sustainable use of the existing and Cultural and Archeological Preservation natural and cultural resources to provide areas.” long-term development options; • Provide sustainable economic activities 3) Buffer Zone (BZ). “The primary objective of within the MBR and surrounding region, to the Buffer Zone (BZ) is to relieve pressure from improve community living conditions; the MBR through the stabilization of appropriate uses of the land and natural resources in the area • Conserve the aesthetic value of the MBR adjacent to the MBR. In this zone, neighboring for the purpose of promoting tourism in a communities will be provided environmental natural environment. education and rural extension programs on sustainable ways to use the land that do not CONAP became the governing body charged depend on the exploitation of the MBR’s with enforcing regulations and the Master natural resources, and as a result, permit their Plan for the Maya Biosphere Reserve. For this conservation. CONAP will collaborate with purpose, CONAP set up its main office in Flores, public and private organizations to provide Petén, enabling it to be closely involved in the services and infrastructure necessary in the zoning, management and monitoring. Buffer Zone is to satisfy the basic needs of the rural population settled in the zone. Attention Using the prevailing conservation categories of the time and observing the conditions for 4 CONAP is a public entity that reports directly to the President belonging to the biosphere reserves network, of Guatemala (Legislative Decree 4-89 and its amendments).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Map 2. Zoning of the Maya Biosphere Reserve
Biotope N National Park Dos Lagunas National Park Mirador Rio Azul W E
S
Biotope National Park Laguna Laguna del Tigre del Tigre Multiuse Zone
Biotope National Park San Migue La Palotada Tikal ne Buffer zo
National Park Sierra del Lacandon
Cerro Cahui
National Park Sistema de Información Geográfica Biotope Centro de Monitoreo y Evaluación Multiuse Zone Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas Buffer zone Región VIII, Petén
Source: CEMEC-CONAP will be given to seeking a solution to land tenure, by several factors, including the economic crisis in a way that will provide greater security for and the return of persons displaced by the armed the occupants and will reduce pressure on the conflict (Elíaset al., 1997). MBR.” This new wave of migration set off “agarradas” or This land use plan allows for the controlled use illegal land invasions, provoking serious clashes and extraction of forest resources in the multiple with government authorities. Conflicts also use and buffer zones. However, this zoning did arose with the communities that had remained not take into account the presence of human in the reserve. At this point, CONAP realized settlements or the complex social, political how difficult it was to manage a reserve with and economic dynamics of Petén. Instead, a human population. Strong local opposition to restrictive policy was enacted that indefinitely this exclusionary model led to serious outbreaks suspended all extractive activities, pending the of violence; CONAP employees were targeted development of an acceptable master plan to with the burning of vehicles and guard posts regulate the use and management of natural and even kidnappings (Cuellar, 2004). resources. In support of the MBR’s management, the The restrictions over the protected areas led to government of Guatemala signed an agreement serious conflicts with the population because with USAID to create the Maya Biosphere they included the placement of guards and the Project, opening the door for many conservation confiscation of timber and firewood, clashing NGOs. These include CI, TNC, IUCN and CARE, with the social pressure for access to land. which are implementing project components Matters became even more complicated with the on environmental education, enterprise wave of internal migration in the 1990s caused development and park protection. Later on,
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez other international organizations got involved, • The signing of the Peace Accords contributed such as the Tropical Agricultural Center for to the visibility, international support and Research and Higher Education (CATIE) and strengthening of community management the Rodale Institute. Another group of national processes during the administration of NGOs was created to work as partners with the President Álvaro Arzú (1996-2000); international conservation NGOs; these include • Because of ungovernability and especially Naturaleza para la Vida (NPV), the Asociación conflicts with peasant communities, CONAP Centro Maya, and others (Chemonics-BIOFOR was open to alternatives that involved and IRG-EPIQ, 2000). communities in an effort to help resolve these problems; Creation of Community Forest • Community concessions were one of the most viable options, given the conservation Concessions (1994-1996) objectives of the time. The urgency of the Of the 2,112,940 ha in the MBR, 445,804 are being situation and efforts displayed by CONAP, managed by community forest concessions. The USAID and international conservation communities that were awarded concessions NGOs to preserve Petén’s natural resources vary widely in their ethnic background, led them to reject concessions to industrial composition and development. The following logging operations as an option; types of settlements can be distinguished: • The growing pressure from organized communities fighting for land tenure and • Petenero communities: originating as access to forest concessions. extractive communities, they appeared in the region during the chicle era between the These elements led us to examine in detail the 1920s and 1950s (e.g. Carmelita, Uaxactún historic creation and development of the MBR. and Melchor de Mencos); In the early 1990s, the region had reached a point • Peasants of indigenous and mestizo origin where it was ungovernable; at the same time, in search of access to land for farming and the FYDEP’s centralized model had become livestock after the 1960s (Elías et al., 1997); outdated and the territory lacked development alternatives. The agrarian situation was • Indigenous communities from different worsening with unfettered encroachment of the ethnic groups : these communities had been agricultural frontier, intense land speculation displaced during the war and then returned and continuing conflicts over access to land. in the mid-1990s (Elías et al., 1997). In the department’s agricultural areas, powerful Some of the communities that were awarded groups were demanding control of the land concessions have a mix of these groups, making (MINUGUA, 2004b). Meanwhile, the illegal them quite heterogeneous, also in terms of extraction of timber and other products as well land tenure. Many of the communities got land as the looting of archeological sites remained through FYDEP programs; others settlements unpunished. There was also increased insecurity were created by repatriates and demobilized ex- due to the proliferation of transit routes for combatants while other communities invaded undocumented migrants, contraband and land. drug trafficking. Despite the army’s strong presence, the government seemed to be unable The establishment of the multiple use zone in to face any of these problems, which increased the MBR raised the expectations of the different societal demands in terms of access to land and social groups in the territory, especially loggers, attention to the region. The discontent resulted soldiers, communities and migrants. in roadblocks, public demonstrations and takeovers of oil refineries (Elíaset al., 1997). Therefore, how was the MUZ defined as an area to be managed by community forest concessions? This question is not easy to answer; however, four key contextual factors determined the 5 Especially Qeqchi, Mopan, Itza, Canjobal, Jacalteco, Mam, formation of community forest concessions: Quiche, Chuj, Katchiquel, Pocomchi.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
In this context of territorial ungovernability, parks model in the Central American region. Nicaragua was also going through one of the However, land from the MUZ needed to be most transcendental moments in its recent allocated, since the industrial sector would not political history with the signing of the Peace stop pushing to obtain concessions. CONAP and Accords in December 1996. Pressure for human its main partners (international conservation rights contributed to the stipulations accepted organizations and USAID) refused to give by the Guatemalan government during the concessions to industrial loggers since there talks leading up to the Accords, and access were indications that they would destroy the to the use of natural resources became one forest if they were granted access. This framed a of the government’s commitments for their rationale against loggers that was not necessarily fulfillment. A deadline was set to grant natural pro-community. Granting concessions to resource management concessions by 1999 to communities was increasingly a “lesser evil” for small- and medium-size groups of organized conservation interests. peasants on 100,000 ha in multiple use areas for the purposes of sustainable forest management, As will be seen further on, organized protected areas, ecotourism and other activities communities already existed during this time compatible with the sustainable use of natural that were fighting for access to natural resources resources (MINUGUA, 2004a). in the Multiple Use Zone areas, putting pressure on CONAP. CONAP eventually accepted the Furthermore, the government needed to idea of community concessions, seeing them create the necessary social conditions for the perhaps as the only alternative to industrial reintegration of people displaced by the war, loggers. However, both the private sector and in addition to ensuring a stable society as the the government had serious doubts about the guarantor of the development of an incipient communities´ hability to manage a forest, given democracy. that there had been no prior experience in Petén to demonstrate the viability of organized In terms of conservation interests, the MBR communities managing forests. Logging was a key component for securing the natural companies took advantage of this situation,
Map 3. Location of Community Concessions in the Multiple Use Zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve
Special Use Zone PNLT, Dos Lagunas North Paxbán Mirador - Río Azul Mirador - Río Azul Mexico Belize Laborantes Cooperatives del Bosque Laguna Laguna del Tigre Selva Maya Honduras Carmelita Uaxactún del Tigre El Salvador Custodios Impulsores río La Gloria escondido San Andrés Cruce a la de la Selva Suchitecos Colorada Árbol La Pasadita El Santa Rosita La Colorada Verde San Esfuezo Miguel la Yaxha Palotada Tikal El Pilar Buffer zone Nakúm Sierra del Lacandón Naranjo
San Miguel Unión Maya Itza Bioitzá La Lucha El Retalteco Road to Melchor Técnica Agropecuaria de Mencos Bethel La Felicidad
National Parks and Biotope Monte Sinai Biological corridor Community Forestry Concessions Private Forestry Concessions Buffer zone Cooperatives
Source: CEMEC-CONAP
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez discrediting community groups and proposing to defend their rights as potential beneficiaries industrial concessions, which would exclude of the forest concessions. They formed the community groups, limiting them to providing Consultative Council of Forest Communities of a labor force for the industries. Petén (CONCOFOP), which was supported by SUCHILMA. Even though it did not have legal Despite this resistance, CONAP established status, CONCOFOP became the coordinator of community concessions and by 2000 it had community organizations demanding access allocated a considerable percentage of the to concessions. When it became a legally Multiple Use Zone as concessions to community recognized association, the name was changed organizations along with two industrial to the Association of Forest Communities of concessions (Map 3) (Chemonics-BIOFOR and Petén (ACOFOP). IRG-EPIQ, 2000). Concessions are granted for 25 years and contracts are renewable; they ACOFOP began as a not-for-profit second- permit the rational use of timber, the extraction level organization, formed originally by 22 of non-timber products such as xate palm leaf organizations from 30 communities located and chicle, and the development of tourism. in the Multiple Use Zone and the Buffer However, land remains property of the state. Zone. Its organizational structure consists of a General Assembly as the highest authority, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification formed by active associates; a nine-member was a requirement imposed by CONAP to retain Board of Directors made up of the legal the forest concession. CONAP supports forest representatives of the community organizations certification because it ensures strict control and led by a President, who is also ACOFOP’s over forest management, which is consistent legal representative; and the Executive with its conservation objectives. However, Director, responsible for administration and certification has not resolved market issues nor management (Cortave, 2003) (see Figure 1). has it attracted higher prices for the higher value The organization’s primary strategic goal is to species (Nittler and Tschinkel, 2005). promote the socioeconomic development of forest communities through the sustainable use of the forest. This objective is carried out ACOFOP: Origins and Evolution through the organization’s two main divisions: Community Development, which attends to (1996-2004) strengthening social and human capital and Community organization has been crucial to advocacy work; and Production Promotion, in the process of negotiating access to concessions charge of the work related to forest management and the latter development of community and biodiversity. forest management. Much of the organizational capacity displayed by ACOFOP has its origins in One of ACOFOP’s characteristics has been its the Union of Chicle Tappers and Wood Workers capacity to be involved in national networks (SUCHILMA). However, several of the most and Central American organizations. ACOFOP important community leaders are not linked participated in the formation and development to the trade union; instead they participated in of the Central American Indigenous and Peasant community demonstrations demanding access Coordinator of Communal Agroforestry to forest resources (timber, firewood and non- (ACICAFOC) (Cortave, 2003), a community- timber forest products). These protests took based organization that brings together different place mainly in communities that remained kinds of small and medium-size agroforestry, inside the protected zones once the MBR was established in 1990, and responded to the threat that the government might grant concessions to the private sector. 6 The only industrial concessions that stayed were the BAREM and Comercial GIBOR companies. In 1995, some community leaders who had been 7 Formed with representatives from the communities of Uaxactun, Carmelita, Bethel, a group of extractivists from the participating in the negotiations over the zoning neighborhood Suchitan from Melchor de Menchos and nine of the MBR proposed forming a united front communities from the Flores municipality.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 10 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Figure 1. ACOFOP Organizational Chart This debate has brought out the different existing perspectives on natural resource access and management. On one hand, the strict General Assembly conservation perspective sought to displace population groups settled in the reserve, which was seen as serving scientific conservation objectives. On the other, lumbermen wanted Advisory Board of Directors Council access to resources to continue large-scale logging. Finally, communities wanted to ensure their access to land and to the forest to secure Cooperation Executive Director Agency Advisors Assistant their livelihoods.
