1 / 24

Governance and Economic Frameworks of Community Forestry Enterprises in Mexico

This study examines the macroeconomic, political, and legal frameworks surrounding Community Forestry Enterprises (CFEs) and small-medium enterprises (SMEs) in Mexico. With 22% of forests in developing countries and possibly 80% in Mexico being under community management, CFEs represent a vital avenue for collective action, resource governance, and economic benefits. This paper analyzes the emergence, structure, and operational processes of CFEs within Mexico’s unique legal context of ejidos and comunidades, highlighting their governance challenges and opportunities for community-driven resource management.

jonco
Télécharger la présentation

Governance and Economic Frameworks of Community Forestry Enterprises in Mexico

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Macroeconomic, political-legal and institutional frameworks of small and medium forest enterprises: The Case of Mexico Camille Antinori

  2. Community Forestry Enterprises: Subset of Forest SMEs • 22% of forest in developing countries • Maybe 80% of Mexican forests • In Mexico, organization at “community” level • Collective action over multiple benefits • CFEs (and SMEs) engage resource with significant public and private benefits

  3. Differing Perspectives • Important, prevalent but under-invested • CP v. private v. public property • Forest stewards v. productive orgs. • Community- v. market-oriented decisions • Democratic v. decentralized v. community

  4. Questions in Talk • Meaning of “CFE” for Mexico and beyond? • To analyze meaning, I will look at structure and process of governance over the activities in question • How emerged in Mexico and who benefits? • Look at primary data from field projects • How integrated into policy and markets? • Overview of data and reports

  5. Linkages GLOBAL STATE REGIONAL COMMUNITY

  6. Mexican Forestry Sector: Tenancy over Forest

  7. Mexican CFE • In Mexico, “community” has a specific legal meaning: The ejidos and comunidades of the agrarian reform

  8. How did CFEs emerge? • Post-revolutionary laws gave rights over forests to agrarian communities. • Community governance structure was in place and eventually acquired authority over forests.

  9. Pre-existing factors conditioning further vertical integration • Institutional capital to organize • Size and quality of resource • Past skills and experience

  10. Typical Organizational Form

  11. Owners: Community members Managers: STF CBC Gerentes NGOs Government Monitors: General Assembly Advisory council Auditors NGOs Government Structure of a Productive Organization

  12. Owners Managers Decisionmaking Process Patterns of influence? Do they meet? Give reports? Share information? Enforce rules? Monitors

  13. Who Benefits from CFE? Depends on: • Governance structure and process • Opportunities for voice and exit (Hirschman 1970) • Market demand Precise estimate awaits incidence study, SAM, value chain analysis (e.g. Taylor and Adelman (1996), Ribot)

  14. Flow of Revenues: Oaxaca

  15. State Policies • Emphasize public goods and HK • Less on physical or working capital • VI achieved with little credit or subsidies • Rely on own funds or arrangements with private firms

  16. Source of Funds

  17. Programs • PRONARE: reforestation • PROCYMAF: institutional capacity, technical assistance • PRODEFOR: About 6500 projects funded, about 4000 of those for management, mainly thinnings, fire prevention, and management plans • PSAH: ecosystem services outside of forestry sector

  18. Back to Governance: Legal Institutions • Communal v. private v. public property • Agrarian law ambiguous re forests • Creation of legal shares to forest • Outside ownership of shares possible • Potential for risk sharing • Not implemented • Unclear rules

  19. Regional Institutions and Unions • Motivation: political, services, market power • Achieving power and scale? • Need to balance interests of members

  20. Global Market • Link between international demand and local supply? • Possible shift in demand from international to domestic after peso devaluation 1994 • Some export • Still learning to compete on global scale. • Need quality of product and service

  21. Emigration • Logger: maybe $30/day in Mexico + repartos + public goods • Ag worker: about $100/day in US • Average of 24 communities surveyed is that 50% of village population receive remesas. • 12 said that remesas were ½ or a little more than ½ of families’ yearly income.

  22. Concluding Remarks: CFE as Local Institution • Mexico had property rights and process in place. • Path dependency? • Difficult to recreate without radical movement. • Study of control and ownership could suggest other configurations and mechanisms for local stakeholders to participate and benefit from management of that resource. • Need more theoretical frameworks for collective action and accountability

  23. Concluding Remarks: CFE as Productive Organization • “Community” in structure and process. • Organization affects benefit distribution. • Linkages exist at all levels. • Redefinition of property affects wealth. • Tradeoffs?

  24. Thank youGracias

More Related