identification of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in belize · · 2014-02-19drivers...

0

Identification of Deforestation

and Forest Degradation

drivers in Belize Program for the Reduction of Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Central

America and the Dominican Republic.

Juanita Garcia-Saqui, Pio Saqui, Santos Chicas

11/16/2011

FINAL REPORT

I

Table of Contents

Lists of tables 11

List of figures 111

Acknowledgements IV

Acronyms and Abbreviations V

1. Introduction 1

2. People Respond to Incentives 2

3. Is Belize Prepared for REDD+? 5

4. Methodology 9

5. Results 9

6. Geospatial Analysis 11

Identifying Hotspots 11

Forest Cover Layer 14

Slope of the Terrain 18

Agriculture 19

Forest Ecosystem Type 21

Index Model 23

7. Ethnographic Study 27

Description of Findings

a). Agriculture 28

b). Cattle Ranching 31

c). Government policies 35

d). Logging 36

8. Conclusions and Recommendations 39

Appendix A: Policy Recommendations i

List of References A

II

Phase 3: Identification of Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Project-Belize.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: List of deforestation and forest degradation drivers.

Table 2: Villages identified as hot spots for ethnographic study.

Table 3: Layers for Index Model.

Table 4: Gender of Interviewee.

Table 5: There were more respondents between the ages of 29 to 39.

Table 6: Respondents' Level of Education.

Table 7: Logging drives deforestation and forest degradation.

III


List of Figures

Figure 1: Major drivers of deforestation and forest degradation identified.

Figure 2: Map of Belize showing deforestation hotspots and sampling settlements.

Figure 3: Deforested Areas 2000-2010 and Protected Areas Management Status.

Figure 4: Deforested Areas 2000-2010 and Protected Areas Management Status.

Figure 5: Deforested Areas 2000-2010 and Road Buffer Zones.

Figure 6: Deforested Areas 2000-2010 and Slope Gradients.

Figure 7: Deforested Areas 2000-2010 and Agriculture Buffer Zones.

Figure 8: Deforested Areas 2000-2010 and Ecosystems.

Figure 9: Deforestation Risk Map.

Figure 10: Deforestation and Forest degradation is socially complex.

Figure 11: 50% of the respondents agree that "The land is not fertile so they need to use more

land".

Figure 12: Fertile soils are only found in Primary and broad leaf forests.

Figure 13: The slash and burn method on the same plot of land is used for subsistence agriculture.

Figure 14: Cattle ranching is important to this community.

Figure 15: Small scale cattle ranching is not causing deforestation or forest degradation.

Figure 16: Government policies encourage deforestation and forest degradation.

Figure 17: Logging does occur throughout the country with or without government permits.

Figure 18: Non timber forest products are used everywhere in Belize.

Figure 19: Respondents understand the importance of keeping the forest.

IV


Acknowledgement

We would first like to extend our gratitude to the 21 communities (United Ville, Teakettle,

Cotton Tree, More Tomorrow, Valle de Paz, Los Tambos, Maskal, Bomba, Santana, Lucky

Strike, Progresso, Little Belize, Chunox, San Marco, Santa Teresa, Blue Creek, San Jose, Pueblo

Viejo, San Benito Poite, Big Falls, ), who participated in the interviews, focus group discussions

and as key informants. Secondly, the NGO’s and the following people who participated on the

National Consultation workshop: Mario Muschamp (Tide), Ralna Lamb (APAMO), Lee

Mcloughlin (Ya’axche), James Lord (Ya’axche), Jaieme Rascallela (Ya’axche), Cecil Stott

(Ya’axche), German Lopez (ERI, UB), Boris Arevalo (FCD), Nayari Diaz (PACT), Dominique

Lizama (Belize Audubon Society), Raul Chun (Forest Department), Ide Sosa (SLM), Rasheda

Garcia (Forest Department), Astrid Bobadilla (Forest Department), Leon Westby (Forest

Department), Tanya Santos (CATIE), TNC (NGO), Jan Meerman (BTFS), Iemellda Landaverde

(DOE), Roxanne Perez (Galen), Denver Cayetano (University of Belize), Olivia Rhaburn

(NAVCO), Edillesto Romero (PFB), German Novelo (CATIE), Tinelie Boomsma (Belize Env.

Consultancies), Winsor Marcello (Forest Department). Thirdly, the NGO’s (TIDE, Ya´Axche,

SATIM, FCD, APAMO, BAS, NAVCO, ERI, UB, PACT SLM, CATIE, TNC, BTFS, DOE,

PFB, etc.) who individually participated in the interview process and in validating the

information we received from the survey. We would also like to acknowledge all the input and

assistance rendered to the consultants and consultancy by Mr. Leon Wesby whose interest and

information was invaluable to the success of the consultancy.

V


ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS

APAMO Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations

ERI Environmental Research Institute

BAS Belize Audubon Society

BTFS Belize Tropical Forest Studies

CBOs Community Based Organizations

CNP Chiquibul National Park

CNF Chiquibul National Forest

CSO Central Statistics Office

CATIE CATIE University

DOE Department of environment

FCD Friends of Conservation and Development

FD Forest Department

Galen Galen University

GIS Geographic Information System

MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment

NAVCO National Association of Village Councils

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

NPASP National Protected Areas System Policy and Plan

PACT Protected Areas Conservation Trust

PFB Program for Belize

PES Payment for Environmental Services

REDD+ Reduction of Emissions of Deforestation and Forest Degradation

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=btfs%20belize&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.green-hills.net%2Fbtfs%2F&ei=PYnETpPGKc6ftwfKv-TCCA&usg=AFQjCNEuTaYcFsqeE1GAHPxTGVlJnj9yjw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=navco%20belize&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navco.org.bz%2F&ei=nInETr3FEYG4tweDmPzdDQ&usg=AFQjCNH2gkA2QzNFnubalr-erofTV-90rA&cad=rja

VI


SATIM Sarstoon-Temash Institute for Indigenous Management

SLM Sustainable Land Management

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TIDE Toledo Institute for Development and Environment

UB University of Belize

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Ya’axche Ya’axché Conservation Trust

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=satim%20belize&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.satiim.org.bz%2Findex.php%3Fsection%3D7&ei=14nETqiPJ4uXtwfN8OD7BQ&usg=AFQjCNGizo9kU3pIYwXakjc0XPSGM-Xp-A&cad=rja

1

1. Introduction

The drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Belize are directly associated to the lack of

implementation of Forestry legislation of Belize coupled with the current National Economic

Development strategy that is in effect by the government of Belize. These drivers are manifested

in the drastic conversion of forests to agricultural lands, illegal logging, unsustainable logging,

forest fires and other uncontrolled conversion of forest to intense anthropogenic land uses. As

Belize prepares to participate in the REDD+ program, it is of paramount importance for Belize’s

forestry management to curb the current trends and quantity of deforestation and forest

degradation by implementing and monitoring existing national forest policy regulations.