ACOFOP successfully swayed the decisions made by CONAP, which developed a model Administration that is more accessible to communities and that takes into consideration the commitments made by the central government. A consultation process was held that led to a new regulation: Community Production “Policies on granting concessions for the Development Promotion use and management of renewable natural resources in the multiple use zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve.” This regulation requires communities to have an NGO to provide them with technical assistance and to ensure proper use of the resources. It also needs to consider indigenous and peasant farmer producer groups the integrated management of the concession from Central America that are working for areas so that the communities can utilize the natural resource access, use and management resources in accordance with their management (ACICAFOC, 2005). plans. Conversely, industrial concessions are limited to being strictly forest-related (Cortave, Negotiating the Concessions 2003). Finally, after 10 years, ACOFOP won the adjudication of 12 community concessions. Community access to forest concessions involved a long process in which ACOFOP needed During the negotiations, many ACOFOP ample bargaining power when dealing with organizations still did not have the legal status that the government, environmental organizations would have enabled them to seek a concession. and industrialists. Despite the commitments Therefore, another thing that ACOFOP did was established in the Peace Accords, the to aid several of the organizations in legalizing government was highly skeptical of community their status, channeling technical, financial and organizations. Furthermore, the timber industry human resources so that they could qualify to argued that communities did not have technical, become legally constituted associations, civil administrative and business capacities nor were societies or cooperatives. they sufficiently organized for managing the concessions. ACOFOP Member Organizations Legally, the existing regulatory framework One of ACOFOP’s greatest strengths is its ability for adjudicating forest concessions limited the to organize, lobby and represent the interests of community organizations’ expectations for community organizations. It should be kept in access. Facing this adverse scenario, ACOFOP mind that these organizations have different centered the debate around community rights backgrounds and livelihood strategies that to forest resource access and management, are consistent with their settlement history. proposing community forest concessions as an This history explains the way they manage alternative to the logging industry’s extraction resources, their degree of development and their model. relationship with outside actors (see Table 1).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 11 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Table 1. ACOFOP Community Forest Concessions: General Characteristics and Level of Development
Organization Size of Managed No. of Ha per Characteristics Forest (ha) Members Member
More Advanced Organizations
Sociedad Civil Organización, 83,558 244 373 Area granted in concession Manejo y Conservación Uaxactún • More land and biodiversity (77% of the (OMYC) ACOFOP community concession land). • In La Técnica and UMI, management areas Sociedad Civil Árbol Verde 64,973 364 178.49 are owned by the coop. Institutional development and social capital Cooperativa Carmelita 53,797 122 440.95 • Greater internal cohesion, trade association activity and presence in ACOFOP. Asociación Forestal Integral San 51,939.84 174 298.504 • Greater political advocacy capacity. Andrés (AFISAP) • Institutional trend toward rotating leadership. Sociedad Civil El Esfuerzo 25,386.48 39 650.94 • Recent specialization of functions and differentiation between trade association and entrepreneurial roles. Sociedad Civil Custodios de la Sel- 21,176.74 96 220.59 Human capital va (CUSTOSEL) • Higher human capital level (80% of members are literate). Sociedad Civil Laborantes del 19,390 78 248.59 Livelihood strategies Bosque • Diversification of livelihood strategies: forest management is the principal strategy (70%), Sociedad Civil Impulsores 12,117 27 448.77 in combination with agricultural and livestock Suchitecos activities and management of non wood products. Cooperativa Unión Maya Itzá (UMI) 5,923 138 42.92 • Initial steps toward community enterprise Cooperativa La Técnica 4,607 43 107.14 management.
Sub-total in hectares 342,865.06 ha (77%)
Less Developed Organizations
Asociación Forestal La Colorada 27,067 39 694.02 Area granted in concession • 23% of ACOFOP community concession land. Institutional development and social capital Sociedad Civil Selva Maya del Norte 24,708 102 242.24 • Breakdown of the group, conflicts, cronyism, favoritism. Asociación Forestal Cruce a la 20,469 65 313.90 • Centralization of leadership. Colorada • No differentiation between trade association and entrepreneurial roles. Asociación de Productores La 18,817 110 171.06 • Little presence in ACOFOP. Pasadita Human capital Asociación Forestal San Miguel La 7,039 30 243.63 • Low human capital levels (over 40% of Palotada members illiterate). Livelihood strategies Cooperativa La Lucha 3,931 52 75.60 • Greater dependence on agriculture and livestock (80%). Cooperativa Los Laureles 2,970 57 52.1 • Low level of forest management knowledge. • Low enterprise management capacity. Cooperativa La Felicidad 1,341 20 67.05
Cooperativa Monte Sinaí 1,048 22 47.63
Asociación Civil del Medio 358 428 0.83 Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (ACIMARNAL)
Cooperativa Nuevos Horizontes 900 107 8.41
Red de Difusores Agroforestales Private Parcels 10 N/A
Sub-total in hectares 108,684 (23%)
OTHER: To be determined N/A Community Forest Concession in process of adju- Sociedad Civil Amigos del Bosque dication
Source: Prepared by author; based on ACOFOP, 2003 updated by ACOFOP, 2005.
“Petenero” Communities The oldest communities which originated as de Mencos and Uaxactún in the municipality of settlements along the routes for extracting chicle, Flores. These communities identify themselves timber, allspice and xate palm, are located in as “Peteneros,” given their longer residence in the municipalities of San Andrés and Melchor the region.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 12 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
The community of Carmelita, in the municipality Its location in an area of great archeological of San Andrés, was founded in 1925 as a storage importance has also led to its involvement center from which chicle was flown to Port in archeological and tourism activities. The Barrios. Between 1976 and 1978, industrial Uaxactún Conservation and Management logging operations began and in the 1980s, Organization (OMYC), which continues to be xate palm leaf collection started increasing involved in these activities, recognizes that the (SmartWood Program 2003d). Cooperativa community has still not developed a logging Carmelita and Sociedad Civil Selva Maya del culture (ACICAFOC et al., 2004). Norte are located in this area. From Colonization to Peasant Land During the 1940s, what is now known as the Communities town of Melchor de Mencos was still a chicle The potential for extractive activities combined settlement with a large Mexican population. with the rural colonization policy led There were no overland routes to the rest of communities to form along the road to Carmelita Guatemala, nor control over cross-border traffic – San Andrés, Cruce a Dos Aguadas, La Pasadita with Belize, which aided the illegal trade in and San Miguel La Palotada – communities wood, non-wood species and other products. whose livelihoods are based on the extraction of non-timber forest products such as xate Forest utilization in this area began in the late chicle and allspice combined with subsistence 19th century with English companies logging agriculture and small-scale cattle ranching. This primarily mahogany and cedar. From the is the setting for the formation of the following 1960s to the 1980s, logging was done by local forest associations: La Colorada, Cruce a la companies. By the 1990s, due to the country’s Colorada, La Pasadita, San Andrés and San ungovernability, illicit logging by Belizean and Miguel La Palotada. Mexican companies got out of control. Many of the residents of Melchor participated in these A similar history gave rise to nine communities activities, which paradoxically gave them a good in the municipality of Flores, which belong to knowledge of the forest and its resources. These the Sociedad Civil Árbol Verde. Started 50 years people created the following organizations: ago as chicle camps, they were later inhabited by Impulsores Suchitecos, Laborantes del Bosque, peasants who migrated from around the country. El Esfuerzo and Custodios de la Selva. The residents have different occupations; primarily they are farmers and small-scale cattle The community of Uaxactún, in the municipality ranchers, carpenters, wood artisans and public of Flores, is located in the Classic Maya city of employees (SmartWood Program, 2003c). the same name between the great Maya cities of Tikal and Calakmul. Originally the community In the last four years, after obtaining the concession, Árbol Verde has developed relied on the sale of chicle but inhabitants collect impressively in its forest management, now allspice and xate palm. commercialization and the development of a forest culture integrated into traditional Uaxactún has become a chicle community that livelihoods. has maintained a harmonious relationship with nature and a certain degree of independence Several cooperatives were formed in the from regional society. Because the community municipality of La Libertad: La Técnica, was highly identified with the forest, it was Monte Sinaí, La Felicidad, Los Laureles and La difficult to adopt forest management since this meant adhering to greater control and accepting 8 timber extraction, which they considered a threat In the zone there are five different species of palm. Currently 4,000 families in the Peten benefit from this activity and the to the use of non-timber products. However, work takes place throughout the year. A chatero harvests on timber extraction was accepted as a strategy to average 650 gruesas per month (a gruesa is equal to 90 palm leaves). The harvest of xate is regulated by CONAP. www. deal with the growing depletion of non-timber acicafoc.net/pymescomunitarias/arbolverde.php forest products and is done in only a part of the 9 Ixlú, El Remate, Macanche, El Zapote, Las Viñas, El Naranjo, concession area (Smart Wood Program, 2003b). El Caoba, El Porvenir y El Zocotzal.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 13 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Lucha. Their members were originally landless which is currently one of their main sources of indigenous people and mestizos from the income (SmartWood Program, 2003a; Aldana country’s highlands, south and east. The Petén and Matías, 2004). was valued by them for its good land for farming and cattle raising. In addition, the founding of Finally, the community of demobilized ex- some of these communities was encouraged combatants in the Cooperativa Nuevo Horizonte, by the government’s strategy to colonize the in the municipality of Santa Ana, is made up of banks of the Usumacinta River and counteract 107 families and has made significant strides Mexican attempts to install hydroelectric plants in organizing and developing the cooperative that threatened to flood Guatemala. for traditional crop farming, cattle raising and crop diversification. This cooperative functions In the 1970s, serious conflicts with other as a Private Management Unit and is one of the settlers arose over access to land. When the war ACOFOP organizations (MINUGUA, 2004b). escalated, many peasants’ names were turned in to the army accusing them of being agitators and The origin of communities is important for guerrillas. The inhabitants of cooperatives such understanding how they have evolved in as La Técnica and Bethel suffered grave human managing their concessions and in their rights violations, including the massacres in Dos relationships with conservation NGOs that Erres and Los Josefinos in the 1980s (MINUGUA, have been in the forefront of the establishment 2004). Entire families, including children and and management of the MBR. According to elderly, fled from the cooperatives into the Sundberg (2003), conservation NGOs have forest, eventually ending up in Mexico where considered Peteneros as a group that makes they lived as refugees for 10 years. appropriate use of the forest. Thus their conservationist discourses position them as models for sustainable practices, which other Communities Resulting from War and migrants do not use. This is highly questionable, Displacement since Peteneros and recent migrants share many The war’s end led to new types of settlements and forest management and farming practices as a access to land, including groups of repatriated result of exchanges on their experiences and refugees and settlements started by demobilized resource management practices. combatants. Furthermore, their origins and livelihood The Unión Maya-Itzá (UMI) is a farming strategies affected how the communities cooperative originating with the repatriation of responded to the formation of concessions. For ethnic groups displaced by the conflict that had the Melchor de Mencos groups – Impulsores spent over a decade in refugee camps in southern Suchitecos, Laborantes del Bosque, Custodios Mexico. In 1995, the government, through the de la Selva and El Esfuerzo – the concession National Fund for Peace (FONAPAZ), granted enabled them to legalize their logging operations, La Quetzal farm to 225 families from different something they were already proficient at ethnic groups, natives of Huehuetenango, (Reyna et al., 1999). The oldest extractive Alta and Baja Verapaz, Quiché and Petén. The communities, such as Uaxactún and Carmelita, settlement, located southeast of the Sierra del had long experience in the region and were Lacandón National Park, was founded in a forest very familiar with the territory and the plant area with no overland access or infrastructure. and animal species that live there. Although this does not necessarily translate into “better” The UMI is a Private Management Unit where forest management, it does signify valuable families have developed a strong sense of information for developing the management community life, achieving notable improvements plans. Still, in the beginning, forest management in the community, including transportation was so new and unknown that it generated services and small community stores. When distrust among the population. they first arrived, they were not familiar with the forest or its production potential. The Conversely, for the communities arising out of Peteneros showed them how to extract xate, rural colonization dynamics, forest management
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 14 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez activities were not linked to their livelihood of communities to forest management as a strategies, which were more related to agriculture livelihood strategy (see Table 1). or the extraction of non-timber products. In general, it has been more difficult for these groups More Advanced Groups to adapt to the scope and implications of forest Generally, these organizations hold the largest management. Additionally, the new settlements concessions with the greatest biodiversity; formed by repatriates were essentially counting they manage approximately 70 per cent of the on their organizational capacity to recreate their community concession area and engage in community life in an unknown, rustic setting. livelihood strategies closely related to forest management. These include most of the Petenero These differences were not taken into account communities, which have a longer relationship when deciding upon the characteristics of the with the forest, and also the Sociedad Civil Árbol management plans and types of accompaniment Verde, founded by highly-organized migrant needed. The technical support package was peasant-farming communities. essentially homogenous for all the concession- holding groups.10 Likewise, the territories in Certainly, social capital is a critical element for the concessions were just as diverse in terms the success of community forest management of the characteristics of the forest, the quality and provides the foundation on which the of the species and the size of the concessions. organizations and ACOFOP develop as However, even using this homogeneous model, institutions. For example, in the case of the the overall management of the concessions has Unión Maya Itzá, despite having a small tract had considerable social and environmental of forest, they maintain strong social cohesion, success, which will be discussed below. which contributes significantly to strengthening community management and residents’ social Types of Organizations that compose welfare. ACOFOP Furthermore, these groups actively participate ACOFOP has very strong organizing and in ACOFOP and have made significant lobbying capabilities and ably represents achievements in developing their institutional the interests of community organizations. arrangements and managing their production. It also works on strengthening community They have invested in raising their members’ management through training sessions, level of human capital and, in terms of their exchange visits, legal aid, production training, organizational development, have greater product commercialization, technical assistance internal cohesion and rotation of leadership. and certification (Kurzel and Müller, 2004). With these elements in their favor, they have However, despite the general success of the begun a process of specializing functions and experience, organizations still display different differentiating trade association and business levels of development. roles.
