Sustaining Mexico's forests: making sure woodlands are not just exploited.

"In Mexico we have an ecological culture, but we do not have
silvicultura (a culture of forestry). In woodlands, this fanatical idea
of conservation leads precisely to its opposite ... The law of nature is
that trees die."
--Pedro Ernesto Castillo, Conafor, 27 April 2005

The end of the dry half of the year is the time when forest fires flare in Mexico's press, but in late April this year a blaze in the Bosque de Primavera made the news for provoking the worst registered environmental crisis for Mexico's second city, Guadalajara.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

There was a tense political resonance to this blaze, even though it was minor in comparison to the disastrous 1998 fire season. This is because it took place in the state of Jalisco, the seat of Mexico's forest agency Conafor, created by presidential decree in 2001 and the flagship of this administration's forest management policy.

The scenario was panic and embarrassment. The agency put out a press release the afternoon of April 26 to say the fire was under control, one that it had to contradict just a few hours later. Mexico's environment secretary--and possible contender for the presidency for the PAN--Alberto Cardenas, is a Jalisciense, former governor of the state with the PAN, and former head of Conafor.

It is clearly devastating for those working to preserve Mexico's forests--precious woodlands that have halved in size over the last 50 years according to some estimates, and will die off in 60 years according to others--to see their hard work go up in smoke.

The country's forests suffered deforestation of 401,000 hectares every year between 1990 and 2000, according to current Conafor documents, and are disappearing at the fifth fastest rate in the world, after Brazil, Indonesia and Zambia.

But, as the choked mass of confused "statistics" suggests, there are many hazy areas clouding Mexico's forest crisis.

Forest fires were the flavor of the month in April and May. Conafor regional management coordinator Pedro Ernesto Castillo says illegal loggers are satanized to the extent that even legal traders bear the stigma. But NGOs quote government statistics that show over 80 percent of the destruction of Mexico's forests is caused by their conversion to land for grazing and agriculture (illegal logging accounts for 8 percent, fires about 4 percent, and the rest is down to plagues and other hazards).

According to another source, a recent Environment Secretariat (Semarnat) statement made late April to announce a new Information System to Combat the Degradation of Natural Resources said that over 64 million of the country's 196 million hectares were in grave danger of desertification and erosion. The main cause, according to Environment Secretary Cardenas, is deforestation and authorized change of soil use (from forest to pasture or agriculture).

So how bad is the problem, why is this change of soil use allowed, and what is Mexico doing about it?

At Loggerheads 

On taking office, President Vicente Fox declared woodlands and water a matter of national security. The "National Crusade" that followed aimed to achieve participation of local communities in the recovery of sources of water, and woodlands.

However, environmental NGOs, some with 20 years experience in similar projects such as Bioplaneta and Proaft (Tropical Forest Action Program), were reticent to lend their support because they did not find the government's plan of action clear or coherent. They were also suspicious of Semarnat for failing to work closely with groups that already had projects in operation.

Asked whether legislative changes were necessary, some NGO directors pointed out that although there was room for improvement on environmental law pertaining to forests, if Mexico implemented the law as it stood, it would not be in its current dire situation.

Although the crusade was a PR flop, in April 2001 Conafor was established to "develop, foster and promote forest productive, conservation and restoration activities, as well as to participate in the creation of plans and programs, and the enforcement of the sustainable forest development policy." A five-year forest plan, and a 25-year forest program were also put in place.

Despite the initiative, positions only became more polarized. Government and NGOs were at odds on what strategies would work to preserve the country's woodlands and how grave the situation was, a situation that persists today.

Greenpeace de Mexico, one of the country's most outspoken environmental NGOs, has been highlighting fluctuating government statistics on deforestation since the forest plan was announced. In addition to the "manipulation" of information, its critique includes the government's abandonment of the countryside and imports of highly subsidized products such as corn, or of illegal wood from other countries. They are also trying to draw attention to Mexico's internal traffic in illegal timber (70 percent of wood traded here comes from woodlands that are illegally exploited).

Sustainable Development 

In 2003, Mexico passed a new Sustainable Forest Development Law that aimed to deregulate forest management (which was bogged down in red tape), decentralize powers from federal to local and state governments (giving power to local owners and users of woodlands), reduce requirements for permits (the argument here is that procedures were so tortuous, that people who wanted to use the woods legally ended up choosing to act under their own authority), set up guidelines for incentive payments to preserve woodlands and boost commercial plantations.

It also targeted illegal lumbering by encouraging voluntary community vigilance, and requiring anyone transporting lumber or wood products to demonstrate the legal origins of their cargo.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

It took two years for the new law's operating regulations to be cleared. They went into effect only at the end of March, meaning some key aspects of the law can go ahead, such as establishing a National Forest Registry. So there finally will be a reliable record of how much forest Mexico has, and therefore clear calculations of the rate at which it is disappearing (a tacit recognition that NGOs are right here, there are no reliable figures).

Elements of community monitoring and participation seem to be included. For example, each of 240 Units for Forest Management nationwide will set up an association--to include NGOs, technicians, academics and indigenous people--that will be responsible for woodland management, from granting permits, preventing and combating forest fires, to reforestation and vigilance.

Nevertheless in November last year, Greenpeace took up the torch again, with a press release that exposed the low allocation of funds to the forest sector--0.12 percent of total spending for 2005. It pointed out that commercial plantations are not woodlands but single species cultivations that generate numerous environmental problems (such as soil degradation, polluting water with pesticides, lacking the biodiversity of "true" woodlands) and generate few jobs or social benefits.

The Conafor Way

Conafor employs quite a different approach (how much money we should be making out of Mexico's plentiful forests), tone (entrepreneurial and paternalistic at the same time) and language (official and turgid), making it hard to believe the same issues are at stake, and requiring patience to find common ground.