It is evident that significant portion of deforestation occurring in Belize are outside the

boundaries of national and private protected areas systems. This fact highlights the effectiveness

of protected areas in Belize as a means of preserving forests. Protected areas that are acting as

good barriers to deforestation and forest degradation are those that have adequate and visible

monitoring and evaluating mechanisms in place. Belize’s protected areas managing agencies

have achieved this by establishing co-management partnership with national and local

governmental organizations; while encouraging stronger sense of community ownership to

natural resources.

Protected areas that are being managed by private organizations (FCD, PFC, TIDE, SATIM,

BAS etc) have succeeded in forest and biodiversity protection by harnessing local support,

especially local governance that are in close proximity to protected areas. Even with visible and

persistent management actions, there are some protected areas that still require more active

management agency presence. A case in point is the Chiquibul National Park, which is under the

relentless threats of transnational agricultural incursions, poaching and illegal unsustainable

2


logging. Clearly such illegal activities occur, in-part, due to the physical vastness of the protected

area and the lack of sufficient agency personnel to sustain the necessary monitoring.

Belize’s forests that are protected under the Forest Reserves designation are particularly

vulnerable. These protected areas under the Forest Reserve status are managed directly by the

Forestry Department of the Government of Belize; however due to lack of resources (both fiscal

and Human), many necessary management actions of these reserves is essentially non-existent.

In spite of all that, deforestation in Belize has been historically low (0.6%). This study indicates

that the notable Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are the conversion of forests to

agricultural lands, illegal logging, unsustainable logging, forest fires to mention a few. However,

any inaction on the part of the relevant agencies for proper forest management will only

encourage the already accelerating rate of deforestation in Belize.

The objective of phase three is: To develop a strategy aimed at amending the challenges and

problems that led to poor performance of previous reforestation programs.

2. People Respond to Incentives

“People do what they get paid to do; what they don’t get paid to do, they don’t do” in other

words “People respond to incentives” (Easterly 2002). Many times incentives must be

quantifiable and present; not in the future or the near future. Many conservation programs have

been undertaken in Belize but they are short-term and over ambitious in seeking immediate

results. In some instances when results are not forthcoming, funding is threatened and /or

redirected to other projects. Other very real limitations are often the lack of infrastructure, lack of

technical knowledge and lack of personnel training to carry out project objectives. The REDD+

3


program will need to effectively address these limitation in Belize. Although REDD + strategy

promises immediate financial incentive to local communities, it may be prudent to evaluate the

power of such incentives to effectively reduce deforestation and forest degradation.

It is obvious that money alone, is not enough to save forests from destruction. Therefore with

incentives there is the need for REDD+ to address some major barriers; most of which are

institutional in nature, but also some are cultural and social. There is a discernible need to

amalgamate the efforts of local organization embracing locally specific development (Bastiaan et

al 2011) strategy that is essential for the application of REDD+ in Belize.

Prior initiatives have been implemented in Belize to alleviate the destruction of forest; for

example The Mahogany “swietenia macrophylla” Restoration Project in the Northern Zone by

Programme for Belize in the late 1990s, Restoration of degraded pasturelands, by Janus

Foundation in 2001-2006, in the Central Zone; and a Sustainable Forest Enterprise managed by

Sarstoon-Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIM) more recently in the Southern

Zone among many others. These efforts beg to question what challenges were experienced by

these agencies that led to the discontinuation of these relevant and timely projects. In some

instances such discontinuation can be attributed to mismanagement on the part of the agency or

lack of human resources facility and capacity to meet the project objectives. In some instances,

natural events that are beyond human control end up being a major contributor.

In the case of the reforestation of Mahogany “swietenia macrophylla”program in the Northern

Zone, the project objectives were met, but without persistent financial support the project has

been halted. This program provided an in-situ lab for the production of mahogany saplings for

the reforestation program. However lack of financial incentives made the project obsolete.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=satim%20belize&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.satiim.org.bz%2Findex.php%3Fsection%3D7&ei=14nETqiPJ4uXtwfN8OD7BQ&usg=AFQjCNGizo9kU3pIYwXakjc0XPSGM-Xp-A&cad=rja

4


Therefore as soon as the objectives of the proposal are met the project halts. In other words not

much is done on the ground.

On the other hand the program of restoration of degraded pasturelands that was executed by the

Janus Foundation, in the central Zone ended because the organization failed and the second part

of the project was not funded. There wasn’t only one reason for this although the biggest one was

financial. By the end of phase one of that project, it was executed under a different organization

which was recently established. This in itself made the funding organization weary of providing

meaningful financial support to an unstable organization. However, the objectives for phase one

were met adequately, but the funding for phase two never materialized, even though the second

phase was needed to validate the initial findings. The aim of the program was to establish

agroforestry systems on degraded pasturelands, using cover crops to enhance the soil nutrients.

Timber trees were planted to meet market demands while aiming to decrease the amount of

extraction from natural forests. The trees that were planted then are still standing, even after 10

years, but they are not been managed and the cover crop and all other crops planted were just

abandoned. In this case we can argue that the program did not continue because the

organizational structure failed during the first phase. There was no long term mechanism set up

in phase one. One of the objectives of phase two was to include long term plan to ensure the

management of the trees and the overall continuity of the program at the local level where

farmers would be stewards of these programs which would have been based on the successful

implementation and management of the research plots. Hence the idea would have been adopted

by the farmers and would help Belize to curb deforestation and degradation.

5


In the Southern Zone the Sustainable Forest Enterprise managed by SATIM was discontinued

because of lack of long term vision in the part of the participants. This region boasted a healthy

forest which could be beneficial to all the local community around it. SATIM also has an

Indigenous Use Zone where farmers are allowed to farm or extract resources for household

consumption. Besides the Indigenous Use Zone SATIM also engages surrounding communities

in Sustainable Forest Enterprise programs which are long term and benefits the maximum

number of people whom they work with. However, they had a recent venture that was stopped

after one year by the community involved because funds were late and local people were

disillusioned. Participants want short term benefits that are tangible and they can have access

those benefits immediately. Although this program had longevity, benefits and incentives were

not immediate. Therefore, like Bastiaan et al. (2011), it can be concluded that the reduction of

deforestation and forest degradation can only be achieved by a combined approach of increasing

forest rent relative to other land uses and reducing transaction costs for forest management and

conservation.

3. Is Belize Prepared For REDD+?

Belize has engaged in multi-level and inter-sectoral dialogue within its departments and

ministries. The agencies have realized that there is a need for this dialogue for programs like

REDD+ to be effective. The government, particularly the Ministry of Natural Resources and the

Environment (MNRE) has a long history of participatory governance of forests. The MNRE

houses all climate-related initiatives in its respective departments (CDM-Meteorology

Department; REDD- Forest Department; Convention on Biological Diversity- Forest

Department; UNDP Sustainable Land Management project-Forest Department). Therefore it is

6


important that these departments collaborate with each other to avoid duplication of policies or

even the waste of resources. There are already efforts to consolidate the overlapping policies and

law in accordance with climate change commitments via the Policy Planning and Co-ordination

Unit in the MNRE, and the National Climate Change Committee. Furthermore there are

discussions on the establishment of a climate change office in the Office of the Prime Minister.