In addition to differences in community origin, Less Developed Groups there are other factors that explain the varying In other organizations, members need to adapt degrees of progress made in community better to community forest management and management of the forest. Even though this improve their level of institutional development. classification may change as the organizations They currently show little knowledge of forest evolve, there is a group of organizations that management and their livelihood strategies are more advanced and a group that exhibits still depend, for the most part, on subsistence a series of weaknesses and needs to strengthen agriculture. These concessions are formed by its institutional framework. The following classification is the result of self-evaluations done by ACOFOP and is based on a combination of these variables: a) size of the concessions b) level 10 There are three different types of community organizations: cooperatives, civil societies and producer associations. The of social capital and institutional development, NGOs in charge of accompanying the communities, as well c) degree of human capital, and d) relationship as their organizational and historical characteristics, greatly influenced the type of organization that was established.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 15 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez migrant peasant communities and settlements In addition to internalizing and accepting forest and include groups with the fewest hectares of management, another critical element is the forest. need to strengthen social and human capital. Infighting, leadership through cronyism and a Although these factors are relevant, they do not low level of participation in ACOFOP is common appear to be determinants of their weaknesses. among these groups. Members continue to have Several of these groups have concessions similar low social capital and as a consequence they have in size to the successful groups and the case difficulties in their organizational arrangements, of Árbol Verde shows that peasant migrants which have not managed to differentiate between can successfully tackle the challenge of forest trade association and business roles. management.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 16 Funding and Assistance for Community Forest Concessions
International Funding and Inter-Church Organization for Development Influence in the Petén Cooperation of Holland (ICCO) contributed Donor and international assistance agencies US$600,000 between 2000 and 2005. In both cases, have had a strong influence over conservation this aid went directly to ACOFOP. However, and development processes in the Petén and these figures are incomplete and underestimate the creation of the MBR. Donor community the amount of total investment in the region, strategies and input have been varied and have since we know that other donors and foundations evolved over time. In this section we present have funded projects in the region have funded information about main donor organizations, the projects there. However, reliable documentation type of activities they fund and their evolution has not been found on the amounts invested by in the recent history of Petén. Further on, we these other organizations (see Table 2). specifically discuss the role of funding of the different models Table 2. Principal Assistance Projects in the MBR and Forest for technical and institutional Concessions assistance. It should be noted that this analysis is limited to the case of Petén, and cannot Project Agency Years Amount be generalized to other sites. Principal Projects from Official Cooperation Agencies However, it does provide information about assistance Maya Biosphere USAID/ PARTNER 1990-2002 US$45 million agencies that could be useful Project AGENCIES for other studies. Sustainable De- IDB 1998-2002 US$22 million velopment Project Based on different sources, we PROSELVA KFW 1998-2000 US$30.8 mil- estimate that between 1989 lion and 2003 direct investment amounted to US$92 million CENTRO MAYA USAID 1998 US$135,000 for projects in the MBR CATIE/CONAP USAID 1998 US$1 million zone from USAID, the IDB, OLAFO (End Scandinavian Countries 1999 US$82,000 the KFW of Germany and Phase) matching funds from the government of Guatemala BIOFOR USAID 2002-2004 US$8.9 million (CCAD-RUTA, 2000; Klein, Main Agreements with ACOFOP for Community Development 2000 and Chemonics-BIOFOR, N/A FORD FOUNDATION 1999-2004 US$470,000 2003). Furthermore, the Ford Foundation invested a total N/A ICCO 2000-2005 US$600,000 of US$470,000 between 1999 and 2004 (Barry, 2004) and the Source: Prepared by author, based on CCAD-RUTA, with Ford Foundation and ACOFOP data.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 17 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
USAID and its Role in it was developed under their organizational, Petén’s Conservation and it was administered by BIOFOR project staff 11 and designed to operate with considerable Development resources. USAID has been one of the most important actors involved in funding projects and activities in Although it should be acknowledged that this Petén. USAID support in the Petén began when shift in USAID investment meant that funding FYDEP was being formed in the mid-1950s (Elías became more oriented toward community- et al., 1997). At that time, financial assistance building and self-management, this project also was directed toward setting up the Petén’s first had its limitations. In the project’s final phase, in institutional structure intended to open the early 2004, ACOFOP was facing the challenge of territory for peasant colonists and increase basic having to assume the high costs of a FORESCOM grain production. that had developed with substantial financial resources. Community-based organizations In the late 1980’s, the focus of the Guatemalan realized they could not cover the costs of an government and international assistance arrangement of this magnitude and they had agencies shifted toward natural resource to restructure it to make it economically viable conservation. This is when the concept of the given their conditions. MBR began to take shape. Since then, USAID has become the main partner of international In total, USAID invested at least US$40 conservation agencies, such as CI, TNC and million in Petén between 1990 and 2004. WWF, for designing and implementing From ACOFOP’s point of view, this funding the MBR. With USAID funding and the allowed the concessionaires to acquire technical conservation agencies’ approach, CONAP was knowledge and strengthen their community- formed and other key partners were recruited, based enterprise. However, the majority of these such as CATIE, for managing the forest reserve. funds were not assigned directly to community- USAID’s investment for this purpose totaled based organizations or to ACOFOP, but to US$31.2 million between 1990 and 2001 (Klein, national and international NGOs. Therefore, the 2000). The initial contribution made by USAID impact of USAID’s investment on community- and its partners was focused on conservation building and self-management processes has technical assistance. CONAP and national and been modest in relation to its total investment in international conservation NGOs received the MBR and Petén. funding directly for working with community based organizations. The funding was not Support from Other International Organizations aimed at developing or providing training in The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) financial and administrative management for financed the Sustainable Development Program the communities or for ACOFOP. for Petén (SDP) between 1998 and 2002, through a US$22 million loan to the Guatemalan In 2002, USAID financial aid shifted once again government (CCAD-RUTA, 2000). This was towards the direct development of community executed by the Tropical Agricultural Center for forest concessions. This was done through the Research and Higher Education (CATIE), the Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry Project Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAGA), (BIOFOR), which focused on strengthening CONAP and other Guatemalan organizations. the administrative and financial capacity of the concessions through the creation of the “Community Forestry Concessions Enterprise” 11 USAID data is more detailed than that of other donors because (FORESCOM), for which USAID contributed it was available from Chemonics reports, the main executing US$8.9 million in the 2002-2004 period agency for USAID funding in the Petén. Also quite useful was the “Inventory of Environmental Projects in Central America (Chemonics-BIOFOR, 2003). Even though the – National Report for Guatemala,” produced by CCAD and idea for FORESCOM came from ACOFOP and RUTA (CCAD-RUTA, 2000).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 18 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
The SDP sought to regularize land tenure in the would go directly to incipient community- MBR buffer zone, contribute to the sustainable based institutions. Therefore, although the management and conservation of natural amounts have been smaller, this contribution resources and the preservation of archeological has significantly strengthened the institutional sites, and to the institutional strengthening of framework of the concessions, and in particular, government bodies and municipalities. This ACOFOP. For example, the Ford Foundation project was executed through governmental and contribution (US$470,000) over four years was international institutions. As was the case with invested entirely in directly strengthening earlier USAID projects, it contributed indirectly ACOFOP as an institution and developing its to community-based processes. The focus on capacity (Barry, 2004). the municipalities was extremely important to tenuous local-level governance in Petén. Synthesis However, we were not able to find specific The information presented on donors and information about the project’s achievements in funding shows that international assistance this area. agencies made substantial investments in the Petén during the past decade. Furthermore, Another large project, carried out between these funds were primarily channeled through 1998 and 2000, was the Conservation of the governmental and international institutions, as Petén Tropical Forest Program (PROSELVA). well as national conservation NGOs. A modest The activity had a total cost of US$30.8 million portion of the funding went directly into the and was funded by KFW (US$14.8 million) and hands of the concession-holding communities the government of Guatemala (US$16 million) and their organizations. With the exception (CCAD-RUTA, 2000). PROSELVA was executed of the aid from international foundations, by Guatemalan governmental institutions, this input did not have a sizeable impact on including CONAP, the National Forestry concession-holding community processes Institute (INAB), the Institute for Agrarian for institutional strengthening and self- Transformation (INTA), and the Secretariat for management. The investments by large donors Economic Planning (SEGEPLAN). Its principal (USAID, KFW and the IDB) do appear to have objectives were the integrated development of strengthened the governmental institutions and the protected zones in southern Petén and the conservation organizations in Petén. At the same promotion of development projects to improve time, these donations led to the development of the quality of life for the region’s population significant knowledge and technical capacity (CCAD-RUTA, 2000). around forest management that were adopted by both community-based organizations Other small-scale investment during this and governmental and non-governmental period were the Centro Maya projects (USAID institutions. – US$135,000), the CATIE/CONAP Project (USAID – US$1 million), and the final phase of the OLAFO project (Scandinavian countries Assistance Models for – US$82,000) (CCAD-RUTA, 2000). Community Forest Concessions
12 Assistance from International Foundations The regulations established by CONAP for granting forest concessions required a series Several international foundations have provided of steps that included the concession-holding direct funding for the community concession community entering into an agreement to work process and for ACOFOP. These include with an NGO that would provide technical the Ford Foundation, ICCO and Helvetas (the Swiss Cooperation Agency). The main 12 difference between this type of assistance and “Policies on granting concessions for the use and management of renewable natural resources in the Multiple Use Zone of the that discussed in the preceding section is that Maya Biosphere Reserve. Resolution of the Executive Secretariat these donors decided that their investment of the National Council on Protected Areas” (CONAP, 1998).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 19 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez assistance, along with the preparation of a ● During the first phase (1993-2000), the region number of technical instruments on forest was managed through the intervention of management.13 international conservation-NGOs working with local NGOs that had been created These requirements set the standards for an specifically for the purpose of carrying out official assistance model based on NGO technical the management projects; capacities to ensure observance of forest management regulations. The inexperience ● In the second phase (2001-2004), the model of the concessionaires would be addressed shifted and USAID began channeling aid under this model by having an NGO capable through the BIOFOR project, executed by of dealing with these regulations. Certainly, the Chemonics International. communities were unskilled at the technical level, but they were sufficiently organized to The rationale for the design of this assistance assume the challenge of forest management. model is based on the idea of building a The official model took this into account very technically-competent institutional framework late in the process. At the same time, ACOFOP’s that is heavily involved in forest management organizing capacity and ties to national and and, consequently, in the cycle of forest use. international networks made it possible for them It was felt that communities were made up of to obtain cooperation aid aimed at developing unskilled people with little capacity for taking their institutional capacities as the representative an active role in forest management. From this of the community-based forest organizations. viewpoint, NGOs would ensure observance of technical regulations. In this section, we discuss the evolution of the official assistance model and present an In general, the most significant advances assessment of another type of assistance that is made with this model were in technical more focused on strengthening the community- training, which included forest management based institutional framework. The confluence and commercialization. Although these of both models has been fundamental to accomplishments were positive, knowledge the development of the community forest transfer under this model was extremely top- management experience. down. The approach and relations between NGOs and local populations have been strongly The Official Assistance Model criticized for being paternalistic and not allowing communities to develop and use skills for Since the creation of the MBR, USAID has been integrated forest management, administration CONAP’s main partner, playing a strategic and enterprise management (Chemonics- role in financial support and in the institutional BIOFOR and IRG-EPIQ, 2000). design for the management of the MBR. In the case of community forest concessions, the The NGOs assumed a leadership role in the official assistance model responded to CONAP process and instead of becoming accompanists regulations, under which communities need or facilitators, they turned into service providing to be linked to an NGO that would provide firms. Furthermore, the relationship between technical assistance and ensure proper use of communities and NGOs was unbalanced from the resources. A technical assistance model the start, since NGOs handled and administered was designed in which international NGOs funds without promoting community-based and their national counterparts appear as the guarantors of the conservation and management 13 To obtain authorization for resource management, concessions of the forest granted in concession to the forest must have a General Management Plan, an Environmental communities. Impact Assessment, Socio-Economic Assessments, Annual Operating Plans and certification of good management by an international agency accredited by the Forest Stewardship The official assistance model went through two Council. Currently, this task is done by SmartWood (Cortave, distinct phases between 1992 and 2004: 2004).