Independent Forest Monitoring Pilot Project Nicaragua

Mission report No. 003

Mission of the Independent Monitor

---------------------------

Annual Operational Plan in Community Broadleaf Forest Puerto Cabezas – North Atlantic Autonomous Region

Name of the site: Siksikwas

Forest Management General Plan: Autorización no. 1603 - L672 Annual Operational Plan 2003 –

2004:Autorización no. 1603 - L672 454 -002

Owner: Heriberto Salgado Lanuza Area handed over as a

concession by:Colectivo Siksikwas - Comunidad Maniwatla

Municipality: Puerto Cabezas - RAAN

Mission dates: 21, 22 and 23 September 2006

Report date: 04 October 2006

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... 2

2. COMPOSITION OF THE MISSION....................................................................... 4

3. POSITIVE ASPECTS................................................................................................ 4

4. CONSTRAINTS......................................................................................................... 4

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELDWORK................................................................. 5

6. RESULTS OF THE MISSION ................................................................................. 5 6.1 General description of the FMGP visited ___________________________________ 5 6.2 Main findings in AOP “El Tío No. II” 2003 – 2004 ____________________________ 6

6.2.1 Approval of AOP 2003 – 2004 and renewal for 2005 - 2006................................................. 6 6.2.2 Volume of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) to be harvested ............................................ 6 6.2.3 Verification and check of boundaries in AOP El Tío No. II................................................... 6 6.2.4 Marking trees for harvesting................................................................................................... 7 6.2.5 Forest tracks and log ponds .................................................................................................... 7 6.2.6 Forest harvesting..................................................................................................................... 8 6.2.7 Illegal harvesting of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) ...................................................... 9 6.2.8 Supervision and inspection of INAFOR to the FMGP ..........................................................10

6.3 Main findings in the request of AOP El Tío No. III 2005 - 2006 _________________ 11 6.3.1 Request of approval of AOP El Tío No. III - 2006................................................................11 6.3.2 Review and verification of the limits of AOP El Tío No. III.................................................11 6.3.3 Verification of the data of the commercial census of the species to be harvested .................11 6.3.4 Marking of the trees censed...................................................................................................11 6.3.5 Maps of the AOP ...................................................................................................................12 6.3.6 Pre-harvesting activities.........................................................................................................12 6.3.7 Non-delimitation of the protection areas ...............................................................................12

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 13

8. Annexes .................................................................................................................... 15 Annex 1: Authorisation of FMGP El Tío - INAFOR _________________________________ 15 Annex 2: Renewal of Harvesting Permit for AOP 2003-2004 - INAFOR_________________ 16 Annex 3: Maps of FMGP, POA II and POA III_____________________________________ 17

2

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Within the framework of the agreement signed by INAFOR1 and Global Witness for the implementation of an Independent Forest monitoring Pilot Project in Nicaragua, the Global Witness technical team (known as the independent monitor) along with the INAFOR Municipal Delegate of Puerto Cabezas and a technical staff member of the company Hermanos Salgado, carried out a mission on 21, 22 and 23 September 2006 to the Forest Management General Plan (FMGP) El Tío. More specifically, two out of ten Annual Harvesting Areas of this broadleaf forest area were visited, which correspond to the Annual Operational Plan (AOP) El Tío No. II (already harvested) and AOP El Tío No. III (currently begin considered for approval). This FMGP is located in a land owned by the Siksikwas Collective, “Lorenzo Pasquier”, who live in the Maniwatla miskita community, an area under the administration of the Puerto Cabezas Municipality in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN2). The area under management was handed as a concession for five renewable years to Mr. Heriberto Salgado, who lives in the city of Bilwi, Puerto Cabezas. For the implementation of this mission, support was provided from the INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas District Delegation, as well as from the forester Noel Moreno and from Alejandro Salgado from the company Hermanos Salgado. The more relevant conclusions and recommendations of the independent monitor about this mission are: AOP El Tío No. II (2003 – 2004)

1. The renewal procedure of the AOP Harvesting Permit for El Tío II was issued without the required technical inspection from INAFOR. This breaches art. 38 of the regulations of the Forest Law.