Considering the collaboration taking place within the governmental departments and ministries

the National Protected Areas System Policy and Plan (NPASP) has been established which looks

at:

consolidating the laws on protected areas in Belize,

moving the protected areas system to a more comprehensive representation of the forest

type, habitat and species diversity in Belize and

establishing systems for monitoring the effectiveness of protected areas in achieving their

objectives under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international

commitments.

Furthermore the (NPASP) has an established secretariat that is encouraging the co-management

framework that will better characterize the relationship between state and local partners (NGOs,

CBOs, CSOs etc). This framework empowers local communities to use the natural resources

around them in a sustainable manner for the securing of livelihoods and the advancement of their

communities in harmony with the preservation of the resource base for future generation. This is

not a new framework in Belize; there are several CBOs who already benefit from natural

resources without threatening the natural resources (e.g. Community Baboon Sanctuary; Maya

center Women’s Group; SATIM, Ya’axche etc.), which are mostly private organizations.

7


However, the government of Belize is now taking a more proactive step in establishing these

collaborations between the government and the communities. Thus, this effort heralds Belize as a

country committed to uplifting the living conditions of those surrounding natural resources while

also preserving the natural resources and securing a clean environment for all residents.

Considering that forests under private protection are being protected better than forests under

governmental control then these private enterprises should also be encouraged to participate

under the scope of REDD+. However such initiatives must account for emissions reductions at

the national level so as to buffer against leakages. Furthermore, legislations that protect Belize’s

forest must be implemented to ensure that any activity in Belize proposed as a REDD activity is

reported to the Forest Department and registered in an established registry so this can be

monitored.

There are already some organizations involved in investigating carbon sequestration for the

purpose of participating in the REDD+ programs; these include Friends of Conservation and

Development (FCD) managing The Chiquibul National Forest and Programme for Belize (PFB)

managing The Rio Bravo Conservation Area. Preliminary estimates in the CNP promises

sizeable returns on investments in park management under a voluntary carbon market for REDD

activities.

Other initiatives such as the Payment for environmental services (PES) which includes payments

for the continued existence of a forest, for the planting of native species on fallowed land, or for

working-lands projects that include agroforestry components (Alix-Garcia et al. 2005) can be

implemented in Belize. Such programs have increasingly been introduced by developing

countries and in 2002, more than 300 such schemes were inventoried (Mayrand and Paquin,

8


2004). This incentive based approach has proven to be successful in Costa Rica which took the

initiative in 1997 of providing incentives for the protection of nature. PES increase’ the potential

of sustainable forest management to achieve positive results in forest protection. This has been

seen in Costa Rica where PES has reportedly improved land owner control over resources after

logging, reduced unauthorized entries and harvests and has improved biodiversity protection

(Louman et al. 2005). Assigning user rights to communities and timber companies through

concessions under strict sustainable forest management conditions but with strong financial

support has also been shown to prevent deforestation in Guatemala (Carrera, Prins, Desarrollo

2002). A study comparing community forest management areas with nearby protected areas in

Guatemala and Mexico concluded that, if functioning according to plan, these two forms of

management are equally able to maintain forest cover (Bray et al. 2008), although protected

areas may not bring the same financial benefits to local communities (West et al. 2006).

But none of these programs will work if an effective management plan is not put in place.

Therefore, Belize or perhaps the REDD program will need to allocate resources to ensure that

trained personnel are on the ground to manage REDD+, bearing in mind that people will only do

what they get paid to do. Effectiveness of such of a mechanism can only be measured if there is

monitoring of the resources and activities occurring in the area. Monitoring is critical to effective

forest conservation because it helps us assess whether or not our conservation interventions are

working. It also allows us to test if conceptual models and assumptions about why and where

conservation efforts are needed are correct. According to WCS (2006) monitoring should occur

at three different levels: the results of our conservation interventions, the reduction of threats,

and progress in achieving our stated objectives. Therefore monitoring that does not lead to an

9


assessment of management effectiveness, and an improvement in management practices has little

conservation value.

Monitoring is what is lacking in Belize. The policies are already in place, but there is no

incentive to monitor the activities occurring within the forest reserves. Incentives should also be

given to the people so that they themselves act as policies of the resources in their areas. When

there are incentives that the communities are contented with they have been reported to be good

guardian of their forest resources (Agarwal 2001). Therefore Belize is ready for REDD+ and an

incentive based approach such as REDD+ will definitely help Belize in ensuring that Belize’s

forest are kept standing sequestering carbon thereby reducing carbon emissions.

4. Methodology

This project was used to identify the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Belize.

The methodology employed for this endeavor included identification of “hotspots” around the

country, via the use of GIS, doing a meta-analysis of existing literature, conducting surveys,

focus groups, in-dept interviews, key informant interviews, literature review and a stakeholder’s

workshop.

5. Results

The meta-analysis provided a list of drivers identified in other studies as depicted in table 1 and

figure 1.This strategy combines data sets that have been collected during multiple studies over an

extended time, and searches for statistical trends that are unobservable in single studies. The

10


meta-analysis was used to determine the level of consensus regarding deforestation and forest

degradation in Belize.

Table 1: List of deforestation and forest degradation drivers.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Agriculture 26 17.7 17.7

government policies 18 12.2 12.2

logging

cattle ranching

18

14

12.2

9.5

12.2

9.5

Roads 11 7.5 7.5

slash and burn

population growth

urban expansion

tourism

wildfires

unequal access to resources

soil quality

farms on slope

distance to markets

10

9

8

6

4

3

3

2

2

6.8

6.1

5.4

4.1

2.7

2.0

2.0

1.4

1.4

6.8

6.1

5.4

4.1

2.7

2.0

2.0

1.4

1.4

total 147 100.0 100.0

Figure 1: Major drivers of deforestation and forest degradation identified.

11


At the completion of the meta-analysis identification of areas of interest labeled as hotspots via

the use of GIS was done. The following depicts the geospatial analysis done in identifying the

“hotspots”.

6. Geospatial Analysis

Identifying “Hotspots”

The term “hotspot” was designated based on the amount of deforestation and forest degradation

occurring, land tenure, proximity to road and settlements and standing forest cover observed in

specific areas of the country. In order for an area to be considered a hotspot the following

criterion was met; area was undergoing deforestation or forest degradation, it was not under any

protection status, it was near roads and settlements, and the terrain had a slope gradient of no

more that 15 degrees.

“Hotspots” or priority areas of deforestation and forest degradation were identified with the use

of GIS software Arcgis version 9.2 and geospatial data shapefiles of deforestation 2004-2010,

forest cover, roads, protected areas, topography and human settlements. The aforementioned

geospatial data layers were overlaid and a visual analysis was conducted with the ultimate

purpose of identifying where deforestation and forest degradation is presently occurring in

Belize. The analysis resulted in the identification of four major hotspots where deforestation and

forest degradation is occurring (Figure 2).

