Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning ... - UTas ePrints

forest certification in guatemala
379
congregations are willing to pay price premiums for this NTFP, provided that environmental
and social standards of sound management and fair commercialization
are met. In order to ensure that the economic benefits for small producers are not
reduced, a certification scheme is being sought that does not result in additional costs
for the producers (see Current et al. 2003).
the reaction to certification
Forest Policy Community and Stakeholders
Reactions to forest certification in Guatemala have principally been positive, although
the visions of the different stakeholders have varied according to their particular vested
interests, as well as over time as the process moved forward.
Public Sector
Guatemala’s forest policy explicitly considers forest certification as a political tool, as
reflected in an excerpt from a forest policy document: “. . . the State, through the
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (MAGA) and its affiliates, shall promote
certification as a mechanism to facilitate the insertion of the country’s forest products
in the international market. This shall be promoted through the wide dissemination
of the certification process, as well as by complying with the subsidiary and facilitating
roles that correspond to MAGA, in line with the agrarian and sectoral policy 1990-
2030” (MAGA et al. 1999).
Two government agencies are in charge of the administration of national forests:
the National Council for Protected Areas (CONAP) and the National Forestry
Institute (INAB). CONAP staff views forest certification as an important step in raising
CONAP's institutional image. As of mid 2004, almost all certified areas in
Guatemala are located in forests administered by CONAP, largely due to mandatory
certification in the forest concessions of the MBR. Nowadays, CONAP staff views
both forest management and certification positively, notwithstanding its critical
stance in the initial phase of the process.
Over time, INAB became gradually more involved in the certification process, and
now serves as the headquarters of CONESFORGUA, together with the Forestry
Board. An example of INAB adopting certification as a policy instrument is that certified
forests on private lands may gain access to forest incentives without any additional
administrative requirements. INAB also co-sponsored several certification
events and, jointly with PAF-G, has actively been supporting the development of the
national standards.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
NGOs that were originally pro-certification have remained so. After SmartWood
introduced Centro Maya’s technical personnel to the benefits and procedures of certification
in 1996, Centro Maya went on to play a key role in promoting certification
in community groups who are not subject to mandatory certification.
yale school of forestry & environmental studies