2. The volume of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) planned for harvesting is

60% higher than the estimated viability in the FMGP, hence breaching NTON3 5.1.6.1.

3. The boundaries established in the AOP do not coincide with those marked in

the field, and the latter are not properly marked.

4. In the implementation of the management, harvesting and extraction activities within the AOP, some technical regulations have not been followed. These relate to:

• Map of planned infrastructures. • Marking of trees. • Construction of log ponds. • Technical specifications for primary and secondary tracks.

1 Forest National Institute (Instituto Nacional Forestal) 2 Región Autónoma del Atlántico Norte 3 Nicaraguan Obligatory Technical Norms (Normas Técnicas Obligatorias Nicaragüenses)

3

• Provision of a diagnostic sampling. • Implementation of silvicultural measures. • Delimitation of protection areas for water streams.

5. Within the AOP area, mahogany (Swietnia macrophylla) has been logged

using a chainsaw. According to INAFOR, this activity is illegal as the harvesting permits and transport guides are only valid for logs and not for sawn timber.

6. No evidence was found that the logging company has harvested trees

beyond the AOP boundaries.

7. INAFOR has not followed up on the activities carried out in FMGP El Tío and hence the harvesting area.

AOP El Tío No. II (2006)

1. The boundaries of the AOP on the ground correspond to those established in

the document.

2. The data of the commercial census presented in the document do not correspond to what was found in the field. This is due to errors occurred when the field information was digitalised.

3. The AOP does not take into account NTON regarding:

• Maps with the location of log ponds and planned tracks. • Delimitation of protection areas for water streams. • Signalling of the AOP area.

Following these conclusions, the independent monitor recommends:

1. INAFOR should comply with what the Forest Law establishes regarding the approval of AOPs, harvesting permits and their renewal.

2. INAFOR should demand that the forest regents comply with NTON when

producing AOPs.

3. The company Hermanos Salgado should ensure the protection of the forest resources handed over by the Siksikwas Collective and prevent the illegal harvesting of highly valued commercial species.

4. In order to approve AOP El Tío No. III, requested by the logging company,

INAFOR should ask the latter to present:

• Appropriate and up-to-date calculations of the viable volume to be harvested in the forest.

• Up-to-date maps. • A report of the diagnostic sampling of AOP El Tío No. II.

4

• A timeframe of the silvicultural activities to be carried out in the harvested areas.

• Appropriate marking of trees. • Delimitation of the protection areas.

2. COMPOSITION OF THE MISSION Days 21, 22 and 23 September 2006

o Marcelino Job, Maniwatla Community o Noel Moreno, company Hermanos Salgado o Miguel Abella, INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegate o Arturo Avila, IFM technical staff, Global Witness o César Zelaya, IFM technical staff, Global Witness o Filippo del Gatto, part-time consultant, Global Witness

3. POSITIVE ASPECTS The implementation of this mission was supported by INAFOR staff and representatives of the company Hermanos Salgado, as well as by members of the Siksikwas Collective. Collaboration from these people included:

• Provision from INAFOR (RAAN District Delegation, Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegation) of the documents and information related to AOP 2003 – 2004, “El Tío No. II”, and the approval application form for AOP “El Tío No. III”.

• Escort and support from INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegate during

the mission.

• Logistical support from the company Hermanos Salgado, especially from technical staff Noel Moreno and from Alejandro Salgado.

• Appointment of two members from Maniwatla community, owners of and familiar

with the area, who guided the team on the ground.

4. CONSTRAINTS There were no constraints for the development of this mission.

5

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELDWORK The mission was implemented in three days, in which the following activities were carried out: Day 1:

• Corroboration of the boundaries of Blocks A and B of the application form for AOP El Tío III. This was done by registering the UTM coordinates of each of the corners of these blocks with a GPS device.

