This document discusses community forestry in Mexico. It provides context on Mexican forests, noting that 12 million people live in forested areas, half of whom are indigenous and living in poverty. Community forestry grants land rights and management to local communities. It has economic benefits, providing jobs and income, though also faces threats from globalization, climate change, drug cartels, and lack of support. Lessons highlight the need for government support while also building local capacity and alliances to strengthen community forestry.

1. Community Forestry
in
Mexico
Ernesto Herrera
Reforestamos Mexico
April, 2014

2. Content
• Brief Mexican
context
• Community
forestry
• Economic benefits
• Threats to
community
forestry
• Lessons learned

3. Brief Mexican context

4. Mexican forests
630,000 km2 forested
area (1/3 of total sourfice)

5. Forest’s natural diversity

6. Biodiversity
• Mexico is one of
the 17
megadiverse
countries.
• Neartic and
Neotropical
species.
• 60 pine species
• 125 oak species
• Difficult to
manage
biodiverse forests

7. Forest’s cultural diversity

8. People living in the forests
• 12 million people
• 50% indigenous
• 50% living in
poverty
conditions

9. Mexican ethnic diversity

10. Main forest economic conditions
• Forests account to 0.8 % of
GDP
• Mexican forests provide
1/5th of what it consumes
• Construction and furniture
sectors main consumers.
• Illegal market makes wood
cheaper (30-70% of total
market)
• Market doesn’t value
environmental and social
attributes.

11. Community Forestry

12. Community forestry: definition
The process in which
communities get
organized to manage
their forests to
produce, and
commercialize forest
products and services
in order to improve
their quality of life.

13. 1917: Constitution
Land rights.
Mexican Revolution
1980
1940
1920
1910
1880
1970
Land Concentration
1917: Mexican Constitution: Art. 27: land rights: public,
private and “social” land. Ejidos and communities.
Social land inalienable, imprescriptible and guaranteed
against seizure .
Land and management rights evolution
Less than 1% of land
rightholders owned 87% of
the land.
Forest concessioned to
international corporations.
Forest concessions were
revoked

14. 1917: Constitution
Land rights.
Mexican Revolution
1980
1940
1920
1910
1880
1970
Land Concentration
Land and management rights evolution
Land distribution
Community forestry
From 1940 till 1980 xxx
hectares were distributed
to ejidos.
Forest law 1926, Forest law
1940 concessions were
granted to private and
state owned companies
who payed logging rights to
communities.
Forest moratoriums
Forest Law 1986
Communities got the right
to manage their forests.
Concessions revoked.
1987-2003 Development of
all sort of environmental
legislation and institutions.
2003: General Law on
Sustainable Forestry
Development: current
advocacy: community
management.

15. Community forestry
992 CFE
There are
28,662 ejidos
y 2,393
communities
in Mexico
Nearly 3,000
communities
own 50 million
hectares, 80%
of Mexican
forests

16. Difference of communities and ejidos
Communities Ejidos
Agriculture, cattle,
forests
Ancient
organizations,
indigenous
Derived from 1910
Mexican Revolution,
mestizo
Only forests
Very similar. Ruled by Land Act. Communities
have a long time governance tradition.
Origin
Common
land
Organiza-
tion
Community forestry applies for both of them.

17. General assambly
Ejido and community organization
Commissariat/Board of
Directors
Supervisory/Survilliance
Board
Committees
Energy Forests Etc.
Committees organized beyond election terms
Forestry work, permits, governmental support
CFE.
Trusted people
elected every 3
years to
supervises the
board of
director work.
Water
Community
members:
Right holders
They gatter at
least every 6
months. Vote.
Define internal
regulations.
Approve what
the Board of
Directors work.
Distribute
benefits.
Common land:
use
President,
Secretary
and Treasurer:
elected every 3
years
Responsible
for:
Representing
the community
Convening the
general
assambly
Accountability
President and
CFE Manager.

18. Public institutional framework
Normative role.
Forest Management Permits.
National Forestry Register.
Foresters control (it used to
be controled by agriculture)
Forest management:
Conservation and forest
management program
(PROCYMAF). PES.
Inspection, audits,
sanctions, revoke permits
(environmental police).
Ministry of
Environment and
Natural
Resources
Federal
Ombudsman of
Environmental
Protection
National
Forestry
Commission

19. CF Benefits

20. Benefits
• 80% of legal timber originates in community
forestry.
• 2,000 community logging permits.
• More than 200 communities own sawmill:
Local employment.
• 40 communities: 800 thousand FSC certified
forests.