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 20 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez institution-building and self-management. In some cases, community organizations Cuellar (2004) and Chemonics-BIOFOR (2000) felt pressured by their accompanying NGOs refer to the paternalistic and subsidy-based because they had to sign exclusivity agreements nature of the relationship between NGOs and for technical assistance as part of the assistance communities, because NGOs were encouraging approach, which far from facilitating community dependency of the communities to justify capacity-building was instead aimed at their existence and continue to receive donor making them heavily dependent on the NGOs. funding. This situation logically led to rejection and confrontation between community groups and According to Cortave (2004), the case of San NGOs. Miguel La Palotada, the first community concession granted in 1994, shows the limitations ACOFOP denounced this problem at the of this initial perspective on community international level, arguing that it is ineffective management. On 7,039 ha of forest, CATIE to have a model in which NGOs have access implemented a forest management plan that to financial resources and in exchange provide was meant to be a pilot project from which other only minimal services and information communities could learn. Although it paved the that does not respond to community needs way for the granting of other concessions, it was (Chemonics-BIOFOR and IRG-EPIQ, 2000). The done through a highly subsidized model and in pressure exerted by ACOFOP, which included a small territory with low forestry potential. international campaigns in the internet, managed to get the concession regulations changed so that With a huge injection of financial and technical communities could operate without this style of resources in a small area with low timber accompaniment. production, the result has been a model that is unsustainable in the long run. Furthermore, Despite these deficiencies, the communities value during 11 years, feedback was insufficient for the technical training on forest management supporting the development of local capacities. they have received, through which they have Therefore, Cortave (2004) considers this to be developed and internalized the knowledge the least successful of all community forest needed for preparing and implementing the concessions. management and annual operating plans required by CONAP. This also involved This model enabled NGOs to supplant community-based groups adapting to ecological communities in decision-making venues, perspectives and discourses. In addition, the competing with community boards of directors model encouraged community members to and limiting access to key information. By form their own organization, a requirement for controlling decision-making, NGOs also obtaining a concession at a time when many of controlled the commercialization of the the communities had no prior experience nor wood, turning into intermediaries for the had they created the synergies necessary for commercialization and sale of services. Thus, forming an organization on their own initiative. the communities did not develop commercial capacities in due time, since they were not In 2001, the model was changed and USAID actively involved in negotiating the sale price began channeling assistance to community for their wood. This situation generated conflict forest concessions through the BIOFOR Project, among NGOs, communities and ACOFOP. The executed by Chemonics International. At this excessive power acquired by the NGOs came to point, a strategy was devised for the 2001- a head when they started pressuring community 2004 period that targeted activities towards based groups to grant them exclusive rights the sustainability of concessions, based over the management and commercialization on strengthening their business capacity. of the wood as a condition for maintaining the Its objectives were: to reduce subsidies, to concession and technical support. strengthen business management and to reduce
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 21 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez the number of accompanying institutions, ACOFOP, supporting long-term self- leaving only the Asociación Centro Maya in management. charge of forest stewardship, and ACOFOP ● The Central American Indigenous and (Chemonics-BIOFOR, 2003). Peasant Coordinator of Community Agroforestry (ACICAFOC): Although At present, a considerable number of national not an assistance agency, ACICAFOC NGOs (Centro Maya, ProPetén, Naturaleza has supported ACOFOP’s institutional para la Vida, etc.) that were formed through strengthening process and has helped the USAID-funded MBR project (Chemonics- with strategic networking nationally and BIOFOR and IRG-EPIQ, 2000), as well as internationally. At the same time, ACOFOP’s international organizations (e.g. Just World experience has been used by ACICAFOC Partners) and cooperation projects such as within Central America and beyond the BIOFOR are still working in the region. region as a successful community forestry model, for the purpose of encouraging Many of the NGOs formed through MBR similar processes that promote the inclusion cooperation assistance have turned into service of peasant and indigenous communities in provider firms for community and private forest natural resource management. concessions. This relationship can be satisfactory for both parties if there is transparency in the Providing far less funding than official assistance roles and responsibilities of each one. In practice, organizations, these organizations became however, many of the relationships between “accompanying organizations,” adapting to community-based organizations and NGOs are the needs and evolution of community-based tense, due to the friction that was created when organizations. Although “accompaniment” is community groups questioned and changed the still a fairly new term used in diverse ways, in accompaniment model. this particular case we define “accompaniment” as the process by which both, cooperation agencies and communities, walk side by side, Pro-Community Assistance promoting common ideas and challenges for the There was another type of assistance alongside consolidation of community forest management. the official assistance model centered This type of assistance has enabled ACOFOP on strengthening community capacities, and its member organizations to develop their contributing valuable input for the development organizational abilities and capacity for political of the institutional capacities of community advocacy around Central America as well as groups and ACOFOP. In general, this model has internationally. It has also positioned ACOFOP involved a large number of actors in a complex as an interlocutor and a reference point in the and changing dynamic, which has certain Petén with the government of Guatemala. important principles and characteristics. Some of the institutions and individuals that have The model is based on the ability to develop social been involved in this cooperation process are: relationships at the regional and international levels, which in turn allows building internal ● Donor Agencies: According to ACOFOP capacities while providing input and resources (2002), donor agencies include the in terms of access to information, ties to relevant Agricultural Frontier Project, the Ford processes or events taking place around the Foundation, the Romero Christian Initiative world and financial aid. In this way, ACOFOP (CIR), the Interchurch Organization for can disseminate its experience while continually Development Cooperation (ICCO), the seeking resources and assistance. The German Development Service (DED), and accompaniment model implies a more flexible the Swiss Cooperation Agency (Helvetas). type of cooperation, more horizontal and closer Funding from these organizations has been to populations and their social processes. Being aimed at developing and strengthening not project-driven, it seeks to maintain a longer-
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 22 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez term commitment to community processes. ● It avoids paternalism and creating Therefore, it has the advantage of forming dependence on the outside; more horizontal ties and building trusting ● It is long term; relationships with ACOFOP. ● It is dynamic and uses a complex network of Another characteristic of this type of assistance support and contacts; is that it is not interested in maintaining a ● It focuses on self-management processes permanent presence in the territory, but rather and not on short-term projects; in the possibility of building relationships around strategic issues and channeling support ● It invests in trusting relationships with local that respond to specific periods in the evolution actors. of the experience.
As opposed to conventional projects that Lessons for Strengthening tend to invest in and maintain their own Sustainable Natural Resource permanent infrastructure and staff during the Management and Local implementation of the intervention, this type Livelihoods of assistance uses key actors that often are The two assistance models discussed in this located outside the territory, although they chapter provide important lessons on how maintain close ties and participate constantly to undertake processes that can successfully 14 during crucial moments. Their absence in daily combine rational natural resource management organizational management gives local actors with the strengthening of community livelihoods more space and opportunity for self-learning. and institutions. The contributions and As a result, they have been crucial to ACOFOP’s limitations of each of these models are discussed institutional development, and also supporting below. the organization’s transition by increasing local capacity and self-management. Official assistance has been effective in mobilizing a considerable amount of financial resources and This type of assistance has always existed in providing technical assistance on community alongside the official model. Strengthening management of forest concessions. However, ACOFOP’s institutional capacity has allowed it this model had serious deficiencies —it to become an active interlocutor with actors from created external dependence and appropriated the official model (CONAP, USAID, NGOs), management and administration processes that questioning and reworking the conditions should have been handled by the communities imposed by that model. themselves, not by assistance agencies or executing NGOs. This situation deteriorated The principles of this community-building to the point that the model generated conflict assistance model can be summarized as between communities and executing NGOs. follows: In contrast, pro community assistance was ● It is committed to strengthening the political successful at improving democratic processes to governance of its partners; develop effective community-based institutions. ● It is centered on the institutional development In addition, this model successfully assisted of community organizations and on human ACOFOP’s national and international standing capital formation, through the strengthening and management capacities. However, this type of local capacities (it only does what local of assistance does not attempt to mobilize the actors are not able to do);
● It is committed to local actors learning, which is why it prefers that they take the lead in 14 These include specialists in rural development, community activities, even if they make mistakes; forestry, participation and leadership.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 23 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez magnitude of financial, political and technical The model geared towards community-building resources characteristic of the official model. shows that it is possible to guide communities This mobilization of resources was essential, not in a management process that can successfully only because it resulted in significant financial negotiate with the official accompaniment investment, but also because it attracted model but on its own, lacks the necessary and recruited important institutions in the financial and technical resources for successfully technical areas of ecology and natural resource mobilizing initiatives as important as the forest management. concessions.
That being said, the analysis shows that The results of experiences based solely on the the contributions of each type of assistance official model have been documented and were crucial to the development process and heavily criticized because of their paternalistic the success of community concessions and nature and unsustainable outcomes. ACOFOP. While the agencies using the official model invested in governmental institutions Developing strategies for cooperation that and technical NGOs, the “unofficial” ones did combine these two types of accompaniment so in local organizations. The former focused and technical assistance could offer a successful on technical assistance and research, while the option for supporting sustainable processes that latter focused on local institution building. link development and conservation. However, this would require that each assistance agency The contributions of each model are very recognizes a priori its role and interests and different, and therefore, also complementary. actively seeks a complementary relationship with other donors.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 24 Social and Environmental Impacts of Community Management on the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR)
his chapter analyzes the impact of natural • A considerable reduction in forest fires in resource management and conservation, community concessions compared with the Tchanges in livelihood strategies and the buffer zone and some national parks (Laguna strengthening of community organizations. It is del Tigre and Sierra del Lacandón). important to critically evaluate how community • The stabilization of the agricultural frontier. concessions have managed the forest, since to a large extent the recognition and credibility of Timber is the most important forest product the pro-community model depends on it. in the Petén. The Petén forests have ecological characteristics that are more favorable for So far, the positive social and environmental harvesting timber than other forest ecosystems. effects from community management have The Petén forests are abundant in mahogany been significant: a reduced impact from forest (Swietenia macrophylla), in comparison to other fires, the end of illegal logging and fewer new tropical forests, such as the Amazon (Carrera and illegal settlements. In addition, community Pinelo, 1995). In fact, in 2004, mahogany was the organization has provided access in the certified most abundant species harvested and sold.16 This wood market as well as the reorganization makes logging a very profitable business, even and improvement of community livelihood when low impact practices are used. However, strategies. Also, community members have it should be noted that Chemonics-BIOFOR and started to view the “healthy,” well-managed IRG-EPIQ (2000) dispute this view stating that forest as their main natural asset. However, it in the Petén forests “[t]he number of tree species must still be demonstrated that this management of commercial value is low, and there are few is sustainable both in social and ecological terms, individuals” (p. A-I-1). In addition, the moderate since it provides key basis for ensuring that average rainfall in the Petén (approximately concessions continue in community hands. 2,000 mm per year) makes communication and transportation easier in the forest year round.