12


Figure 2: Map of Belize showing deforestation hotspots and sampling settlements.

Based on the results obtained from the GIS spatial data analysis and a cross tabulation conducted

with the results of the meta-analysis, the priority areas “hotspots” where the ethnographic studies

13


were conducted were identified. Twenty-one villages (Table 2) were selected from within those

hotspots for the ethnographic study.

Table 2: Villages identified as hotspots for ethnographic study.

These villages were selected based on the level of deforestation and forest degradation occurring

in that area and their proximity to forested areas. The remaining forested areas are considered

vulnerable because of their proximity to settlements, status of land tenure, slope gradient and

proximity to roads. The assumption is that the selected communities are farming commercially,

extracting timber for commercial purposes or are developing the land without any guidelines or

monitoring system. This made these settlements ideal for determining the drivers leading to

deforestation and forest degradation in the country of Belize.

The ethnographic study also identified five major variables of deforestation and forest

degradation. These are forest type cover, proximity to roads, forest protection status, slope

and proximity to agriculture. These variables were then presented in five different layers in

Arcgis to conduct geospatial analysis.

Northern Zone Central Zone Southern Zone

Maskal Valley of Peace San Marco

Bomba Los Tambos Santa Teresa

Santana More Tomorrow Blue Creek

Lucky Strike Cotton Tree San Jose

Progresso United Ville Pueblo Viejo

Little Belize Teakettle San Benito Poite

Chunox Big Falls

Santa Marta

14


Forest cover layer

The forest cover layer was used to calculate the forested areas in Belize that are under no form of

protection. It was estimated that approximately 667,048.56 hectares of forested areas are not

under protection. It was also estimated that the majority of forest lost that occurred between

2000-2010 happened in areas that are not protected. It appears that protected areas are still

acting as barriers to forest lost as noted by Wallace (2005), Meerman and Cayetano (2010),

Amor and Christensen (2008); although, Wildtracks (2009) suggests that protected areas are

losing their role as protectors of biodiversity including forests. Their analysis is based on the

aggregation of all protected areas which reveals that protected areas are losing grounds to illegal

logging (forest reserves), illegal settlements (CFR) which is occurring in large protected areas

where agency is lacking because of the size (hectare) of the area and lack of economic incentives

to monitor the area more effectively. However the geospatial analysis also revealed that out of

the 19,393.03 hectares of forest lost that occurred inside protected areas from 2000-2010,

83.22% occurred in protected areas under forest reserve management status (Figure 3, Figure 4)

which concurs with Wildtrack’s findings. Therefore what Wallace (2005), Meerman and

Cayetano (2010), Amor and Christensen (2008) found is that private protected areas have been

found to be effective in controlling deforestation and illegal incursion in areas that have effective

monitoring systems.

15


Figure 3: Deforested areas 2000 - 2010 and protected areas management status.

16


The meta-data analysis and the ethnographic studies, suggests that forested areas closer to roads

are more vulnerable to deforestation. Vulnerability is assumed because these areas are more

accessible as a result more easily cleared for commercial or subsistence agriculture and cattle

ranching. Furthermore, roads make the transporting of goods to markets and for household

consumption easier. In order to test this hypothesis and to understand whether roads indeed

influence the degree of deforestation and forest degradation a road buffer analysis was

conducted. The road data layer was used. From the layer, roads in protected areas were

eliminated because these roads are used for management purposes. The new layer was used to

create a buffer layer of 1 km, 2 km and 3 km from the roads. In order to determine if road and

Figure 4: Deforested areas 2000-2010 and protected areas management status.

17


forest lost are positively correlated an analysis was conducted to estimate how many hectares of

forest lost that occurred between the years 2000 to 2010 are within the 1 km, 2 km and 3 km

buffer zones. The results show that out of the 73,566.86 hectares of forest lost between 2000 and

2010, 66.8 % are within the established buffer zones. From the 49,184.17 hectares lost within the

buffer zones 32,501.422 hectares are within 1 Km, 12,878.77 hectares are within 2 Km and

3,803.98 hectares are within 3 Km of a road (Figure 5). The final analysis is that roads do

influence land use and land conversion and that forested areas closer to roads are more

vulnerable to forest lost.

Figure 5: Deforested areas 2000-2010 and road buffer zones.

18


Slope of the terrain

Another indicator that was identified in the meta-analysis and the ethnographic study was the

slope of the terrain. It was determined from the study that forest on steeper slopes are less

vulnerable of being cleared than forests on lower gradient, because the soils at steeper slopes are

more vulnerable to erosion and unsuitable for agriculture. To investigate whether slopes have an

influence in the rates of forest degradation and deforestation a slope map of the country was

generated. A digital elevation model of Belize based on the 2000 Shuttle Radar Topography

Mission (SRTM) having a one meter interval and a spatial resolution of 90m was used to

generate the slopes map for Belize. The slope intervals for the generated raster were reclassified

into 3 class intervals 0-5, 5-15 and 15-60 degrees. The reclassified raster data layer was

converted into vector data layer. The deforestation layer for the years 2000 to2010 was used to

conduct an intersect analysis in order to calculate forest lost rates that are occurring at each slope

intervals. The result of the analysis illustrates that forest lost during this period accounts for a

76.86%, 16.33% and 6.81% of forest lost at each slope interval respectively (Figure 6). The

results concur with the ethnographic study that forests in steeper slopes are less vulnerable of

being deforested or degraded. Interestingly, communities in the southern zone disagree that this

terrain is totally unsuitable for agriculture. From their point of view these slopes provide suitable

farming lands during the rainy season, since lower lying areas become water logged and

unsuitable for farming. However slopes are only suitable for a short period of time, and not year

round which allows the forest to regenerate when other areas become available.

19


Figure 6: Deforested areas 2000-2010 and slope gradient.

Agriculture

The other factor that was seen as one of the main pressures leading to deforestation and forest

degradation is agriculture. According to Tinker et al. (1996) recent decades have seen a dramatic

increase in tropical deforestation caused by slash-and-burn clearing for the establishment of more

permanent agriculture, plantations and pastures, which often result in degraded grasslands or

degraded fallows. These degraded lands or fallows are usually abandoned when they seem to

provide no nutrients for the soil and new forested areas are converted to agricultural land. In

order to determine if forested areas that are adjacent to agricultural land are more vulnerable to

deforestation a buffer of 1 km, 2 km and 3 km from agricultural areas was done. It was

20


determined that from the 73565.84 hectares of forest lost that occurred from 2000-2010, 74 %

fall within the established buffer zones. From the 54,509.77 hectares of forest lost that fall within

the buffer zones 87.1 % fall within 1 Km, 7.92 % fall within 2 Km and 4.57% fall within 3 km

(Figure 7). From the analysis it is clear that forested areas that are closer to agricultural areas are

more prone to deforestation. Agricultural land expansion in these areas is mainly due to

population pressures and international demand for agriculture products. According to Barbier

(2004) in most developing economies the decline of forest and woodlands is mainly due to land

conversion, in particular agricultural expansion for crop production.