But first one has to understand Conafor's premise that protecting Mexico's forests does not mean stopping cutting down trees, and that the way to prevent deforestation is to cut down more of the right trees (and plant trees that sell). Unfortunately, with apparent examples of Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass logic, such as the way to stop Mexico trading so much illegal wood, is to legalize this wood--another item in current policy--it is easy to imagine oneself in an Orwellian landscape where everything is manipulated for sinister ends.

Conafor's Castillo took time to explain that the new regulations being publicized now will have two major impacts by: a) establishing control on the transport of wood, b) simplifying red tape authorizing use of forests, changing soil use, setting up commercial plantations.

But if the principal threat to forests is change of authorized soil use from forestland to pasture and agricultural land, why is it good to make this easier?

"It makes things easier for those who are legally using the forest," Castillo clarified, "aprovechando (using), not extraendo (extracting)."

"Aprovechar means the best tree stays until last. You don't need to replant as the wood does this itself. The best wood is natural. But many natural woods are too 'competido,' the sunlight can't get in and the trees don't grown any thicker. What's important is the volume."

This is an example of where forestry and environmental points of view do not overlap, because from the latter what's important is biodiversity, not volume of timber. One of the criticisms made by Pronatura--a measured and efficient NGO that works closely with government programs--is that commercial plantations do nothing to preserve biodiversity.

However, Castillo explained, "where we put a new plantation is where there is no biodiversity, no fauna at all," clarifying, "The law does not permit using native woods for commercial plantations."

Conafor and its forest program spring from the recognition that you cannot save forests in Mexico unless you make them commercially viable. There is no money and no will, not because of lack of education, but because poverty in forested areas is so severe that "romantic" policies and programs would be a waste of resources.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"This isn't like Canada," said Castillo, explaining that 95 percent of Mexico's forests are ejido (small landowners, mainly poor, rural communities). "Our woods have owners who have to be compensated."

Conafor already operates one such compensation program--Payment for Environmental Services--which pays landowners to make sure their forest is not cut down.

However, this will not always be enough. Pronatura is one of the few organizations to list demographic pressure per se as a threat to forests, especially in the Valley of Mexico, giving as an example the fragmented woodlands around Mexico City, Puebla and Cuernavaca.

This is where the changes of soil use comes in.

Changing Soil Use

The new regulation makes this "easier," but also makes it "transparent," with authorizations having to be published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion. It also requires technical studies--these to be funded by Conafor--to establish what environmental damage the change might occasion.

And then to offset the damage, Castillo says, the person or group requesting the change has to make a payment which Conafor will then use to restore soils, plant woods, repair environmental damage, etc, elsewhere.

It is not an ideal scenario, but it's better than the picture of bumbling uselessness and deliberate negligence painted by Greenpeace.

This has still to be publicized. For example, Sergio Madrid, director of the Civic Council for Sustainable Forestry, was not aware of this aspect of the regulation. Upon being told, he welcomed the change, observing, "We can't as a country say 'no' if people want to change soil use of their land, as they may need to build houses, or a dam to capture water."

However, Madrid says it is crucial that the government make credit available to the forest sector, fund research on woodlands, invest in infrastructure for transport, invest in creating information on markets, and "strengthen Conafor's programs, especially through strengthening social capital and governability."

The latest initiative on desertification, which comes as a result of Mexico's signing the Rio Convention on the subject in 1992, has potential as long as it doesn't remain a matter of protocol, Madrid said.

"Different government departments must be involved in caring for soil. We want public information every six months, and for this to include the base line for Mexico, how things are now."

Dr. Barbara Kastelein covers environmental legislation and policy in Mexico for the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) in Washington D.C.

By Dr. Barbara Kastelein

RELATED ARTICLE: Legislation That Looks Ahead

On November 24 last year, Semarnat published operation rules for a five-year program to develop environmental services for carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity through incentive payments.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The program (known as PSA--CABSA)--designed in accordance with the Clean Air Development Mechanism of Kyoto--has a budget of US$10 million per year, funded by Mexico's federal government and the World Bank, and is being managed by Conafor.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In addition to carbon sequestration, the program will grant payments for two other types of environmental services: conserving biodiversity (i.e. protecting the habitat of a certain species that is in danger of extinction); and converting land currently used for agriculture to combined agricultural and forest use, such as the production of shade-grown coffee.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

RELATED ARTICLE: A Success Story

In the Ixta-Popo Zoquiapan National Park, the Commission for Natural Protected Areas (Conanp) has managed in the last four years to recover the amount of forest that was destroyed (40 percent) between 1980 and 2000.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"There are three enemies: forest fires, cattle and illegal logging," says Parks Director Alejandro Lopez.

Of a total 45,000 hectares of parkland (including volcanoes) 19,000 are forest. From 2001 to 2004, 8,000 hectares were restored (3,000 from plagues, 5,000 from reforestation). Reforestation has a success rate of 80 percent, due to ditches to stop the spread of fires, vigilance, electric fences against cattle and strategic mounds that prevent trucks from entering.

"There is no illegal logging in the park," Lopez said.

Payment for environmental services averages 400 pesos per hectare. In addition, one of Mexico's first ecotourism initiatives to combine government, private initiative and organized civil society has come to fruition here.

Thanks to funding from Grupo Modelo, Fomento Ecologico Banamex and Grupo Bimbo, as well as support from Pronatura, Conafor, the Biodiversity Commission (Conabio), Conanp and Semarnat, educational nature paths have been in existence for over a year.

This model--combining private funding, government funds and civil society--is already inspiring new projects around Pico de Orizaba and Nevado de Toluca.