Natural Resource Conservation Under CONAP regulations, community and Management concessionaires have responded well to the challenge of sustainable forest management. Thus far, three important indicators show that community concessions have been managing the forest well (Kurzel and Müller, 2004; Chemonics- BIOFOR and IRG-EPIQ, 2000): 15 Information as of July 2005. • The certification of 338,333 ha of sustainably 16 According to Nittler and Tschinkel (2005), of a projected total harvest volume of 17,898 m3 for 2004, over half was mahogany, managed forest under the Forest Stewardship while “Santa María,” a semi-precious species, was the second Council’s SmartWood© Seal.15 most abundant species harvested with over 2,600 m3.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 25 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Map 4. Forest Fires in the Petén in 2005
Week 19, 2005
Multiuse Zone
Source: CONAP-CEMEC, 2005
When the concessions were established, many management, the communities continue to invest of the communities lacked the necessary heavily in protecting and guarding the managed knowledge for managing the forest according areas, including firefighting. This protection to these criteria. They needed the technical strategy has stabilized the agricultural frontier, assistance of the accompanying NGOs to learn preventing, for the most part, the encroachment how to harvest, monitor and manage the forest of people unrelated to the concessions, the looting (Cuellar, 2004). of archeological sites, illegal logging, animal poaching and other destructive actions.18 This period of technical knowledge-building, together with the consolidation of the Forest management has also had positive effects organizations’ social capital,17 set the foundation on conservation. Since the MBR was established, for successful community forest management it has been under constant environmental from a social and ecological perspective. In just monitoring. Satellite images show a lower a few years, communities have acquired the incidence of forest fires and a lower reduction capacity to carry fieldwork, which has created of forest cover in the concessions (Nittler a technical model for forest management that ensures the long-term sustainability and 17. Social capital is understood as the organizational capacity in a conservation of the forest (Nittler and Tschinkel, location and the abilities of communities to safeguard resources (knowledge, collective action, and market access, etc.) as a result 2005). According to Cortave (2004), communities of its membership in social networks and structures. It plays a currently manage about 450,000 ha of natural vital role in territorial management and favors collective action forest, of which 338,333 are certified by the FSC. and access and control of natural resources. 18 The cost of protection is approximately US$136,000 per year. In order for their management to be successful, In 2003, US$140,000 was invested in preventing and fighting in addition to strengthening technical forest forest fires (Cortave, 2004).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 26 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez and Tschinkel, 2005) (see Map 4). There are For example, farmers living along the “Tikal considerable differences between the national Route,” are less interested in agriculture now parks and the MUZ, which is where community because their income is more closely linked to concessions are located. While in the Laguna non-farm employment in tourism around the del Tigre and Sierra del Lacandón National Tikal National Park or to urban jobs in the city Parks and in the Laguna del Tigre Biotope, of Flores/Santa Elena. This population is close deforestation rates increased considerably to both sites, allowing community members to between 2003 and 2004,19 primarily due to illegal commute easily. This dynamic contrasts with land invasions, in the MUZ, deforestation had other research sites located farther away, where fallen by 36 per cent during the same period farmers have invested in different types of (CEMEC/CONAP et al., 2004). Furthermore, agricultural intensification. recent biological studies show the low ecological impact of timber extraction on wildlife. Far from In general, forest management in concessions, affecting its presence in the management areas, geared towards the harvest of woods such as current logging practices have increased species mahogany and cedar, and on a smaller scale, of richness by augmenting habitat heterogeneity, non-timber products like xate, chicle and allspice, for example, in the case of birds, beetles and has substantially changed livelihood strategies. butterflies (Radachowsky et al., 2004). Now the implementation of forest management plans has become the cornerstone of the economy and community life, and an effective strategy Changes in Livelihood Strategies to fight poverty and the social marginalization of the territory. In turn, these achievements are Forest management has undoubtedly had a contributing to the conservation and protection positive impact on the conservation of the forest of the MBR’s natural resources. and its natural resources, but in the case of community concessions, it has also strengthened Community concessions are also a source of the existing livelihood strategies of the people secure employment for their members. It is living in and around the reserve, creating new estimated that some 100,000 jobs are created opportunities for development through self- annually, with wages above the country’s management. The communities in the MBR average.21 However, the substantive changes have a wide variety of livelihood strategies, in livelihood strategies go beyond a permanent ranging from agriculture to tourism. These provision of employment. Control of concessions livelihoods have been documented in studies by community organizations has strengthened on agricultural management (Shriar, 2001), human and social capital, invigorated the ecotourism supported by NGOs (Langholz, organization and considerably increased local 1999), management of non-timber forest products capacity and know-how. (Gould et al., 1998), and low-intensity logging (Gretzinger, 1999; Castiglione et al., 2000; Reyes, Community participation in forest management 2000; Nittler and Tschinkel, 2004). has led to the development of an entire new array of technical and specialized knowledge, NGOs created with MBR funding generated ranging from the use of technical equipment and disseminated sustainable agriculture, and computers to business skills necessary ecotourism and low-impact logging projects. 19 The large number of organizations and the Between 2003 and 2004, both the Laguna del Tigre National Park and Biotope had record deforestation, with 5,537 ha and resources invested has led to changes in 901.6 ha respectively, the highest in the MBR with the exception livelihood strategies, although these were not of the Buffer Zone. The Sierra del Lacandón National Park continued to have increased deforestation rates, with 1,690 ha the results expected by supporting institutions. during the same period (CEMEC/CONAP et al., 2004). For example, Shriar (2001) observed that the 20 Shriar defines agricultural intensification as those farming intensification of agricultural practices20 is practices that result in “higher productivity per unit area, per unit time, of desired outputs” (Shriar, 2001:31). related to variables such as the availability of 21 Minimum wage in Guatemala is about US$ 4.00 a day, while jobs and markets, which in the case of the MBR, in communities it is between US$ 7.00 y US$ 10.00 (Cortave, are gradually changing as a result of tourism. 2004).
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 27 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez for negotiating purchase and sale contracts have led ACOFOP to assume different roles. (Cortave, 2004). Furthermore, the acceptance of Originally a trade union, it has evolved and now communal forest management has improved centers its work in two main areas: 1) community organizational capacities, developing new skills development, which includes advocacy, for decision-making, democratic participation, training, gender, legal assistance and capacity- oversight and accountability. building training in production methods; and 2) the commercialization of products, technical This new social dynamic ensures a more assistance and certification (Kurzel and Müller, sustainable use of natural resources. The valuable 2004). natural capital in the concessions is one of their primary assets and along these lines the human The community institutional framework is and social capacities invested in the concessions quite new and needs constant and committed have significantly contributed to preserving this accompaniment. It was already mentioned biodiversity. The increased appreciation of the that the official assistance model does not pay forest has been possible because it has become attention to internal training and seems incapable an integral part of the livelihood strategies of of promoting a stronger community institutional these communities, not as resources controlled framework. Furthermore, the collapse of the by others or off limits, but rather as part of their official accompaniment model has given way patrimony. to a new phase in which communities have to develop their production and commercialization capacities more autonomously. These two areas of action have been assumed by ACOFOP, Strengthening Community making it the primary group accompanying its Organization member organizations. Throughout these years, ACOFOP has developed a structure for second-level At this phase of the concession process, ACOFOP community representation that has taken is a key actor in community natural resource different roles for the purpose of building management, which goes beyond ensuring and strengthening the pro-community model productivity and technical efficiency in forest for forest resource management. In previous management. It also means becoming integrally sections, we mentioned that during the first years involved in community life, as an active agent in of this experience, ACOFOP engaged in basic the construction of the institutional framework community development to strengthen local around which community forest management leadership, motivating communities to organize operates. around the process of negotiating concessions. This required, in turn, lobbying local actors To sum up, community management has had and the government. This is when ACOFOP positive results: it has improved environmental became highly influential and recognized by the conditions and livelihood strategies of the communities, and gained international visibility concessionaires. It has also allowed community and credibility (Pasos, 2002). organizations to win a number of prestigious international awards such as the President’s ACOFOP’s ability to enlist support has preserved Environmental Medal in Guatemala, the United forest cover and secured the concession process, Nations Equator Prize, and the Innovation by taking a critical attitude towards the role of Marketplace Award of the Consultative Group NGOs. Many of these NGOS see ACOFOP as a on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). competitor to their role as service providers and However, as will be discussed in the following question the organization’s capacity to provide chapter, it is also necessary to document the technical assistance, strengthen business skills achievements of forest management to make a and coordinate product commercialization strong case for its ecological viability. For that (Grant and Rodas, 2004; Romero, 2004). ACOFOP needs to expand its partnerships with researchers and assistance agencies that can help Certainly, the demands of the process, the the organization gather the evidence needed to social needs of communities and the changing sustain these arguments. dynamic of the social and political contexts
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 28 Challenges to Community Forest Management
his section discusses the main challenges formed, which is why its institutional framework ACOFOP and community forest is unable to respond to growing social conflict Tconcessions are facing. First, we identify caused by pressure on the land and more recent circumstances in the social, economic and political problems with trafficking of undocumented context that influence forest management and migrants, contraband and illegal drugs. demand the adoption of a territorial perspective. Then, we discuss other challenges related to The different models used for the technical the evolution of the community institutional assistance provided to the concessions centered framework such as the first steps toward their activities on managing the forest to harvest commercialization, a more strategic relationship its timber. As the process continues, this focus with the municipalities and other local actors, is showing great limitations as it confronts and finally, rethinking the relationships with challenges that go beyond the concessions´ technical assistance organizations. territory and their management methods. ACOFOP has set its sights on the Petén as a territory ripe for political action because of the The Adoption of a Territorial different economic integration and free trade proposals such as the Puebla-Panama Plan Perspective (PPP) (see Box 1) and the Central American Free The methodology used for creating the MBR Trade Agreement (CAFTA); the Interamerican defined distinct management models for areas Development Bank’s Mundo Maya Sustainable differentiated according to strict natural resource Development Program, and the proposal to management criteria. Conservation was the expand the Mirador Basin Park. At the same overriding objective of land use planning, and time, the institutional framework for community as a result, different types of management are forest management needs to be refocused on identified for natural areas, the MUZ where the its territorial role, and assume an ecosystem forest concessions are located, and the buffer or environmental services perspective that zone. recognizes the true ecological and social value of community concessions. These divisions ignored the Petén’s territorial complexity regarding the factors that have For ACOFOP, the idea of a territory is new, historically driven the territory and its cultural even though technical assistance models are characteristics. In addition to its wealth in beginning to include a territorial perspective in valuable natural and archeological resources, the Central American region. If we think of “the Petén has been the destination for landless Petén region,” its potential and what it means peasants and indigenous peoples, at a high social for the country’s development, concessions and environmental cost. These circumstances play a key role, not only because they guarantee were not taken into account when the MBR was the sustainable use of the forest, but also
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 29 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Box 1. The Puebla-Panama Plan
The Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP) is a regional development initiative involving all seven Central American countries (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) and nine states in southeastern Mexico (Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz and Yucatan). Its goal is to strengthen the potential of the human and ecological resources in the Mesoamerican region to overcome the region’s economic and social underdevelopment (BCIE, et al., 2001).
The PPP’s development strategy is based on using the Mesoamerican region’s natural resources (water, minerals, hydroelectric power and biodiversity) and comparative advantages (geographic location and cheap labor) to remedy the infrastructure deficit and reduce high poverty rates and vulnerability to natural disasters. To reach these objectives, the PPP proposes an extremely ambitious public investment program, the most important components of which are a logistical corridor (US$3.547 billion) and an electric interconnection (US$337 million) (UNDP, 2003).
ACOFOP and other Guatemalan grassroots organizations frame the PPP in the context of neo-liberal policies, which assume that opening up the market and making multi-million dollar investments in macro-projects should stimulate the economy by intensively exploiting the region’s natural resources. This could have a significant impact on protected ecosystems, natural resources and rural livelihoods. The promotion of extractive industries, such as petroleum, natural gas, minerals and timber; the development of logistical corridors and export assembly factories (maquilas); the promotion of mega tourism projects; and the construction of hydroelectric plants could lead to deforestation, contamination of the land and the loss of biodiversity. It could also have a negative impact on rural livelihoods and traditional cultures. The change in land use could cause an increase in land prices and speculation by large companies seeking profitable investments, displacing subsistence agriculture and even community forest production systems (Valenzuela, 2002a and 2002b). because it gives communities the potential of forest concessions22 and part of the private more integrated management. An integrated concession in La Gloria. According to Dr. approach should include tourism as well as Hansen, the primary objective of the Mirador the protection of archeological goods, which project is to protect the territory, which would would facilitate the possibility of negotiating involve halting forest management activities better proposals, as in the Mirador Basin case. that are sustaining the livelihoods of community This implies expanding the forest management concessions. approach to diversify livelihoods and include the recognition of environmental services. The FARES-GHF partnership believes that the Mirador Basin is in urgent need of protection We shall delve further into these elements in the because illegal hunting, logging and looting of following section. archeological sites are currently threatening to destroy the area’s biodiversity and Mayan ruins. Conservation, Culture and Community vs. the To offset the loss of the communities’ primary Mirador Basin Park Proposal economic activity, the Mirador project proposes involving the people living in the basin in The Foundation for Anthropological Research private “sustainable eco-tourism” initiatives and Environmental Studies (FARES), with and monetary compensation to cease logging support from the Global Heritage Fund (GHF), operations (FARES and GBH, 2004). has developed a proposal for expanding the Mirador Basin Park. The principal proponent is The justification for the project points toa Dr. Richard Hansen, an archeologist specialized critical scenario of illegal activities and looting on the early Maya and founder of FARES.