Figure 7: Deforested areas 2000-2010 and agriculture buffer zones.

21


Forest ecosystem type

According to the ethnographic studies conducted, 56.7% of the respondents said that primary

land is found in broad-leaved forest and 76.2% agreed that primary forest had the best land for

agricultural production. Thus an analysis was conducted in order to determine if indeed areas

that have broad-leaved forest are more vulnerable to forest lost than areas with other forest

ecosystem type. In order to conduct this analysis a query was done on the ecosystems layer to

create a new layer with the following ecosystems types: Lowland broad-leaved dry forest,

Lowland savanna, Submontane broad-leaved wet forest, Lowland broad-leaved moist forest,

Mangrove and Littoral forest, Submontane pine forest, Lowland broadleaved wet forest,

Shrubland, Lowland pine forest and Submontane broad-leaved moist forest.

This new layer was then intersected with the deforested 2000-2010 layer. From the results of the

analysis it was determine that 46,499 hectares of deforested areas during this period fall within

the aforementioned ecosystems. Out of the 46,499 hectares deforested, 42.69 % occurred in

Lowland broad-leaved moist forest, 17.53% occurred in Submontane pine forest and 14.6%

occurred in Lowland broad-leaved wet forest (Figure 8). From the GIS analysis and the

ethnographic study that was conducted it is clear that broad leaved forests are being targeted for

agriculture developments. On the other hand the reason why Submontane pine forest lost is

observed as higher than lowland broad-leaved wet forest is because of the pine bark beetle

infestation that occurred in year 2000 that destroy thousands of hectares of pine forest.

22


Figure 8: Deforested areas 2000-2010 and ecosystems.

23


Index Model

The underlying causes of tropical deforestation and forest degradation vary from region to region

and are poorly understood, this is because tropical deforestation is the consequence of a variety

of interrelated social, economic, and environmental factors (Castillo et al. 2003). The five major

layers that were generated in the geospatial analysis were overlaid to generate a map depicting

the forested areas that have a high, medium, low and very low vulnerable to forest lost.

Before the layers could be used to conduct the weighted overlay analysis data preparation and

processing was done on the five layers. Each layers was rasterized and the pixel values were re-

classified using a deforestation and forest degradation vulnerability scale of 1 to 3, where 3

represent areas of high risk of being deforested, 2 areas of medium risk of being deforested and

1 being areas of low risk of being deforested (Table 3).

The road and agriculture buffer layers of 1Km, 2Km and 3Km were rasterized and the pixel

values were reclassified based on the deforestation and forest degradation vulnerability scale.

The 1 Km buffers were ranked as 3, the 2 Km buffers were ranked as 2 and the 3 Km buffers

were ranked as 1. The ranking of the buffer layers values in this order is based on previous

research which suggests that areas that are closer to roads and agriculture are more vulnerable to

deforestation and forest degradation. Moreover, the intersect analysis that was conducted showed

that the majority of forest lost that occurred from 2000-2010 happen within 1 Km of a road or an

agricultural area (Figure 5 & 7).

24


In the protected areas layer, areas under no form of management status were ranked as 3, areas

under forest reserves management status were ranked as 2 and areas under any other

management status were ranked as 1. The intersect analysis that was conducted depicted that the

majority of the forest lost that occurred from 2000-2010 happened in areas that are under no

form of management. In addition, the analysis also indicated that forest lost in areas under forest

reserve management status were much higher than areas under any other form of management

status (Figure 3). The reason why forest lost is high in forest reserves is because of concessions,

short term permits, and chainsaw permits that are given to exploit forest resources in these areas,

which go unmonitored.

In the slope layer, areas having a slope of 0-5 degrees where ranked as 3, areas having a slope of

5-15 were ranked as 2 and areas having a slope of 15-60 degrees were ranked as 1. The ranking

of this layer was based on the analysis that was conducted, which depicted that areas at lower

gradients are more vulnerable to forest lost than areas at higher gradients (Figure 6).

In the ecosystem type layer, areas that have Lowland broad leaved moist forest were ranked as 3,

Lowland broad-leaved wet forest were ranked as 2 and other ecosystem types were ranked as 1.

The reason for ranking the ecosystem type layer in this manner is because the analysis indicated

that areas with broad leaved moist forest are more vulnerable to forest lost (Figure 8).

After the five layers were prepared and processed a weighted overlay analysis was conducted to

identify areas that comply with one or more of the variables of vulnerability to forest lost. The

weightings of the different layers were derived from the national consultation and the

ethnographic studies that were conducted for the study. The reason for conducting a weighing

25


overlay is that all of the variables are not equally significant (Table 3). From the consultation and

the ethnographic studies that were conducted it was determined that the agriculture layer has the

highest influence in an area to be deforested.

Table 3: Layers for index model.

Data Layers Weighting (%) Categories Rank

1. Roads Layer

20

1 Km buffer

2 Km buffer

3 Km buffer

3

2

1

2. Protected Areas Layer

20

Not-Protected

Forest reserve

Other management status

3

2

1

3. Agriculture Layer

23

1 Km Buffer

2 Km Buffer

3 Km Buffer

3

2

1

4. Slopes

20

0 - 5 degrees

5 - 15 degrees

>15 degrees

3

2

1

5. Ecosystem Type Layer

17

Lowland broad-leaved moist forest.

Lowland broad-leaved wet forest

Other ecosystem types

3

2

1

The map that was generated by the analysis ranks forested areas as high, medium, low and very

low vulnerability of undergoing forest lost (Figure 9). The forested areas in the model that are

categorized as high are likely to experience severe stress due to agricultural activities, presence

of roads, no management status, low gradients of the area and forest type of the area.

26


Figure 9: Deforestation risk map.

27


The model that was generated provides useful information concerning the areas that are more

vulnerable to forest lost. The identification of these areas is crucial as resources can be allocated

to areas that are at greater risks of forest lost. Also strategies, programs and policies can be

developed to address or prevent forest lost in these areas. The purpose of the model is to

highlight which forested areas comply with the variables that were identified in the ethnographic

studies. There were some limitations that were encountered when developing the model which

can have an impact on the accuracy of the risk map that was generated. One of the major

limitations found is that most of the data that was used for the model lack meta-data so details of

how this data layers were generated is unknown. Also, most of the data layers that were used are

not up-to-date; data layers used ranged from the 1990 to 2010. The model also does not include

other variables that might influence the likelihood of an area being deforested. Amid all the

above mentioned limitations the data generated by the GIS analysis provides useful information

on deforestation and forest degradation to decision-makers in order to mitigate the ecological,

economical and environmental impacts of deforestation.

6. The Ethnographic Study

The demographic results of the study show that more male (table 4) respondents between the

ages of 29 to 39 were willing to participate in the study (table 5).

Table 4: Gender of Interviewee.


Cumulative

Percent

Male 378 65.5 65.5 65.5

Female 199 34.5 34.5 100.0

Total 577 100.0 100.0

28


Table 5: There were more respondents between the ages of 29 to 39.


