sustainable development and community forestry in mexico
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Development and Community Forestry in Mexico
Community Based Natural Resource ManagementCBNRM or CBRM
Community Forestry Basic issues:
– Failure of market driven mechanisms to promote “sustainable and equitable natural resource management in the developing world”
– Search for alternatives– Deals with BOTH deforestation and poverty/social
justice
Rationale for CBNRM
Rural people are strategic, rational actors who are – closer to the resource, – have traditional knowledge about the resource– Have values that would tend to preserve it– greater incentive to manage it properly because
their livelihoods depend on it Better managers than the state or distant
corporations
“Two Mexico’s”– Rural livelihoods: Rural Development is an alternative
strategy to stem migration to cities, Maquiladoras, or US– Preserve land rights: political empowerment– Cultural traditions
Promote better balance of trade?– Internal production of lumber instead of import– Small factories produce value added products from
woodworking instead of export lumber
*Dr. Dan Klooster
Why is Community Forestry in Mexico important?*
Imports: $2,034,272,000 Exports: $185,851,008
Wood Products Exports and Imports--2001
Why is Community Forestry in Mexico important-ecological bennies
Stems deforestation– ¼ size pre-colonization– High rate of deforestation: -1.5%/year– Options expanded for ecotourism
Promotes the ecological benefits of forest– Maintains biodiversity– Carbon sinkhelps mitigate global warming– stabilize hydrological cycles, maintain the flow and purity of local
water sources– reduce erosion, slow the siltation of reservoirs and waterways,– protect the watersheds of irrigation districts and urban centers.
support agriculture sites for recreation
Deforestation in Mexico
Land area
Forest Cover 2000
Forest Cover Change 1990-
2000
´000 ha
´000 ha´000
ha/year%/
yearForest
Mexico190,8
6955,205 -631 -1.08
28.9
North and Central America
2,102,742
549,306 -570 -.1026.
1
World13,139,618
3,869,453
-9,319 -.2429.
4
Mexico Forestry Unique
“the most advanced community forestry sector in Latin America”
– Unlike most LA countries (where forests are state owned) Mexico’s forests are in traditional community ownership: case study example for other Latin American and developing countries.
At the same time, community based forest policies are incipient and endangered by state and international economic policies
– forest development has not yet assuaged poverty or environmental conservation
Community Foresters
Historical background1500-1900
Spanish conquest: dispossession of land 19th C: liberalism emerges: more
dispossession Porfiriato: intensified dispossession/extreme
inequality of development Mexican Revolution: primary cause was land
distribution
Post Revolution: President Cardenas: Three trends 1934-1940
Land redistribution to peasants: EJIDOS– 18 million hectares (45 million acres)—800,000 recipients– Ejido share of cultivated land: 15% in 1930 47% by 1940– Forest lands: 1.5 % in 1930 18% in 1940
However, land reform did not touch holdings of foreign and national logging companies
– “rentismo”
Conservation “professionalized” in gov bureaucracy– “Scientific” management of the forests
END RESULT: Nobody followed it, but evasion was worse than managed development
Mixed messages: 1949-1980
Land re-distribution expanded. By 1980, 500 ejidos/communities own 65% of the forest but they are forbidden to utilize the forest
ISI Forestry /“Productionism” 1949-1958: Concessions to big integrated forestry firms
Conservation pressures Even in community forests, parastatal and private
logging firms log with impunity, peasants are policed
Inequalities breed rural unrest– Roots of Zapatista movement and other guerrilla groups
The Rise of Community Forestry
As early as 1960: supporters envision production with conservation “sustainable development”
Late 1970’s: Concessions set to expire: communities organize regionally to exert pressure on President de la Madrid “we will no longer permit our natural resources to be wasted, since they are the patrimony of our children”
1986 forestry law: rescinded concessions, recognized rights of community ownership
Percent of Timber from Community Managed Forests Commercial
TimberMilled Timber
1976 2-3 Na
1980 17 Na
1992 40 15
Source: Klooster. 2003
Michoacan community: logging, sawmill, furniture factory
Oaxaca: 95 communities Quintana Roo
– Benefits not limited to exceptionally well managed communities
Social and Environmental impacts of forest management
Community Forestry under Neoliberal Reforms:
Neoliberalization under IMF restructuring 1992 Forestry Act: modifications to Article
27privatization:– Land may be sold, but is not required to be sold– devolution of control to the communities – but neglect of support
State support for Pulpwood Plantations: PRODEPLAN
– Investment subsidies and incentives – Investment Inequalities: peasants perceive unprepared ness
and unwillingness to risk land/HOME– stagnation
Response to Problems of Neoliberalism
Unique combination of various political and social factors
– Unprecedented and vigorous debate about forestry in Mexico during 1990’s
– Movement of social reformers into gov. forestry – Growing vulnerability of PRI– Zapatistas?
1997 Forestry Plan: PRODEFOR– “building communities' managerial capacity for forestry
through training in administration and forest management, participatory rural appraisals, and workshops in which successful forestry communities share their knowledge with less experienced forestry communities”
Mexican Forests, 2003
Forest Ownership in Mexico
Ejido and Comm. Agrarias (8000-9000)
70-80%
Small Properties, 15-20 hectares
15-20%
Protected Areas/Parks
5-10%
Fox Administration
Comisión Nacional Forestal– 2x funding for commercial plantations
Neoliberalism favors TNCs, not forest owning villages
New international issue: protection of Monarch butterfly breeding grounds
Tania Murray Li: critique of CBNRM in the Philippines/Indonesia
Community, participation, empowerment and sustainability widely used discourses
Reality: Applications of these terms vary widely and with wide degrees of success
Furthermore, internal inequalities in benefits still remain– Class– Gender
Tania Murray Li: Philippines/Indonesia
CBNRM externally defines options: “while some people would benefit from CBNRM
provisions, others would find themselves re-assigned to a marginal economic niche that corresponds poorly to the futures they imagine for themselves”
Tania Murray Li: Philippines/Indonesia
Need to explore the role of the state and power structures in using CBNRM for greater control.
“CBNRM, rather than rolling back the state and reducing official interference in local affairs, is a vehicle for realigning the relationship between the state and upland citizens. Contrary to the goal of its proponents, there is increasing evidence that CBNRM has the effect of intensifying state control over upland resources, lives and livelihoods. For this reason, some upland citizens may resist programs promoted in the name of CBNRM. For others, better integration into the legal and administrative systems of the state is a desirable outcome.”
Tania Murray Li: Philippines/Indonesia
Important to consider CBNRM as a channel into improving peasants power within state political/economic structures.
“The CBNRM simplification that assumes an inherent separation between community and state, and posits community as a natural entity outside and/or opposed to state processes, fits poorly with the historical and contemporary processes of state and community formation in Southeast Asia's upland regions.”
Final note on forests
Over 90% of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty depend on forests for some part of their livelihoods.