• Inspection and geographical location of the log ponds that are to be constructed in each of the blocks.

• Verification of the data of the commercial census, assessing the location of the trees, species and diameter.

Day 2:

• Corroboration of the limits of Block A of AOP El Tío II, for which the UTM coordinates of the corners of the block were registered with a GPS device.

• Verification of harvesting beyond the boundaries of the AOP. Day 3:

• Corroboration of the limits of Block B of AOP El Tío II. This was done by registering the UTM coordinates of each of the corners of these blocks with a GPS device.

• Verification of harvesting beyond the boundaries of the AOP.

6. RESULTS OF THE MISSION

6.1 General description of the FMGP visited FMGP El Tío is located in the land allocated to the Siksikwas Collective, who are members of the Maniwatla miskita Community in the Municipality of Puerto Cabezas, RAAN. On 4 January 2002, INAFOR issued authorisation1603 - L672 of this FMGP to Mr. Heriberto Salgado Lanuza. To this date, two harvesting permits have been issued. These correspond to AOP El Tío No I (2002 – 2003) and AOP El Tío No. II (2003 – 2004), with registration number 1603 - L672 454 – 002, as well as a renovation of AOP El Tío No.II (2004 – 2005). The FMGP covers a period of 20 years and has an area of 2000 ha. of closed broadleaf forest, with a total of 10 Annual Harvesting Areas, 200 ha. each, to be harvested within 10 years – the remaining 10 years will focus on regeneration of the area. The silvicultural system is polycyclic. This third monitoring mission focused on verifying the compliance with the activities included in AOP 2003 -2004 and its renewal for 2005 – 2006. It also looked at AOP El Tío III, which is currently in the process of being approved by the INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegation. Given that the field work was carried out in two different areas within El Tío FMGP, the main findings for each will be described separately.

6

6.2 Main findings in AOP “El Tío No. II” 2003 – 2004

6.2.1 Approval of AOP 2003 – 2004 and renewal for 2005 - 2006 The approval of AOP El Tío No. II, with registration number 1603 - L672 454 – 002, as well as the issuance of the pertinent Harvesting Permit, were made in 2003 for the period 2003 – 2004. These included the harvesting of 1,439 trees of 8 different species, with a total volume of 4,021.89 m3, in an area of 270 ha. However, seemingly the company was not able to harvest all this volume in the timeframe established, and so in 2005 it requested the INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegation for a renewal. This was made effective on 25 April 2005 for a one-year period. The renewal of the Harvesting Permit included 938 trees of 8 different species, with a total volume of 2,782.24 m3. This permit expired on 25 April 2006, before the State of Emergency and the Logging Ban came into force. According to the regulations of the Forest Law, specifically to art. 38, INAFOR “will issue harvesting permits for a specific type of timber, a specific volume and a specific area. This will be issued for a year and may be renewed for a period not exceeding another year, following a technical inspection”. When the harvesting permit being analysed in this report was renewed for the period 05-06, the Municipal Delegation did not carry out the technical inspection of the harvesting site, but instead authorised this permit only using the proposal from the logging company. This clearly breaches the article mentioned above.

6.2.2 Volume of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) to be harvested According to the FMGP “El Tïo”, the harvest rate considered for mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) was the equivalent to 0.6 m3 and 0.2 trees per hectare respectively. This would allow the extraction of 162 m³ and 54 trees in the 270 ha. of the AOP. However, a total of 273 m³ and 77 trees – the equivalent of 1.01 m3 per hectare - were considered in the planning of the harvesting activities. In other words, up to 60% (110 m³) more mahogany timber was planned for extraction than the harvest rate established initially. This breaches paragraph 5.1.6.1 of the NTON. This increase in volume puts the mahogany population at risk and reduces the possibility of establishing a proper natural regeneration in the area to be harvested.