Cumulative

Percent

18-28 137 23.7 23.7 23.7

29-39 176 30.5 30.5 54.2

40-50 139 24.1 24.1 78.3

>51 125 21.7 21.7 100.0

Total 577 100.0 100.0

As illustrated in Table 6, 23.4 % of the population had no education. The bulk of respondents

falling into this category came from women and men above the age of 50. Most of these

respondents were people who migrated into Belize during the civil wars in Central America.

Belize boasts a high literacy rate, according to CSO (2010) the literacy rate in Belize stands at

~98%.

Table 6: Respondents' Level of Education.

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

No education 135 23.4 23.4 23.4

Primary School 319 55.3 55.3 78.7

Secondary School 94 16.3 16.3 95.0

College and beyond 29 5.0 5.0 100.0

Total 577 100.0 100.0

a). Agriculture

The meta-analysis identified agriculture as the biggest contributor to deforestation and forest

degradation. This was later identified as the main driver of deforestation during the ethnographic

study. However, it is not clear cut because there are other factors that contribute to deforestation

when engaging in agriculture. For example a land use plan/policy would be able to guide

29


agriculture in different areas; but the lack of one means that agriculture occurs wherever there is

land available regardless of its nutrient level or slope gradient. This is further compounded by the

fact that agriculture is promoted as one of the major form of development because Belize is

dependent on agriculture. Therefore it is a socially complex dilemma (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Deforestation and forest degradation is socially complex.

Added to this is the fact that since the land is infertile farmers need to use more land (Figure 11),

leading to more deforestation because people/farmers believe that fertile soils are found only in

primary and broad leaf forests (Figure 12).

30


Figure 11: 50% of the respondents agree that "The land is not fertile so they need to use more land".

Figure 12: Fertile soils are only found in primary and broad leaf forests.

Private land owners country wide use the same plot of land for subsistence agriculture and use

the slash and burn method of farming (Figure 13).

31


Figure 13: The slash and burn method on the same plot of land is used for subsistence agriculture.

However there are some private land owners who rent their lands to big agricultural enterprises

(i.e. Mennonites) to avoid losing their lands to the government whose policy is “use or lose the

land”. Many times these lands had been kept as natural forest until being clear cut for

mechanized agriculture. When cleared for agricultural purposes these primary tropical forests

which are generally the most carbon-dense forests lose their importance. These forests are also

highly resilient, making it more likely that carbon will be stored over long periods of time in

forests of high biodiversity. However they cannot resist man-made destruction.

b). Cattle Ranching

Cattle ranching were ranked as the second highest driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

However, variables used during the ethnographic study were unable to verify this finding.

According to the respondents, cattle ranching was not common within all communities.

Furthermore, livestock were not specified (i.e. cows, pigs, horses etc.). Therefore all response

32


was categorically grouped as cattle. When asked about the importance of cattle ranching in each

community it was found that overall (Figure 14a) cattle ranching is important in each

community, with more than 50% of the population involved in cattle ranching. When evaluated

at the zone level it was observed that the central and southern zones are actually the zones

involved in cattle ranching (Figure 14b). This can be attributed to the topography and climate of

the country where the central and southern zones receive more rainfall necessary for growth of

vegetation needed to feed livestock.

Figure 14: Cattle ranching is important to this community.

When investigating further into deforestation and forest degradation due to cattle ranching

respondents did not perceive cattle ranching as a factor driving deforestation. Most of the

respondents are caring for their livestock in their back yards since they have small numbers of

cattle they handle them on “a rope” hence rotating them from one feeding ground to another.

Hence they are not cutting any new forest. This however draws more evidence in support of

forest degradation since the cattle is consistently moving from one area to another thereby not

allowing the regeneration of native woodlands/grasslands.

33


The major community that is involved in cattle ranching is the Spanish Lookout Mennonite

Community. This community supplies a large percentage of the demand for beef consumption

in the country. However, this community did not participate in the study. Their cautiousness was

arisen, because the study was directly focused on Deforestation. They did not want to participate

for fear of divulging sensitive information that may have an impact on their access to forested

lands. In a personal interview with one of the three community leaders, he suggested that they

are indeed cutting down broadleaf forest for agriculture and cattle ranching. “Broadleaf forest

contains the best soils” he confessed. According to this leader they are no longer able to make

fiscal profit on small parcels of land, so they actively seek parcels of forested areas that are in

excess of 500 acres. In this case farms and pastures are expanding to rented land and

noncontiguous field locations because they are renting from farmers who are not occupying their

lands. Furthermore, they pride themselves in being the only community doing mechanized

agriculture to support Belize’s economy, population demand and export markets.

Although markets are unstable because of climatic conditions, political problems etc. which may

or may not favor production these savvy producers have knowledge of market demands and take

full advantage of that. According to Clark (2011) The USDA 2011-2012 corn yield projection is

12.906 billion bushels (a bushel is 56lbs) while the demand is 13.355 billion bushels. This leaves

an annual difference between projection and demand of 449 million bushels. Because of climatic

conditions their carry over is less than the previous amount of 900 million bushel. So while they

don’t expect to run out of corn, their year-end carry-over is the lowest on record.

34


Belize has a limited consumption demand of agricultural commodity, which restricts the

production and growth potential of commodity. Only so much corn can be grown to feed the

livestock of Belize; only so much meat can be consumed in Belize. Considering export and

international trade agreements, many commodities can benefit beyond the limited consumption

of the local market (Clark 2011) which is the confounding factor that is driving mechanized

farming in this community.

With the government encouraging agricultural development it seems an impossible task of

curbing deforestation. According to Senator Godwin Hulse Belize has 60% of its land suitable

for agriculture: that is, for either crops or livestock. In his opening remarks at the National

Agriculture and Trade Show he stated that he believes we are using some 10% of our potential.

This statement alone encourages land owners to continue cutting down forest for livestock and

farming purposes. Small farmers however do not see the need to clear land for pastures. Figure

15 shows respondents perception about the need for new land for pastures.

Figure 15: Small scale cattle ranching is not causing deforestation or forest degradation.

35


c). Government Policies

Government policies are seen as a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Respondents are frustrated because of the discrepancy in land speculation and distributions

methods that are done currently, which do not necessarily follow the established government

policies. Respondents feel that Government officials are ‘complacent’ and lack the power to

enforce applicable regulations. Other claims point to the judgments of officials that are likely to

be clouded by conflicts of interest. For example the “use or lose policy” is most often enforced

when a client is willing to compensate land officer “under the table” to expedite the paper work.

This forces land owners to enter into ventures that don’t benefit them economically but allows

them to keep their lands (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Government policies encourage deforestation and forest degradation.