The proposal is a plan to protect 2,170 km2, in a 22 Affected community concessions are Cooperativa Selva zone that includes part of the Mirador-Río Azul Maya, Cooperativa Carmelita, Asociación Forestal Integral Cruce la Colorada, Sociedad Civil Uaxactún, Asociación de National Park and the Naachtún-Dos Lagunas Productores La Pasadita, and Asociación Forestal Integral San Biotope, along with land from six community Andrés, Petén.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 30 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez of archeological sites, and proposes the total suspended the governmental accord. However, protection of the area and the establishment in addition to the legal strategies, ACOFOP of a system for monitoring and enforcing the used its negotiating skills with Guatemala´s restrictions using park rangers and other security current administration, winning the repeal of measures. Additionally, the Mirador Basin governmental decree 129-2002 in May 2005. Project plans to invest a considerable amount of money in archeological and biological scientific Despite its initial political headway, the Mirador research, together with a lesser amount to train Basin Project seems to face serious limitations: local residents in tourism. • It has been a top-down initiative; there has been no consultation with community The Mirador Basin Project has substantial concessionaires and other residents in the political and financial support. On the financial area or their organizations; side, the project, together with GHF has • Those who are promoting the project have established the Maya Biosphere Conservation ignored the great strides made by community Trust, which is expected to reach US$10 concessions in conserving and guarding the million. In the political arena, it convinced then- forest, in stark contrast with conditions in the President Portillo to sign governmental accord protected zones, such as Laguna del Tigre 129-2002, which declared the reserve as a Special and Sierra del Lacandón parks; Archeological Zone (see Map 5). In 2002, ACOFOP filed a complaint in court claiming that the • The Mirador Basin Project ignores the long community concessions’ constitutional rights history of failed conservation projects that use had been violated. In 2003, the Guatemalan the “uninhabited protected areas” approach, Center for Environmental and Social Legal and does not recognize the accumulated Action (CALAS) filed an appeal claiming that success of community forest management the governmental decree was unconstitutional strategies around the world (Poffenberger and in support of the struggle of community- and McGean, 1998; Bray et al., 2003); based groups. The result: President Oscar Berger
Map 5. Cuenca Mirador Project Zone (red outline on map), showing the existing concessions and parks that would be affected
Special Use Zone PNLT, Dos Lagunas North Paxbán Mirador - Río Azul Mirador - Río Azul Mexico Belize Laborantes Cooperativa del Bosque Laguna Laguna del Tigre Selva Maya Honduras Carmelita Uaxactún del Tigre El Salvador Custodios Impulsores río La Gloria escondido San Andrés Cruce a la de la Selva Suchitecos Colorada Árbol El Santa Rosita La Colorada La Pasadita Verde Esfuezo San Miguel la Yaxha Palotada Tikal El Pilar Buffer zone Nakúm Sierra del Lacandón Naranjo
San Miguel Unión Maya Itza Bioitzá La Lucha El Retalteco Road to Melchor Técnica Agropecuaria de Mencos Bethel La Felicidad
National Parks and Biotope Monte Sinai Biological corridor Community Forestry Concessions Private Forestry Concessions Buffer zone Cooperatives under forest management
Mirador Basin Project Area (outlined in red), Indicating Affected Concessions and Parks
Source: CEMEC-CONAP
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 31 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Box 2. Conservation, Tourism and Archeological Research
Based on criticism of the impact that logging operations have on archeological sites within the concession areas, USAID commissioned an evaluation team to visit several of the concessions to observe how they were implementing measures designed to mitigate damage to the archeological sites. The summary of the mission’s evaluation reads partly as follows:
“The co-administration agreements between the community forest concessions of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) and CONAP put equal weight on the sustainable management of natural and cultural resources. The way the system currently operates, much of the financial and technical aid is targeted at natural resource administration, with considerably less attention being paid to the administration of cultural resources. It was evident from our observations that the concessions are making good faith efforts to protect the archeological sites from damage resulting from logging operations and are attempting to adhere to the mitigation measures established in the planning and environmental impact documents, but their capacity is limited.
In order to improve the current structure, we recommend a system to administer cultural resource planning and monitoring comparable to the system for forest stewardship. Close coordination between professional administrators of natural or cultural resources and communities could provide a major opportunity for advancing the communities would provide a major opportunity for advancing in the protection of sites, development of tourism and archeological research.”
Taken from Kunen and Roney, 2004.
• Tourism as a strategy for socioeconomic task of managing cultural resources, which in development carries great risks with regard fact they are already protecting (see Box 2). to whether the communities will truly benefit, especially the poorest ones. However, this would mean opening up discussions about this type of project to It is important to stress that the communities community concessionaires, with options that have been the true guardians of the forest in allow them to continue managing and protecting the last decade, and that they have the right to the forest while meeting the objective of participate on an equal footing in decisions that protecting archeological resources. For example, could lead to the implementation of a project they could further reduce forest activities where of this magnitude. Up until now, the Mirador there are archeological sites with ecotourism Basin Initiative has been operating in isolation potential. This way, projects can be developed and has not sought any contact with the affected that involve concessionaires from the outset in concessions or ACOFOP. innovative forest management strategies.
Opportunities from the Mirador Basin Project Developing capacities for tourism and the Despite its limitations, the Mirador Basin Project management of cultural goods in concessions is has shown new ways for integrating community of utmost importance. It would open up a new concessions in a horizontal, transparent alliance range of possibilities for diversifying livelihoods that could strengthen environmental and cultural and for community organizations to finally take conservation efforts in the Maya forest. It is on protagonistic roles in a venture that so far has unrealistic to think of the area’s future without been controlled by private operators, leading to community-based management, given the intense pressure to change how the land in the progress made and consolidation of territorial MBR is used. control (Pasos, 2004). Accordingly, an initiative such as the Mirador Basin Project should be seen It is difficult for a private venture to control a as an opportunity to develop a new proposal territory without the active participation of that would take into account community-based communities. Not only are conservation of conservation and cultural resources to show that natural resources and archeological heritage at communities are not only capable of managing stake in the Mirador case, but also the autonomy the forest, but they are also able to take on the and development of the concessions. Therefore,
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 32 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
ACOFOP needs to develop an alternative Efforts to integrate conservation with the proposal based on new partnerships, which strengthening of livelihoods have advanced could attract investments seeking to capitalize greatly in the last decade. Specifically, on the added value of forest management and agroforestry systems in tropical areas have community participation. This requires building shown great potential for meeting conservation new types of capacities as part of developing objectives along with the socioeconomic a more integrated management model that development of rural communities (Buck et al. links forest management, conservation and the 1999; Huxley, 1999; Schroth et al., 2004). Because preservation of cultural goods. of their integrated objectives for environmental conservation and the socioeconomic well-being There are already initiatives based on human of their members, community concessions ecosystems and community strategies; these can take advantage of this accumulation of have greater potential for being accepted by knowledge and experience to strengthen communities and for ensuring that benefits go agroforestry strategies that benefit them. This primarily to them. This is the case of Mayan could lead to advances in communities that have agroforestry in the MBR, which has integrated limited forest resources and less of a vocation for tourist activities through cultural and ecological forest management. attractions (Langholz, 1999). Several operators already advertise visits that include “Maya In Petén, studies have been done that Agroforestry.”23 This kind of tourism could provide input for the further development of serve as a counterproposal to private tourism agroforestry systems in community concessions initiatives like the Mirador Basin Project, in (Gillespie et al., 1993; Shriar, 2001; Ferguson et which private external companies design the al., 2003). These productive, yet ecologically tour packages and the communities participate viable systems can also be integrated into other in them. socioeconomic activities such as ecological and scientific tourism. The Diversification of Livelihoods The diversification of livelihoods is another Ecosystem Services: The Missing Approach in key element in creating a more integrated the MBR management model. Since the communities Despite being one of the world’s most well have been managing forest concessions, positive known areas for its natural and cultural wealth, results have been achieved in the conservation of the ecosystem services approach is missing in natural resources and in improving community the primary strategies of the MBR. Because of its living conditions. However, the most successful characteristics, the MBR represents an important communities have been those that historically site for the provision, conservation and possible have been more involved in harvesting wood. compensation for ecosystem services.
Concessions have great natural potential because According to the Millennium Ecosystem of their scenic beauty and wildlife, since they are Assessment, ecosystem services are “the located within one of the most important tourist benefits people obtain from ecosystems,” which attractions along the Mayan Route. However, include provisioning, regulating, cultural and these elements have not been given the same supporting services (Millennium Ecosystem weight as forest management. For example, Assessment, 2003). The environmental or the extraction of non-timber products and the ecosystem services approach has created high production of handicrafts are still in an incipient expectations among researchers, donors and stage and have not developed to the same extent development practitioners, which is opening as forest management has. Except for xate, up management opportunities for areas with non-timber products have failed to become characteristics like the Petén (Rosa et al., 2003). part of more diversified livelihood strategies that could complement forest management. According to the framework for environmental Furthermore, for some farming communities, services developed by Fundación PRISMA forestry activities will continue to be unfamiliar or seen as worthless, unless they can be tied to 23 See for example: www.ecotourism-adventure.com/eco- their livelihoods. projects/agroforestry.htm
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 33 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
(Rosa et al., 2003), these types of activities could international presence, which has led to a great serve to give greater value and recognition to deal of distrust and the perception that their the ecological and social management actions leaders are becoming disconnected from the of community concessions. For example, the most immediate problems. role of concessions in biodiversity conservation has not been visible, even though it may have At times, ACOFOP’s internal operating structure been documented already in some studies (see, has lagged behind the evolving demands of its for example, the CATIE collection on “Forest grassroots organizations. ACOFOP is assuming Management in the Maya Biosphere Reserve”). this challenge and has entered a new phase Likewise, landscapes for recreation, eco-tourism of defining its priorities for working for and and carbon sequestration could be designated as with the communities, developing a model for environmental services. systematic communication and contact that cuts across the different organizational levels. ACOFOP is in a position to adopt an ecosystem These include community level and first- and or environmental services perspective, which second-level member organizations. This way would help gain recognition of the ecological it can respond both to requests for training and and social value of community concessions. technical accompaniment and to the need to have Integrating a broad perspective that values political representation. Another key element is environmental services at the local, national promoting the consolidation of new leaderships and global level (Rosa et al., 2003) can provide within member organizations and at the general justification for defending community coordination level so that responsibilities for concessions from threats like the Mirador representing the organization do not always fall Basin Project. This perspective has not yet been on the same leaders. adapted to ACOFOP’s experience and emphasis needs to be placed on the value of the services, Recently, ACOFOP has been going through a such as biodiversity use and conservation, transition, changing its strategy and internal carbon sequestration and biogeochemical cycle structure to adapt to the new demands of the regulation that result from community protection process. It is redefining its role in political and management. This added value for local representation as well as community building and global communities should be highlighted and technical training. Both dimensions require from a perspective that values the contribution building new skills and leadership within the of environmental services to human beings and organization, as well as defining mechanisms to ecosystem conservation. for strengthening relations with community organizations and their members.
Redefining Community Institutional Frameworks The Challenge of Community The intense momentum in ACOFOP led to a shift Commercialization from its original role of community advocacy and The formation of FORESCOM, supported since political governance with local actors. The work its creation by the BIOFOR project and other strategy, the types of internal organization and institutions, responds to a deeply felt need mechanisms for forging ties with communities by communities to have greater control over were not keeping pace with the new demands commercialization of timber. of the concession process and the territorial challenges already mentioned. Furthermore, When the concession process began, one of the national and international advocacy work main challenges was the commercialization of demanded a huge investment of the leaders’ forest products resulting from forest management. time. Although this work has led to ACOFOP’s At that time, community organizations did not credibility and recognition by heavyweights have the commercial experience necessary for such as SICA-CCAD, the United Nations, the selling their forest products and neither did the World Bank etc., communities do not have a NGOs that were providing technical assistance. clear idea of the importance of maintaining an This meant that most community groups sold
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 34 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez the products from their first harvest at low general. These activities are being carried out prices, usually to intermediaries, with no added to a large extent by FORESCOM, with support value whatsoever. from ACOFOP, CONAP, the Rainforest Alliance and BIOFOR. ACOFOP began taking steps to strengthen community-group capacity in the commercial Although the steps taken have been significant, area. In 2001, ACOFOP set up a Commercial broader skills and a better understanding of Liaison Office for forest products in their market dynamics still need to be developed to headquarters to provide technical assistance improve commercialization. Each community to the communities for trading timber and enterprise also has to develop mechanisms for other services. Thus, the conditions were being dealing with the inevitable tensions between created for setting up a community forest social demands and the demands of the business enterprise, which would have the objectives of world (Taylor, 2004). unifying communities for commercialization and assuming the responsibility for forest So far, balancing investments between social stewardship and certification, among other and business needs has not encountered services. major contradictions, nor has it caused any serious conflicts between community-based Furthermore, CONAP promoted a self-sustaining organizations; but, as the process moves along, strategy urged on by USAID, which had also it can be expected that this dilemma will developed its plan to phase out the technical arise. When that moment does arrive, a solid assistance it had been providing to communities institutional framework, participatory strategic through NGOs. At this juncture, the conditions plans and democratic leadership that includes became ripe for the formation of FORESCOM as different community sectors, especially women a means of ensuring implementation of the self- and young people, need to be in place. Thus, sufficiency strategy being promoted by CONAP they need to develop a model for themselves and other technical assistance institutions, as that can meet the goals of both the enterprise well as by USAID’s exit strategy. and the community.
