Conclusions
By way of general reflections on the situation of transparency and governance in the Guatemala forest sector, it can be concluded that the task of reaching "optimum" levels of transparent management in forest administration involves actions in two directions:
- The first is related to the political will of public officials to comply with and ensure fulfilment of the forest and environmental legislation, and with legislation linked to transparent management of the public administration, including the Law on Access to Public Information (LAIP), which strengthen democracy and governance in the forest sector. The former stems from the deterioration observed in compliance with the stipulations of the LAIP by the National Forests Institute (INAB), the National Council of Protected Areas (CONAP) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), which is considerably below 40%, according to a report by the PDH. Meanwhile, neither INAB nor CONAP appear in the 2011 report on presentation of annual reports to the PDH (Article 48 of the LAIP), a trend which demonstrates the lack of relevant information available to the public, who can consequently only access this information after specific requests.
- The participation of community organisations on the public stage has allowed the development of dialogue and consultation processes for the review, evaluation and agreement of public policies. On this point there is participation in the formulation of a legal tool to follow on from PINFOR when it ends in 2016 as stipulated in the forest law; in the parliamentary negotiation for approval of the Framework Law on Climate Change; and in the updating of national forest policy, and in national preparations for REDD+. All these spaces give consideration to the country's vulnerability to climate change, the need for sustainable rural development, the conservation and preservation of strategic ecosystem services dealing with the population's dependence and the economy of goods and services provided by forests, and the consequent need to slow down deforestation and degradation of forests. Many of these actions, which are emerging elements in current environmental and forest policy, are developed in a diffuse and disjointed way as part of a broader process of environmental management.
- It is possible to identify a "block" by the government on the regulatory and public policy actions required by the current situation. Initiatives such as the Law of Integrated Rural Development and the Framework Law on Climate Change are in a situation of impasse after several years in the legislative process. The second National Communication on Climate Change, for which the MARN is responsible, has been delayed by two years, demonstrating the lack of prioritisation given to environmental and rural development matters.
- As far as extra-sectoral activities are concerned, the current government has demonstrated a trend towards promoting extractive activities to the detriment of conservation and sustainable management of forests. The recent announcement of bidding for exploration in seven oil areas, by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), covering an area of 795,858 hectares, is evidence of the trend to grant licences for consumption of natural resources, an action which has generated controversy and criticism from a variety of sectors.
- There is evidence of an institutional process to improve compliance with legislation and policies in the forest sector, despite technical and financial limitations. An Inter-sectoral Committee on illegal logging has been formed, together with the formulation of an Inter-sectoral Plan to deal with the problem, a scourge which causes losses in the national economy and has effects on the generation of environmental services. A INAB initiative to set up agreements with municipalities for decentralisation of the issuing of forest licences for family consumption has been signed, an action which strengthens forest governance in local areas.
- In terms of budget, the State continues to disregard its obligations with regard to the PINFOR and PINPEP forest incentive programmes. In the financial year 2012, the required 1.5% of the ordinary earnings budget was not distributed to PINFOR and PINPEP, as stipulated in the current legislation. This situation continues to affect the state's ability to counteract deforestation and degradation of forests. For PINPEP, after an arduous lobbying process carried out at the start of 2012, with the active participation of the forest communities, a budgetary allocation of 50 million quetzals (approximately US$6.4 million) was established for the first time. Current demand clearly exceeds this figure.