36


Another area of concern is the tendering of concessions for timber extraction. Although Belize

has a well established set of laws that govern logging, many are ignored to accommodate favored

interests. Timber extraction is not actively monitored, so loggers often harvest indiscriminately,

without fear of scrutiny of their products. Furthermore the concession commitment to implement

a reforestation program on the part of the loggers is ignored, leading to inevitable forest loss.

d). Logging

Historically the development of Belize’s economy was based on logging. The country of Belize

was established based on logwood cutting. Throughout history we have seen the extraction of

Haematoxylum campechianum (Logwood), Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany), Cedrela

odorata (cedar) and currently the extraction of Dalbergia latifolia (rosewood) which is leading

to forest degradation because all sizes are being extracted with and without permits country

wide.

Respondents were unwilling to confirm whether logging was occurring within their

neighborhood. However they confirmed that they extract lumber for household use, with

government permits (Table 7, figure 17). Many also confirmed that there is illegal logging going

on in the forests around their communities. The extraction of logging illegally was also

confirmed by information received from the FD. However, most of the illegal extraction of

timber also goes unnoticed because it occurs within large areas where there in lack of monitoring

because of lack of fund – manpower. For this reason REDD+ is a welcome strategy in Belize

because the funds/incentives which it proposes to provide can be used to strengthen the capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swietenia_macrophylla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalbergia_latifolia

37


to monitor the areas and confiscate and capture all criminals thereby decreasing the rate of

deforestation and forest degradation and allowing biodiversity to strive and recuperate.

Table 7: Logging drives deforestation and forest degradation.

Logging is

mostly done for

local use

Most logging is

done with gov’t

permission

Most people in the

community are

involved in

logging

Illegal logging

activities are

common in this

area

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Total

2.1

25.8

12.0

53.4

6.8

100.0

1.9

17.3

12.7

52.7

15.4

100.0

7.3

51.5

9.4

23.7

8.1

100.0

8.3

30.0

21.1

31.5

9.0

100.0

Figure 17: Logging does occur throughout the country with or without government permits.

At this point any efforts to curb deforestation and forest degradation could provide considerable

benefits for biodiversity, in particular through the conservation of primary forests (SCBD, 2009).

Effective forest landscape restoration can be beneficial for biodiversity in forests that are already

degraded. Research shows that tropical forests can regain up to 80% of their original biodiversity

in as little as 50 years (Dent & Wright, 2009; Sberze et al., 2010). Harnessing the full potential of

38


biodiversity benefits would also boost forest ecosystem services, which have been estimated to

be worth on average US$ 6,120 per hectare per year in intact tropical forests (TEEB, 2009b).

People know the value of the forest for its intrinsic and aesthetic value. In most of the

communities they also respect the forest for its cultural values. However, they also need the

forest in their everyday life. Forest products hold many uses across Belize. Thus far 99% of the

respondents use the forest in their everyday life, as fuel, construction material, food, medicinal,

aesthetic values etc. (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Non timber forest products are used everywhere in Belize.

With their vast knowledge of the uses of forest products respondents believe that the forest

should be respected and cared for. Cutting down the trees is unacceptable regardless of race,

educational background or age. Most respondents agreed that trees are important (Figure 19).

39


Figure 19: Respondents understand the importance of keeping the forest.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Echoing the sentiments and words of Mr. Leon Westby from the FD this work clearly depicts

that Belize is ready for REDD. The policy co-ordination is there, the laws are there, the science,

the historical data is there, and the political commitment is there. Much is needed to be done to

ensure that REDD is properly implemented and managed in Belize because it is imperative that

the country understands that this is not a political move but a national move. One in which Belize

protects its forests for itself and not for a political party. For that reason there are some

recommendations that should be considered in preparing for REDD in Belize.

Local people’s livelihood is at the forefront of any and all forest management initiates. The Rural

population especially is dependent on the forest resources and if those resources are going to be

made inaccessible to local communities by locking up forests in the form of protected areas or

40


forest reserves then there has to be other sources which can provide the resources that these

communities depend on. We cannot take away the access to firewood from rural communities

without offering them another alternative. Some alternatives that can be made available to

community members are: leaving multiple use areas where they can still extract forest resources,

access to dead or non living trees within the protected areas, access to low cost efficiency stoves

in which firewood is still used but in smaller quantities etc.

Many countries in Africa have been experiencing with different efficiency stoves and there are

ongoing projects in Guatemala which are also making these low cost efficiency stoves available

for rural community members. This is important because increased efficiency of resource use

throughout the processing chain could further enhance the contribution to local livelihoods and

emission reductions.

Thus many enabling conditions must be put in place. These should include but not be limited to:

access to markets for a variety of forest products, absence of agricultural policies that increase

agricultural land values relative to forest values, tenure security, communities having and

applying their own land use regulations, effective law enforcement, access to new and available

knowledge, local capacity, and markets that favor forest products from well-managed forests by

paying better prices for such products (Smith, Scherr 2003; Louman, Stoian 2002; Smith et al.

2006).

i

Appendix A

Policy Recommendations

Belize has needed an integrated land use policy for decades. Considerable effort has been

invested in trying to implement the development of this policy through a number of initiatives,

many supported through UNDP GEF funding. There is a new initiative underway to draft another

land use policy, but the process will be long and likely confronted with many political challenges.

Adoption of sustainable and adaptive policies that establish clear guidelines by which GoB

planners, technicians and administrators can make sensible decisions which take into

consideration social, economic and ecological perspectives is essential if we are to develop

sustainably.

Policy guidelines are especially needed when it comes to subdividing and transfer of land

approving development projects while ensuring that forest conservation and management issues

are fully addressed. Policies should also be clear as to responsibilities and obligations of

landowners and resource users (loggers, gravel miners, harvesters of non-timber forest materials)

concerning forest conservation and reforestation. The critical deficiency of any policy or

legislation is failure to follow guidelines and enforce the law.

Forest-related Policy Recommendations

Promote the responsibility of the Lands and Surveys Department, the Department of the

Environment, the Agriculture Department and the Forest Department to address site specific

issues involving clearing of slopes and river banks for agriculture

Establish minimum riparian forest width of at least 66 feet from the break-in-slope, with wider

riparian zones for ecologically sensitive areas, including adjacent wetlands to discourage

agricultural activity on marginal land

Apply the 66 foot riparian width (from the break-in-slope) to all agricultural development rather

than just to protected areas, national lands and private areas where trees are being harvested for

timber

Eliminate forest clearing on steep slopes, particularly areas subject to extensive erosion and mass

movement

Issue only long term leases in forest reserves that require management plans for reforestation of

areas that have been harvested for timber and monitor to ensure that the area is reforested.

Encourage reforestation of old pastures and other degraded lands

Promote development / establishment of private protected areas

Develop rural community agro-forestry and restoration forestry potential (Avila 1998)

Pursue opportunities in forest carbon market incentives which REDD proposes (Boyd et al. 2007)

Promote environmental education in areas that have been neglected because of lack of tourism

attractions in the area (e.g. villages of Los Tambos, Valle de Paz, More Tomorrow etc.).

ii


Agriculture-related Policy Recommendations

Promote mixed species and agroforestry systems which can provide resources such as firewood,

medicinal plants, edible forest products etc.