In fact, one of BIOFOR main objectives was to Towards Community Enterprise Management build the organizations’ business management ACOFOP is making the transition from its phase abilities, seeking to reduce subsidies and to attain as a representative trade association to a more the economic sustainability of the community complex phase where it is assuming complete forest concessions. According to BIOFOR, their responsibility for strategic planning and ability for long-term survival depends on three accompaniment of the community management factors: 1) their organizational capacity, which process, which involves strengthening its includes separating the role of community capacities for commercialization and developing leaders from the management of the business, its business role. This has required ACOFOP to creating mechanisms for conflict resolution, continue developing new skills having to do with clearly setting rules and by-laws, transparency, creating a community institutional framework and balancing a long-range perspective with the that can assume coordination of the technical, urgent need for immediate profits; 2) running the production and commercialization areas. business in a way that facilitates making strategic decisions about production and investment; As was already mentioned, ACOFOP had been and 3) diversifying production, which should developing its own organizational structure include the use and commercialization of non- for the commercialization of timber, which timber species (Chemonics-BIOFOR, 2003). culminated in the formation of FORESCOM. At the same time, some organizations in ACOFOP To become self-sufficient in commercialization, had been strengthening their commercialization CONAP, ACOFOP and assistance organizations capacity, diversifying products, improving promoted the idea of having community processing and quality of the wood. Six organizations assume the costs of both forest communities were able to use the profits from the stewardship and of technical assistance in wood to invest in improvements in production
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 35 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez facilities. Thus, they went from selling standing efficient enough for the business world, which timber to their own logging operation, setting requires quick decisions, information, contacts up small sawmills to process the wood obtained and highly developed technical skills (Grant in accordance with their operating plans. The and Rodas, 2004; Romero, 2004). According to communities have also made inroads into new this rationale, community groups would have lines of production, such as carpentry, hardwood to depend on external agents to commercialize processing and improving the appearance of their forest products. their products. Better product quality, together with access to the certified-wood market, has For its part, ACOFOP is remaining firm in its enabled them to sell at a higher price and to stance of assuming the entire process. Even export certified wood to the international market though the results from commercialization (Cortave, 2004). In addition, the profitability and have been very limited, FORESCOM has had stature of the concessions has qualified them to early successes in obtaining higher prices for borrow from national (BANCAFE) and regional mahogany and identifying buyers for other banks (Central American Bank for Economic semiprecious wood in Europe (Nittler and Integration—BCIE/CABEI). Tschinkel, 2005). Their main challenges consist not only of finding better markets, adding value When FORESCOM was formed in 2003, it was to their wood or becoming a wood-products part of the BIOFOR project and had a very business; they must also gain credibility with costly institutional structure that was difficult community concession-holders, build consensus to sustain once the project ended. Nonetheless, and obtain support. Therefore, FORESCOM’s ACOFOP organizations took on FORESCOM as potential cannot be understood if it is seen solely their business arm, reorganizing and adapting as an agency that offers technical and financial its original design to community processes and products and services. It is also the institutional resources. Currently, FORESCOM is receiving framework for organizing the running of a German technical assistance and has submitted community enterprise, based on developing a proposal to capture additional funding from arrangements that, taking into account the the International Tropical Timber Organization organization’s identity, develop skills for (ITTO) (Nittler and Tschinkel, 2005). In responding to market demands. It also intends FORESCOM,24 community organizations have to become a training center for community an agency of their own that enables them to organizations (Cortave, 2004). benefit through joint management and shared efforts and costs. At present, FORESCOM is The Social Role of Community Enterprise responsible for forest stewardship activities, One aspect of community enterprise is that it seedling production, road maintenance and combines social/community and enterprise timber commercialization. Collective sales dimensions. The linkage between these two provide access to new markets and higher different dimensions is what characterizes this profits. Despite its short life, FORESCOM is in type of business, which is becoming an important its final steps of becoming a “forest operator” actor for communities. This nascent community and certifier; once accredited, the cost of enterprise is a vehicle for development adapted certification will reduced by 20 per cent (Nittler to the pace of its actors and based on their values and Tschinkel, 2005). and principles.
ACOFOP could be the first case in Central This process requires capacity building to learn America where a community organization how to link with markets without losing sight controls everything from resource management of the community dimension. Some community to commercialization in international markets. businesses have made progress along these For NGOs, which saw themselves assuming lines. A process of organizational strengthening this role, ACOFOP does not have sufficient business sense to take on this responsibility. According to them, the communities’ way of 24 As of November 2004, FORESCOM had 11 member making decisions, slower and more given to organizations: Laborantes del Bosque, Custodios del la Selva, Árbol Verde, Uaxactún, Carmelita, San Miguel La Palotada, thought, and seeking agreement based on the AFISAP, Cruce a la Colorada, La Colorada, Unión Maya Itzá consensus of diverse groups and leaders, is not and Cooperativa La Técnica.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 36 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez has led to an institutional reorganization which large investments in community improvements has allowed them to more accurately define and in capital expenditures, including the decision-making venues for communal and purchase of a sawmill and the establishment entrepreneurial topics. of a carpentry shop. The shop allowed them to expand the transformation cycle by adding Communities continue to be dedicated furniture making. Young community members to discussing the enterprise’s social role. were trained in the carpentry shop, with the Improving their business capacities, based on idea that in the medium and long term this a more integrated control over the production investment would result in better capacities and cycle of forest products and a careful assessment skills for managing the business, making it more of investment options, has a great influence self-sufficient and sustainable. over the business’s success and for improving community livelihoods. This does not just mean the opportunity to create direct and indirect jobs, Integrating Local Actors into but also the opportunity to make the business Community Forest Management into a means for improving the social and human capital of the communities and their families. Integrated territorial management also requires active participation by different actors who For several organizations, this involves a influence and control the instruments and process of institutional reorganization, which resources for territorial decision making. It is has meant passing new by-laws and internal important to point out that local institutions, regulations, created autonomously. These such as municipal governments or schools, have changes have ensured transparency in the sale participated very little in the management of and purchase of wood and improved members’ the MBR, compared to the leadership played by participation in decision-making. The board NGOs until 2001. Because of the model’s design, of directors is gaining greater credibility and the protected zones fall completely under the acceptance because it has clearly defined its roles jurisdiction of CONAP, but this is not the case and ensured a stable membership to provide for the buffer and multiple use zones, where continuity in planned activities. municipal governments retain their authority. According to Chemonics-BIOFOR and IRG- With these changes, they have improved the sale EPIQ (2000), the exclusion of these local actors price of wood and have made new investments, has robbed the MBR of medium- and long- such as the purchase of machinery, vehicles, term political and social legitimacy. It has also land for sawmills, carpentry equipment and the meant losing the opportunity to strengthen construction of new offices. municipalities with technical and financial resources from the MBR. One of the first organizations to make these institutional changes was the Sociedad Civil Árbol This is apparent from analysis of lost fiscal revenue Verde. By the end of 2004, it had reorganized for municipalities due to the establishment of its institutional structure, separating the board the MBR. According to Chemonics-BIOFOR of directors, community-trade association role (2000), these include: 1) the loss of a portion from the business role. They hired a manager, of tax revenues in San José and Melchor de who was given autonomy over decisions in Mencos; 2) the transfer of 50 per cent of taxes on the production and commercialization cycle. the extraction of timber and non-timber forest This division led to greater returns from products to CONAP, under the forestry law; commercialization, and in 2003, earnings were and 3) capital expenditures on infrastructure for distributed to members for the first time. communities that were relocated from the core zone to several municipalities. In addition to trying to run a successful business, members have engaged in outreach activities Recently, municipal governments have acquired aimed at building the capacity of young people a more important role in community forest and adults, seeking out new agroforestry concessions. Some of the concessions visited projects, promoting social welfare and reported the formation of alliances and better supporting community education. This implied communication with municipal governments,
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 37 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez since a functioning government directly affects The perspective of Mundo Justo officials in the lives of the families in the concessions. In Petén closely follows the lines of the official comparison with external projects, community assistance model, which considers communities concessions are concerned with the day-to-day to be incapable of successfully implementing life of their members, which includes relating strategies and actions for processing and to the municipalities where they live. However, commercialization (Grant and Rodas, 2004). our perception was that municipal governments are still only marginally involved in decisions This perspective concludes, therefore, that the concerning the concessions. accompanying NGO must assume this role to support community management. ACOFOP, Redefining the Relationship with Technical on the other hand, wants to demonstrate that Assistance Organizations community organizations can develop well- run organizations with leaders who understand The technical assistance role of NGOs continues commercialization and processing as new to be important for community concessions, challenges to master. even though conflicts still arise. One serious conflict between ACOFOP and the NGO Alianza ACOFOP’s justification for their position is para un Mundo Justo (Just World Partners) evident. Taking on more stages in the chain of originated over the offer to purchase a sawmill production, processing and commercialization with European Union money, which was to gives community organizations the opportunity be run by Mundo Justo, under the assumption to increase their income and profits and also to that it would serve community concessions. strengthen their organizations. This particular Following a series of transactions, it seemed case does not negate the important role that instead that Mundo Justo was going to become NGOs have in the Petén, since forest concessions the owner of the sawmill and it would take still need a certain degree of accompaniment. the role of a remunerated service-providing However, this accompaniment should be focused business. There were many contradictions in on strengthening community institutions the case, to the point where ACOFOP filed a and capacities. In addition, the relationships complaint with international organizations, between accompanying NGOs and community including the European Union. In turn, Mundo organizations should develop over the long Justo threatened to sue an ACOFOP advisor for term through commitments based on trusting, defamation (Cortave, 2004). horizontal and transparent relationships grounded in democratic principles.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 38 References
