Upload
notfern
View
229
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Content
• Brief Mexican context
• Community forestry
• Economic benefits
• Threats to community forestry
• Lessons learned
Biodiversity
• Mexico is one of the 17 megadiversecountries.
• Neartic and Neotropicalspecies.
• 60 pine species
• 125 oak species
• Difficult to manage biodiverse forests
People living in the forests
• 12 million people
• 50% indigenous
• 50% living in poverty conditions
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.
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.
1917: ConstitutionLand 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
1917: ConstitutionLand 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 companieswho 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.
Community forestry
992 CFE
There are 28,662 ejidos y 2,393 communitiesin Mexico
Nearly 3,000 communities own 50 million hectares, 80% of Mexican forests
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.
General assambly
Ejido and community organization
Commissariat/Board of Directors
Supervisory/SurvillianceBoard
Committees
Energy Forests Etc.
Committees organized beyond election termsForestry work, permits, governmental supportCFE.
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, Secretaryand Treasurer: elected every 3 years
Responsible for:Representing the community
Convening the general assambly
Accountability
President and CFE Manager.
Public institutional frameworkNormative 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
Benefits
• 80% of legal timber originates in communityforestry.
• 2,000 community logging permits.
• More than 200 communities own sawmill: Local employment.
• 40 communities: 800 thousand FSC certifiedforests.
WB/Profor
• Competitiveness and sustainability study
• Costs, income, net present value (30 year forecast)
• 30 forest communities in Mexico
Site preparation
Reforestation
Forest vigilance
Road manteinance
Fire control
Forester support
Logging rights tocommunity
5%3%
9%
16%
10%
14%
Costs distribution (2011)
2011 costsper hectare
(USD)
Average 57.87
Minimum 2.04
Maximum 516.64
Median 24.51
43%
Income (USD per hectare in 2011)
TimberNon-timber
forestproducts
Payment forecosystem
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.
30 CFE, 30 year forecast
Production area
(hectare)
Wood harvested
(m3)
Yield (m3/hectar
e/year)Costs (USD)
Income (USD)
Net presentvalue
(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
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.
Global threats
• Globalized markets: forest plantations: low wood prices (pine)
• Climate change: community and forest adaptation.
National threats• Political will focused on urban issues
• Subsidies to cattle farming and agriculture: deforestation
• Mining: 30% of the land concessionedfor 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.