Promote erosion control measures within agriculture fields that include cover cropping and other

appropriate strategies

Encourage production strategies that minimize use of inputs from outside sources (Bunch 1999)

Landscape Policy Recommendations

Recognize that poverty and food security are central issues in any landscape/forest management

effort and should be addressed as part of the intervention and restoration strategies

Develop a stronger forest management focus within the Forest Department, the Agriculture

Department, the Department of the Environment, the Fisheries Department and the Department of

Geology and Petroleum

Promote applied research in appropriate land use practices, especially agriculture, with the

objectives of discovering ways to improve efficiency and lower investment costs while reducing

and, where possible, eliminating stress and impacts to the environment

Promote co-management of forest systems through community associations, local governance

and forest management committees representing all stakeholder groups

Support standardized environmental assessment and monitoring programs that are affordable,

effective, integrated, networked and community-based

Recognize and accept climate change as an inevitable challenge to which we must adapt, and

assume the responsibility of helping the nation prepare socially, culturally, economically, and

environmentally for those imposed changes.

Require that development plans strongly consider ecosystem structure and function from a

landscape perspective

Promote holistic planning within a landscape context for large projects and Special Development

Areas that minimizes fragmentation of upslope and riparian forests and maintains corridor

networks

Apply principles of natural resource economics in the valuation of ecosystem services and

establishing a fair and equitable payment for environmental services

Highlight and recognize good models of landscape management by developers and farmers

(Boles et al 2010)

A

List of References

1. Agarwal, B. (2001). "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry and Gender: An

Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework." World Development 29(10):

1623-1648.

2. Alix-Garcia, J., A. d. J., Elisabeth Sadoulet, Juan Manuel Torres, Josefina Braña Varela

and Maria Zorilla Ramos (2005). Amor, D. and N. Christensen (2008.). "Forecasting

deforestation from the impact of road investments in the Mayan Forest." Nicholas School

of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

3. Amor, Dalia and Norman Christensen (2008). Forecasting deforestation from the impact

of road investments in the Mayan Forest. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke

University, Durham, NC, USA.

4. Avila, M. (1998.). Agroforestry opportunities in Belize. Agroforestry Prototypes for

Belize. M. Ibrahum and J. Beer. Costa Rica, CATIE: 55.

5. Bastiaan, L., M. C. and, et al. (2011.). "REDD+, RFM, Development, and Carbon

Markets." Forests 2: 357-372.

6. Barbier E. B. (2004). Explaining Agricultural Land Expansion and Deforestation in

Developing Countries. Panel Data Evidence on Economic Development and the

Environment in Developing Countries. American Agricultural Economics Association.

7. Boles, E., F. Penados, C. Young, L. Phillips, N. Rios, K. Jolly, E. Requina, J. Garcia-

Saqui (2010.). Rapid Assessment of the Upper Belize River Valley. Identification of

Stakeholder Needs, Involvement Opportunities and Incentives for Landscape Restoration

Focused on Riparian/Wetland Reforestation and Land Use Policy Recommendations.

Mesoamerican Agro-environmental Programme. Belmopan CATIE: 66.

8. Boyd, E., M. Gutierrez and M. Chang (2007.). "Small-scale forest carbon projects:

adapting CDM to low-income communities." Global Environmental Change 17: 250-259.

9. Bray, D.B.; Duran, E.; Ramos, V.H.; Mas, J.-F.; Velazquez, A.; McNab, R.B.; Barry, D.;

Radachowsky, J. Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the

Maya forest. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 56

10. Bunch, R. (1999.). "More productivity with fewer external inputs: Central American case

studies of agroecological development and their broader implications." Environment

Development and Sustainability 1: 219-233.

11. Carrera, F.; Prins, K. Desarrollo de la política en Concesiones Forestales Comunicaciones

en Petén, Guatemala: el aporte de la investigación y experiencia sistematizada del

CATIE. Revista Forestal Centroamericana 2002, 37, 33-40.

12. Castillo S. M.A., Hellier A., Tipper R. and De Jong B.H.J. (2003). Carbon emissions

from land-use change: An analysis of casual factor in Chiapas, Mexico.

B


13. Clark Greg (2011). Organic Production - Seeking the Perfect Yield in Belize….in The

Belize Ag Report. Belize’s most complete independent agricultural publication June-July

2011 Issue 12. BelizeAgReport.com (visited 11/15/2011)

14. Dent, D.H. & Wright, S.J. (2009). The future of tropical species in secondary forests: a

quantitative review. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2833–2843.

15. Easterly, W. (2002). The Elusive Quest for Growth. Economists' Adventures and

Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, the MIT Press.

16. Louman, B. G., M.; Yalle, S.; Campos, J.J.; Locatelli, B.; Villalobos, R.; López, G.;

Carrera, F. (2005). Efectos del pago por servicios ambientales y la certificación forestal

en el desempeño ambiental y socioeconómico del manejo de bosques naturales en Costa

Rica; Colección Manejo Diversificado de Bosques Naturales. S. Técnica. CATIE,

Turrialba, Costa Rica: p. 31.

17. Louman, B.; Stoian, D. (2002). Manejo forestal sostenible en América Latina:

Económicamente viable o utopía? Revista Forestal Centroamericana, 39-40, 25-32.

18. Mayrand K. and M. Paquin. 2004. Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey and

Assesment of Current Schemes. Unisfera International Centre for the Commission of

Environmental Cooperation of North America, Montreal, p.9

19. Meerman, J. and Cayetano (2010.). "Recommendations from Protected Areas

Management Organizations to the Forest Department for the National Forest Policy." 79.

20. Sberze, M., Cohn-Haft, M. & Ferraz, G. (2010). Old growth and secondary forest site

occupancy by nocturnal birds in a neotropical landscape. Anim. Conserv. 13, 3–11.

21. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity SCBD (2009). Connecting

Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad

Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical

Series No. 41, 126 p.

22. Smith, J.; Colan, V.; Sabogal, C.; Snook, L. (2006). Why policy reforms fail to improve

logging practices: The role of governance and norms in Peru. Forest Policy Econ. 8,

458-469.

23. Smith, J.; Scherr, S.J. (2003). Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods.

World Dev. 31, 2143-2160.

24. Tinker P. B., Ingram J. S.I and Struwe S. (1996). Effects of slash-and-burn agriculture

and deforestation on climate change: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 58: 13-

22.

25. TEEB (2009b) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Climate Issues Update.

September 2009.

26. Wallace, G. N., J. Barborak, and C. G. MacFarland (2005.). "Land-use planning and

regulation in and around protected areas: a study of best practices and capacity building

needs in Mexico and Central America." Natureza y Conservacao 3: 147-167.

27. West, P.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of

protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251-277.

C


28. Wildtracks (2009.). "State of Belize’s protected areas." 16.

29. Wildlife Conservation Society (2006). Bulletin 9: Living Landscapes. SHARING

VALUED LANDSCAPES: CONSERVATION THROUGH THE EYES OF WILDLIFE

- Conserving Living Landscapes for Wildlife and People

identification of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in belize · · 2014-02-19drivers...

Documents