CICAFOC, Ford Fundation, ICCO, IMAZON y Castiglione, J.; Donado, J.; López, J.; Salazar, M.; Morales, CIFOR (2004). Memoria del Taller Internacional M. y Tuy, H. (2000). Promoción del conocimiento y uso “Aprendiendo de nuestras propias experiencias de sostenible de las especies forestales de Guatemala. pp. manejo forestal comunitario”. Ixlu, Flores, Petén, 9- 217-224. In Varios (ed.) Encuentro internacional de 16 de Octubre. investigadores: nuevas perspectivas de desarrollo ACICAFOC (2005). ¿Qué es ACICAFOC? http:// sostenible en Petén. Guatemala, Guatemala. acicafoc. net/institucional/index.php (8.05) CCAD-RUTA (2000). Inventario de Proyectos ACOFOP (2002). Desafíos y estrategia para el Ambientales de Centroamérica: Informe Nacional fortalecimiento del proceso de manejo forestal de Guatemala (Versión Ejecutiva). Febrero, 2000. comunitario de Petén. Informe Interno. Octubre, CCAD-RUTA. 2002. ACOFOP: Santa Elena, Petén, Guatemala. Chemonics-BIOFOR (2003). Community forest management ACOFOP (2003). ACOFOP: situación actual. Manuscrito in the Maya Biosphere Reserve: close to financial self- interno, junio 2003. sufficiency. Guatemala BIOFOR IQC Task Order Aldana, H. y Matias, J. (2004). Unión Maya Itzá: 815. August 2003. Chemonics International BIOFOR sistematización. Presentado en el Taller Internacional Consortium: “Aprendiendo de Nuestras Propias Experiencias Chemonics-BIOFOR and IRG-EPIQ (2000). Guatemala: de Manejo Forestal Comunitario”. 9-16 de Octubre. assessment and analysis of progress toward SO5 goals Ixlu, Flores, Petén. in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Informe Final para AI - Amnistía Internacional (2002). El legado mortal de USAID/G-CAP. 6 de Diciembre. Chemonics/IRG: Guatemala: el pasado impune y las nuevas violaciones de CONAP (1996). Plan maestro Reserva Biosfera Maya. derechos humanos. www.amnestiainternacional.org Colección Manejo Forestal en la Reserva de la /publica-ISBN_8486874785.html (10.04). Biósfera Maya No. 2. CATIE: Turrialba, Costa Rica. Barry, D. (2004). Comunicación Personal con Deborah CEMEC/CONAP (2004). Deforestation estimation Barry, Oficial de Programa de la Fundación Ford- in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, 2003-2004, Petén, México. Guatemala. BCIE y otros (2001). Plan Puebla Panamá: iniciativas Cortave, M. (2003). La Experiencia de ACOFOP en Petén, mesoamericanas y proyectos. Banco Interamericano Guatemala. Un Proceso arduo de gestión política, de Desarrollo. www.iadb.org/ppp/files/projects/ CEDARENA-CICAFOC, San José, Costa Rica. OTRO/OT_PPP_PPP1_ES_PP.doc (8.04). Cortave, M. (2004). Experiencia de la asociación de Bebbington, A. J. and Batterbury, S. P. J. (2001). comunidades forestales de Petén en el manejo forestal Transnational livelihoods and landscapes: political comunitario en la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya, en Petén, ecologies of globalization. Ecumene 8 (4):369-380. Guatemala, Centroamérica. Presentado en el Taller de Bray, D. B.; Merino-Perez, L.; Negreros-Castillo, P.; Estrategias y Políticas Forestales. Mayo. Honduras. Segura-Warnholtz, G.; Torres-Rojo, J. M. and Vester, 11 p. H. F. M. (2003). Mexico’s community-managed forests as Cuéllar, E. (2004). Entrevista con Erik Cuéllar, a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conservation Funcionario del Área de Gestión Social, ACOFOP. Biology 17 (3):672-677. 15 de marzo: Flores, Petén, Guatemala. Buck, L.; Lassoie, J. P. and Fernandes, E. C. M. (eds.) Elías, S.; Gellert, G.; Pape, E. y Reyes, E. (1997). Evaluación (1999). Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems. de la sostenibilidad en Guatemala. FLACSO: Guatemala, Advances in Agroecology CRC Press: Boca Raton, Guatemala. Fl. FARES and GHF (2004). Maya biosphere conservation Carrera, F. y Pinelo, G. (1995). Prácticas mejoradas para trust: an innovative private-sector trust for establishing aprovechamientos forestales de bajo impacto. Serie sustainable wilderness, wildlife and archaeological Técnica/Informe Técnico No. 262. Colección Manejo parks to save the heart of the Maya biosphere. Proposal Forestal en la Reserva de la Biósfera Maya No. 1. developed by FARES and GHF. March. CATIE: Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 39 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
Ferguson, B. G.; Vandermeer, J.; Morales, H. and Griffith, Langholz, J. (1999). Exploring the effects of alternative D. M. (2003). Post-agricultural succession in El Petén, income opportunities on rainforest use: insights from Guatemala. Conservation Biology 17 (3):818-828. Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve. Society and Finger-Stich, A. (2003). Community concessions and Natural Resources 12 (2):139-149. certification in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. In E. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems Meidinger, C. Elliott y G. Oesten (eds.) Social and and human well-being: a framework for assessment. political dimensions of forest certification. www. Island Press: Washington, D.C. forestbuch.de MINUGUA (2004a). Acuerdos de paz, herramientas para el FLACSO (ed.) (2000). Encuentro internacional de cambio. Tomo V, Guatemala. www.migua.guate.net / investigadores: nuevas perspectivas de desarrollo sostenible default2.htm (10.04). en Petén. FLACSO: Guatemala, Guatemala. MINUGUA (2004b). Informe de cierre. Oficina Regional FORESCOM, Empresa Comunitaria de Servicios del de Petén, Guatemala. http://minugua.guate.net/ Bosque S.A (2004). Presentación realizada en el default2.htm (10.04). Taller Internacional “Aprendiendo de nuestras propias Nittler, J. y Tschinkler, H. (2005). Manejo Comunitario del experiencias de manejo forestal comunitario”. Ixlu, Bosque en la Reserva Maya de la Biósfera de Guatemala, Flores, Petén, 9-16 de Octubre University of Georgia, Watkinsville, Georgia. Gillespie, A. R.; Knudson, D. M. and GEILFUS, F. Pasos, R. (2002). ACOFOP: Situación actual y perspectivas. (1993). The structure of four home gardens in the Peten, Informe de Consultoría. ACICAFOC: Flores, Petén, Guatemala. Agroforestry Systems 24:157-170. Guatemala. Gould, K.; Howard, A. F. and RODRÍGUEZ, G. (1998). Pasos, R. (2004). Comunicación Personal con Rubén Sustainable production of non-timber forest products - dye Pasos, Consultor de ACOFOP. extraction from Cruce Dos Aguadas, Petén, Guatemala. Pasos, R. (en preparación) La sociedad civil Centroamericana Forest Ecology and Management 111 (1):69-82. y las iniciativas regionales para la conservación y Grant, R. and Rodas, A. (2004). Entrevista con sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. Funcionarios del proyecto “Facilitando acceso PNUD, 2003, Informe de Sobre Desarrollo Humano El a mercados a pequeñas y medianas empresas Salvador, San Salvador. forestales en Petén” ejecutado por la ONG Escocesa Poffenberger, M. and McGEAN, B. (eds.) (1998). Village “Alianza para un Mundo Justo”. 19 de marzo: Petén, voices, forest choices: joint forest management in India. Guatemala. Oxford University Press: New Delhi, India. Gretzinger, S. P. (1999). Concesiones forestales comunitarias: Radachowsky, J. (2004). Effects of certified logging on una alternativa económica para la Reserva de la Biósfera wildlife in community and industrial forest concessions of Maya en el Petén, Guatemala. pp. 151-165. In R. B. northern Guatemala . Monitoring ecological integrity of Primack, D. B. Bray, H. A. Galletti y I. Ponciano the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. CONAP, (eds.) La selva Maya: conservación y desarrollo. USAID, FIPA y WCS. Guatemala. Siglo Veintiuno Editores: México, D.F., México. Reyes, R. (2000). Caracterización y evaluación de la Guariguata, M. R. y Kattan, G. H. (eds.) (2002). sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción de las Ecología y conservación de bosques neotropicales. Libro conseción comunitaria de San Miguel La Palotada, Petén, Universitario Regional Editorial Tecnológica de Guatemala. In Varios (ed.) Encuentro internacional Costa Rica: Cartago, Costa Rica. de investigadores: nuevas perspectivas de Huxley, P. (1999). Tropical agroforestry. Blackwell Science: desarrollo sostenible en Petén. FLACSO: Guatemala, Oxford, UK. Guatemala. INE - Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2002). Censo Reyna Contreras, A. V.; Gramajo, S. E.; Cigarroa, C. Oficial 2002, citado por MINUGUA, 2004, Informe de y Moreno, P. (1999). Comunidades rurales y áreas Cierre, Oficina Regional de Petén, Guatemala. protegidas: análisis de la gestión colectiva en dos sitios de Jum, C.; Abega, M. and Bengono, F. (2003). Participatory El Petén. FLACSO: Guatemala, Guatemala. action research for collaborative management: Lessons Romero, L. (2004). Entrevista con Luis Romero, from the Ottotomo forest reserve of Cameroon. ACM funcionario de Asociación Centro Maya. 18 de Report. marzo: Petén, Guatemala. Klein, K. (2000). Desarrollo sostenible y el proyecto de la RBM: Rosa, H.; Kandel, S. y Dimas, L. (2003). Compensación por desafíos, avances y reflexiones sobre lecciones aprendidads servicios ambientales y comunidades rurales: lecciones de (perspectiva de un donante). pp. 241-250. In Varios (ed.) las Américas y temas críticos para fortalecer estrategias Encuentro internacional de investigadores: nuevas comunitarias. PRISMA: San Salvador, El Salvador. perspectivas de desarrollo sostenible en Petén. Scherr, S. J.; White, A.; and Kaimowitz, D. (2004). A new FLACSO: Guatemala, Guatemala. agenda for forest conservation and poverty reduction: Kunen, J. y Roney J. (2004) “Evaluación y recomendaciones making markets work for low-income producers. Forest para la protección de sitios arqueológicos dentro de las Trends/CIFOR/UICN: Washington, D.C. Concesiones Forestales Comunitarias en la Zona de Usos Schroth, G.; Foseca, G.; Harvey, C. A.; Gascon, C.; Múltiples de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya “. USAID, Vasconcelos, H. and IZAC, A. M. N. (eds.) (2004). Borrador. Peten, Guatemala. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical Kurzel, C. y Müller, A. (2004). ACOFOP: el proyecto landscapes. Island Press: Washington, D.C. forestal comunitario más grande del mundo se presenta. Schwartz, N. (2000). El avance de la frontera organizacional: Tríptico Informativo. ACOFOP: San Benito, Petén, notas para una nueva “historia social (1960-1998)”. pp. Guatemala. 27-52. In Varios (ed.) Encuentro internacional de
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 40 Ileana Gómez and V. Ernesto Méndez
investigadores: nuevas perspectivas de desarrollo Sundberg, J. (1998). Ngo landscapes in the Maya Biosphere sostenible en Petén. FLACSO: Guatemala, Reserve, Guatemala. Geographical Review 88 (3):388- Guatemala. 412. Shriar, A. J. (2001). The dynamics of agricultural Sundberg, J. (2003). Strategies for authenticity and space in intensification and resource conservation in the buffer the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. pp. 50- zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. 69. In K. S. Zimmerer y T. J. Bassett (eds.) Political Human Ecology 29 (1):27-48. ecology: an integrative approach to geography and SmartWood Program (2003a). Resumen público de environment-development studies. Guilford Press: certificación de Cooperativa Agroindustrial Unión New York, NY, E.U.A. Maya Itzá R.L. www.rainforest-alliance.org/ Taylor, P. (2004). Comunicación Personal con Peter programs /forestry/smartwood/documents/ Taylor, Profesor de Sociología de la Universidad unionmayaitzafmpubsum04.pdf (11.04). Estatal de Colorado. SmartWood Program (2003b). Resumen público de UNESCO (1996). Reservas de biosfera: La estrategia certificación de Sociedad Civil Organización, Manejo y de Sevilla y Marco Estatuario de la Red Mundial. Conservación Uaxactun (OMYC). www.rainforest- UNESCO, Paris. alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood/docu- UNESCO (2002). Maya Biosphere Reserve ments/omycpubsum04.pdf (11.04). Information. The MAB Programme. www2. SmartWood Program (2003c). Resumen público de unesco.org /mab/br/brdir/ directory/biores. certificación de Sociedad Civil para el Desarrollo Árbol asp?mode=all&code=GUA+01 (7.04). Verde. www.rainforest-alliance.org / programs / Universidad Rafael Landívar (1984) República de forestry/ smartwood /pdfs/arbol.pdf (11.04). Guatemala: Pérfil Ambiental. Universidad Rafael SmartWood Program (2003d). Resumen público de Landívar: Guatemala, Guatemala. certificación de Cooperativa Integral de Comercialización Valenzuela, I. (2002a). Algunas reflexiones sobre el Plan Carmelita de R.L. www.rainforest-alliance. Puebla Panamá y las actividades que se han llevado a org/programs/forestry /smartwood/pdfs/ cabo en Petén. Revista Theomai: No. 5. http://revista cooperativacarmelitafmpubsum04.pdf.pdf (11.04). theomai.unq.edu.ar /numero5/ artileanavalenzuela. Soza, C. (2003). The process of forest certification in the Mayan htm (8.04). Biosphere Reserve in Petén, Guatemala. pp. 1-10. In A. Valenzuela, I. (2002b). Algunos datos sobre el Plan Puebla Molnar (ed.) Forest certification and communities: Panamá. Grupo Solidario de Acción. www.ciepac. looking forward to the next decade. Forest Trends: org/ otras%20temas/queselppp.htm (8.04). Washington, D.C., E.U.A.
Association of Forest Communities of Petén, Guatemala (ACOFOP): Context, Accomplishments and Challenges 41 In the Multiple Use Zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) in northern Guatemala, forest communities have gained valuable experience in territorial development while also meeting natural resource conservation objectives. In the Petén, community-based resource management has made significant environmental advances, including a reduction in forest fires and deforestation, the elimination of illegal logging and the stabilization of the agricultural frontier, slowing the pace of illegal settlements. Furthermore, the forest has become the communities’ prime natural asset, breathing new life into their production activities; they have successfully entered the certified timber market and have started their own commercialization enterprise.
The member organizations of the Association Forest Communities of Petén (ACOFOP) have been successful at community forest management because they have access to forests rich in precious woods, a high level of community social capital, well developed technical capacity and have integrated forest management into community livelihood strategies. This trend is in sharp contrast to the instability reigning in the MBR’s national parks, which continue to suffer from rampant deforestation; strong pressure from “agarradas” or illegal land invasions; illegal trafficking in flora, fauna, undocumented migrants and illicit drugs; and looting of archaeological resources.
Despite the accomplishments of community forest management, it is still a work in progress, facing significant new challenges that could emerge from the economic integration of the Central American region or proposed macro- projects such as Mirador Basin Park. Given this scenario, the community-based model needs to consolidate its management and make it more integral by linking forest management, agroforestry, conservation and the preservation of cultural goods. This also involves promoting more inclusive management where territorial stakeholders are active participants in discussions about the future and where the true ecological and social value of the community concessions is recognized.
ISBN 979- 24- 4699- 0
9 7 8 9 7 9 2 4 4 6 9 9 9
“ACOFOP” PSROGRAMAALVADOREÑO DE INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE DESARROLLO YEM DIOMA BIENTE