6.2.3 Verification and check of boundaries in AOP El Tío No. II The verification of the AOP boundaries by means of a GPS device showed that the limits established in the documents do not coincide with those marked on the ground. Furthermore, the boundaries are not well marked and signalled and following them in the field is difficult. This is due to the fact that signalling posts have plastic markings which are often deteriorated by the rain, thus causing confusion in the location of such limits. The annexed maps present the delimitation of the AOP according to the documents and compare it with the data gathered in the field.

7

It is worth noting that despite these difficulties in locating the boundaries, it does not appear as if the company has harvested beyond the AOP area.

6.2.4 Marking trees for harvesting Regarding the marking of trees for their subsequent harvesting, the system used does not guarantee that the trees to be left standing will be respected, and thus it is very difficult to, by looking at a stump, determine whether the logged tree was one that did have to be cut. In practice, the mark to cut a tree is normally done by making a cut with a machete at the base or side of it. The tree left unmarked is then the one to be left standing. NTON do not specify the type of marking that has to be used and so it is done at discretion of the company or forest regent. Consequently, it is highly likely that the person in charge of logging the trees is confused and cuts trees that should’ve been left standing. Even worse, this ambiguity opens the door to a possible deliberate illegal harvesting. The following picture shows a tree harvested where no marked was shown to indicate whether it was a tree to be harvested or left standing. Picture 1

6.2.5 Forest tracks and log ponds In order to carry out all the activities related to the extraction and storage of timber logged within AOP El Tío II, secondary and tertiary tracks were built. However, the latter were not reflected on the maps annexed to the AOP, which breaches what paragraph 1.4.3.1 of NTON stipulate. In Block B of this AOP, it was possible to verify that the width of the secondary tracks was on average over 5 meters. According to the FMGP, however, it should have been 3 meters wide in order to reduce the impact in the vegetation.

8

The following picture shows the secondary road that communicates Block B with the log pond. Picture 2

Log ponds were built equidistantly from the areas to be harvested in Blocks A and B. However, these are over the 0.15 ha. established in the AOP, covering instead 0.25 ha. Moreover, these log ponds and the specific area they cover are not reflected in the maps. Both the width of the tracks and the dimension of the log ponds must comply with the basic regulations in order to reduce the environmental impact within the forest areas. The use of heavy machinery (skiders and trucks D4 and D6) for dragging the logs provokes further damage to the forest. The primary track is approximately 12 Km. long, and connects the FMGP area with the road that goes from Puerto Cabezas to Rosita. In its trajectory, this track is crossed by numerous permanent water cources. Where this happens, draining filters have been built. However, some of these do not allow water to flow freely. This has caused blockages in the track, water stagnation and the impossibility to use the track in the rainy season.

6.2.6 Forest harvesting

• Pre-harvesting activities According to what the AOP El Tïo II establishes, and to what the FMGP stipulates, some of the pre-harvesting activities were not followed. These include:

• Signalling of the FMGP and AOP area. • Marking and limiting the AOP area using permanent and visible colour

paint.

9

• Clearing of the trees to be harvested. The lack of a correct signalling can lead to the harvesting of trees beyond the logging blocks and beyond the FMGP.

• Harvesting activities The area comprised in Block B is crossed by at least two water courses. In the basin of one of such courses, trees were harvested (as shown in pictures 3 and 4). Despite the document mentioning the existence of two water courses, the protection areas around them were not marked. Logging this area can increase the water levels during the winter months and harm the natural regeneration of the forest. Picture 3. Picture 4

• Post-harvesting activities The silvicultural activities in the block of this FMGP had not been carried out at the time of the mission. This seems mainly caused by the lack of compliance of the forest regent in producing a Diagnostic Sampling of the harvested areas, despite the site being harvested since 2003. It can be stated that the management activities in this forest are minimal, and clearly more efforts have been made in the harvesting and extracting activities.

