International and national legal frameworkd for logging and timber trade : Mexican legality framework

1. International and national legal frameworkdforlogging and timbertrade:Mexicanlegalityframework Ernesto Herrera Sept 9th, 2012

2. Content • Mexican forest context • Our intentions • Our background • Our concern • Mexican timber market • Our first impressions about forest legality • 9 principles in Mexico • Forum on forest legality • Conclusion

3. Mexicanforestcontext • 15largest forest surface, high biodiversity • Land is owned by • 80% ejidos and communities (1910 Mexican revolution)7000-9000 communities • 15% small land owners • 5% government

4. Mexicanforestcontext • Deforestation and degradation • Deforestation rate 150,000 ha every year (aprox. Jeju Island) • No much is being said about degradation • What is the relation between degradation and illegal logging?

5. Ourintentions • Multistakeholdercollaboration to promote sustainable forestry in Mexico. • Support private sector and communities to collaborate together for developing sustainable forest related supply chain.

6. Ourbackground • We have worked with with FSC certified community based forestry companies to make them more competitive. • We are working with private sector to develop forest suppliers. • But, we do not have experience in legal issues.

7. Ourconcern Illegal market inhibits forestry business environment.

8. Mexicantimbermarket • Demand • Big market: 112 million people • Mexico imports 75% of what consumes • 50% of Mexican wood products come from an illegal source • Consumers are not fully aware of forest problems

9. Mexicantimbermarket • Supply from natural forests • 7,000 community based forestry communities • Type I, No management plan, no legal extraction • Type II, Sell standing tree • Type III, manage and log trees • Type IV, Sawmills and market link. • 8 million hectares • less 1% GDP • 22 million hectares potential

10. Ourfirstimpressionsaboutforestlegality • Everybody are talking about forest certification schemes. • Some are pushing FSC standards • National Forestry Commission (Conafor) wants to develop a Mexican standard accredited by PEFC (NMX 143) • Conafor also developed ATP, certification scheme that proves legal forestry management • Nevertheless, the market is not demanding certified or legal products

11. 9 principles in Mexico • We got in touch with Traffic trough IUCN • 9 principles • Research legal framework in Mexico. • Law firm (brick production legal framework) • 1stproposal, a fully study: 30,000 USD. • 2ndproposal, only mapping of legal framework: 5,000 USD • 1 month

12. Ourfindings • Principle 1, Use, access and tenure rights. • This principle is relevant • We believe Mexican government should promote the resolution of property rights conflicts • Where there are conflicts, no forestry permits are granted: illegality.

13. Ourfindings • Principle 2, Harvesting regulations • This principle is very relevant • No granting permits derives in informal/illegal logging. • Many environmental organizations believe that permits should be granted more easily, transparently and not discretional. • ATP Certification scheme (comply to forest manage program) was recently developed

14. Ourfindings • Principle 3, Transportation of Logs and Wood Products • This principle is relevant • Things get complicated here • There is regulation but very difficult to prove legal precedence • Easy to falsify • We don’t have an answer to solve this problem

15. Ourfindings • Principle 4, Processing regulations • This principle is very relevant • Primary processing companies can be audited as long as they are registered • We don’t know if secondary processing companies are audited or not, it seem that they are not. • Therefore, some experts suggest that the legal framework should be paying attention to buyers not producers.

16. Ourfindings • Principle 5, Import and export regulations • This principle is relevant • We don’t know how much illegal wood comes from other countries. • It is very easy to comply with exports regulations.

17. Ourfindings • Principle 6, Environmental regulations • Not very relevant • Forest environmental regulations are considered in principle 2 • It is relevant for pulp and paper industries, not very relevant for other forestry industries.

18. Ourfindings • Principle 7, Conservation regulations • We don’t really know if this principle is relevant • Forest conservation regulations are part of principle 2

19. Ourfindings • Principle 8, Social regulations • It is relevant • Workers in forestry companies have no social security • It is not only about wearing a helmet • We don’t have an answer for this problem

20. Ourfindings • Principle 9, Taxes, fees, and royalties • Not relevant for community based forestry companies, they don’t pay taxes. • Relevant to companies that transform or import wood from other countries.

21. Forum as part of the Forest Legality Alliance • We organized an event in collaboration with Forest Legality Alliance one month ago • It was the first time that a multistakeholder group discussed the topic • Lacey Act/FLEGT • Some commitments were achieved: • More research to be performed in collaboration with Semarnat • All stakeholders want to participate in further discussions

22. Conclusions • It is good to talk about certification but first we need to talk about forest legality. • There is a legal and institutional framework in place. • Too much attention is being placed on the forest ground. • The more complex it gets to comply the more chances are for informal extraction/ less governance and illegality. • Corruption and violence don’t make things better. • We require better, fast, tansparent, less costly granting permit processes.

23. Conclusions • Too little attention in the market place. • More public inspection should be placed on the market. • Further discussions/dialogues and working groups should take place in the short term to understand the problem fully.

24. THANK YOU!