21. WB/Profor
• Competitiveness and
sustainability study
• Costs, income, net
present value (30
year forecast)
• 30 forest
communities in
Mexico

22. Site preparation
Reforestation
Forest vigilance
Road manteinance
Fire control
Forester support
Logging rights to
community
5%3%
9%
16%
10%
14%
Costs distribution (2011)
2011 costs
per hectare
(USD)
Average 57.87
Minimum 2.04
Maximum 516.64
Median 24.51
43%

23. Income (USD per hectare in 2011)
Timber
Non-timber
forest
products
Payment for
ecosystem
services
2011
income per
hectare
Average 211.50 15.58 8.17 235.25
Minimum 1.36 0.00 0.00 1.36
Maximum 1,292.21 251.97 144.02 1,688.20
Median 90.62 0.08 0.00 90.70
90% 7% 3%
16 of 30 CFE: resin, latex,
firewood, medicine, recreation
8 of 30 CFE:
water,
biodiversity,
erosion
control
Pine,
oak…
very little
tropical
species.

24. 30 CFE, 30 year forecast
Production
area
(hectare)
Wood
harvested
(m3)
Yield
(m3/hectar
e/year)
Costs
(USD)
Income
(USD)
Net present
value
(USD/hectare)
Average 7,717 11,393 2.52 24 68 2,052.20
MIn 133 389 0.09 2 31 -0.85
Max 26,032 46,095 28.79 263 249 12,379.07
Median 4,182 6,265 1.03 13 56 897.14

25. Profor study conclusions
• Large Mexican market: sales
• CF costs are higher in Mexico than other countries.
• Important to reduce forester costs with local capacity.
• Financial education required for CFE. Book keeping.
• CFE should seek profitability, not only employment provider.
• Important to find market for other non commercial species.
• More analysis required for NTFP and PES.
• CFE are reasonable profitable, sustainable and attractive to
investment.
• Government should put attention in this sector: subsidies,
incentives, etc.

26. Threats of community forestry

27. Global threats
• Globalized markets:
forest plantations:
low wood prices
(pine)
• Climate change:
community and
forest adaptation.

28. National threats
• Political will focused on urban issues
• Subsidies to cattle farming and
agriculture: deforestation
• Mining: 30% of the land concessioned
for mining.
• Complex legal framework for CF
• Informality and Illegality: low wood
prices
• PROFEPA’s law enforcement duties: too
strict with CF, not too strict in the
market place.
• Drug cartels’s “taxation”, security,
corruption.
• Lack of forest sector competitiveness
over other land uses.

29. Internal threats
• Ageing community decision
makers.
• Lack of opportunities for young
people and women.
• Migration of men (USA, cities,
tourist zones).
• Corrupt caciques, lack of
transparency.
• Too much politics not good for
production and market access.
• Good community presidents
cannot be reelected
immediately, no learning
process.
• Lack of business language and
entreprenurial mindset.

30. Lessons learned

31. Governmental support
• Too much control derives in informality-ilegality:
Legality shouldn’t be costly.
• Certification: too much effort for communities and
subsidies from CONAFOR but the market doesn’t value.
• Payment for ecosystem services: not for conservation
only, sustainable management is now recognized.
• PROCYMAF: Not only teaching how to fish, it is very
important to teach how to sell the fish.
• Technology and machinery alone doesn’t bring
competitiveness.
• Too much support not good: paternalism. Mexico and
Guatemala example.

32. Local capacity
• Good foresters, bad foresters: they need to be
certified.
• Developing community foresters is possible and help
communities to reduce costs and engage young
people.
• CFE can be managed by outsourcers and separate
politics from production.
• Reforestamos is seeking to transform the extension
service model from technical advice to
entreprenurial mentoring/coaching. We’ll keep you
posted.

33. Alliances
• Lobbing: very important
to raise public awareness
for normative and
institutional innovation.
• NGO’s role: different
complementing roles:
social, environmental,
economic, political, etc.
• Private sector can
complement their
business model with CSR
in order to support
community forestry.

34. @ReforestamosMex
Ernesto Herrera
Contacto
Thank you!
ReforestamosMexico
eherrera@reforestamosmexico.org