6.2.7 Illegal harvesting of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) Within the harvesting blocks, vestiges of logging of mahogany can often be found. Such harvesting has been done illegally, as INAFOR only issues harvesting permits and transport guides for logs, no sawn timber. The following picture shows a stump of a mahogany tree that was logged illegally.

10

Picture 5. The independent monitor was not able to determine who carried out this illegal harvesting. This activity affects the logging company for two reasons: a) it loses volume of timber of high value, b) likelihood of being denounced to INAFOR for logging timber with a chainsaw without authorisation. The logging company has considered training surveillance agents to deploy them in the FMGP area. However, to this date no specific actions have been taken.

6.2.8 Supervision and inspection of INAFOR to the FMGP According to Law No.462, its Regulations and the Administrative Dispositions for the Sustainable Management of Broadleaf Tropical Forests, Conifer Forests and Forest Plantations, INAFOR delegates have to carry out random inspections in forest areas subjected to FMGP, with a view to verify compliance with the approved procedures. The INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegate who accompanied the monitor during the mission stated that this was his first visit to the area. Moreover, he went on to say that had it not been for the monitor’s visit, he would probably have not visited it due to a lack of resources. INAFOR Municipal Delegation does not have a budget to cover the expenses of these necessary field visits to the harvesting areas. The Municipal Delegate is therefore obliged to delegate on the forest regent all the supervision and follow-up of the activities that are carried out in the FMGP, and provide his own follow-up solely by looking at the reports that the regent presents to him. It is worth noting that in AOP EL Tío No. II, the independent monitor did not report significant irregularities from the logging company.

11

6.3 Main findings in the request of AOP El Tío No. III 2005 - 2006 The main findings presented below are based in the analysis of the AOP El Tío No. III and in the field visit carried out in the forest area allocated for this AOP within El Tïo FMGP.

6.3.1 Request of approval of AOP El Tío No. III - 2006 In April 2006, the logging company Hermanos Salgado sent the INAFOR – Puerto Cabezas Municipal Delegation a request for the approval of AOP EL ¨Tío No. III, within FMGP El Tío. The area covers 201.7ha, and the estimated total harvest is 1469 trees of 13 commercial species. The total commercial volume is 4,131.65 m³, with a total base area of 493.13 m³. The response from INAFOR to the logging company was the non-approval of the AOP until the company presented the following reports:

• Final report of the harvesting activities in AOP El Tío No. II • Report on the Diagnostic Sampling of the harvesting sites of AOP El Tío

No. I and El Tío No. II. To this date, the logging company has not presented the reports mentioned above, nor has the AOP request been approved.

6.3.2 Review and verification of the limits of AOP El Tío No. III The field verification of the boundaries of the AOP with GPS devices showed that these boundaries correspond to those established in the written document. The boundaries are well defined and are easily identifiable.

6.3.3 Verification of the data of the commercial census of the species to be harvested The verification of data of the commercial census showed that these did not correspond to what was found in the field in terms of the species, diameter and location of the trees. However, using the field data (non-digitalised data) provided by the forest regent, it was possible to verify that the latter and what was found in the field coincided. It was therefore concluded that the mistake lied in the digitalisation of the data. This information should therefore be corrected.

6.3.4 Marking of the trees censed The marking of the trees censed consists of placing a plastic piece of tape at the base of the tree. This shows the common name of the species, its diameter, its location and whether the tree will be harvested or left standing.

12

However, this practice is not appropriate as the tape can easily get detached from the tree or deteriorate with the rain. In some of the cases verified, the tapes did not show any information. This renders confusing the check of the data of the forest census.

6.3.5 Maps of the AOP Despite the AOP document including maps, these do not offer the required information, as they do not include geographic coordinates, location of the log ponds and secondasy tracks. All these are basic conditions to approve the AOP, according to what is established in paragraph 4.1.3.1 of NTON.

6.3.6 Pre-harvesting activities Prior to the approval of the AOP, and in compliance with what is indicated in the AOP document, the site should have been subjected to several pre-harvesting activities. Those which have not been carried out include:

• Mark the AOP area. • Eliminate the lianas of the trees to be harvested

6.3.7 Non-delimitation of the protection areas During the verification of the AOP limits in the field, it was noted that the area is crossed by at least two permanent streams. However, the protection areas for these shores are not properly limited. According to the forester from the company, this is because such streams are considered temporary so they do not qualify for protection. According to art. 574 of the Law on crimes against the environment and natural resources (2005), it is forbidden to log trees in an area of 200 m. either side of the stream or 200 m around a water source, whether or not it then becomes a temporary or permanent stream. The picture below shows one of these streams, which protection the monitor recommends.

4 Art. 57 Perimeter for logging trees

13

Picture 6.

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After analysing and processing the information from FMGP El Tío and AOP El Tïo No. II and El Tïo No. III, as well as the information gathered during the field mission, presents the following conclusions: AOP El Tío No. II (2003 – 2004)

1. The renewal procedure of the AOP Harvesting Permit for El Tío II was issued without the required technical inspection from INAFOR. This breaches art. 38 of the regulations of the Forest Law.

2. The volume of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) planned for harvesting is

60% higher than the estimated viability in the FMGP, hence breaching NTON5 5.1.6.1.

3. The boundaries established in the documents do not coincide with those

marked in the field, and the latter are not properly marked.

4. In the implementation of the management, harvesting and extraction activities within the AOP, some technical regulations have not been followed. These relate to:

• Map of planned infrastructures. • Marking of trees. • Construction of log ponds. • Technical specifications for primary and secondary tracks. • Provision of a diagnostic sampling. • Implementation of silvicultural measures. • Delimitation of protection areas for water streams.

5 Nicaraguan Obligatory Technical Norms (Normas Técnicas Obligatorias Nicaragüenses)

14

5. Within the AOP area, mahogany (Swietnia macrophylla) has been logged using a chainsaw. According to INAFOR, this activity is illegal as the harvesting permits and transport guides are only valid for logs and not for sawn timber.

6. No evidence was found that the logging company has harvested trees

beyond the AOP boundaries.

7. INAFOR has not done an appropriate follow up of the activities carried out in FMGP El Tío and hence the harvesting area.

AOP El Tío No. II ( 2006)

1. The boundaries of the AOP on the ground correspond to tose established in

the document. 2. The data of the commercial census presented in the document do not

correspond to what was found in the field. This is due to errors occurred when the field information was digitalised.

3. The AOP does not take into account NTON regarding:

• Maps with the location of log ponds and planned tracks. • Delimitation of protection areas for water streams. • Marking of the area of the AOP.

Following these conclusions, the independent monitor recommends:

1. INAFOR should comply with what the Forest Law establishes regarding the approval of AOPs, harvesting permits and their renewal.

2. INAFOR should demand that the forest regents comply with NTON when

producing AOPs.

3. The company Hermanos Salgado should ensure the protection of the forest resources handed over by the Siksikwas Collective and prevent the illegal harvesting of highly valued commercial species.

4. In order to approve AOP El Tío No. III, requested by the logging company,

INAFOR should ask the latter to present:

• Appropriate and up-to-date calculations of the viable volume to be harvested in the forest.

• Up-to-date maps. • A report of the diagnostic sampling of AOP El Tío No. II. • A timeframe of the silvicultural activities to be carried out in the

harvested areas. • Appropriate marking of trees. • Delimitation of the protection areas.

15

8. Annexes

Annex 1: Authorisation of FMGP El Tío - INAFOR

Annex 2: Renewal of AOP Harvesting Permit 2003-2004 - INAFOR

16

Annex 2: Renewal of Harvesting Permit for AOP 2003-2004 - INAFOR

17

Annex 3: Maps of FMGP, POA II and POA III

FOREST MANAGEMENT GENERAL PLAN EL TÍO