Community Forestry as Embedded Process: Two Cases from Durango and Quintana Roo, Mexico

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jan 15, 2021
Peter Leigh Taylor

Abstract

Recent neoliberal economic restructuring and related legal reform undermine the peasant-based organizations underlying Mexican community forestry. Technical services have been relegated to markets and new economic groups within communities authorized to use forest resources. Researchers have found that individuals may develop successful management regimes when they agree on resource problems and change strategies, they value benefits of cooperation relative to costs, and they constitute a relatively well-defined and stable group. But examination of two peasant-based, intermediate level forestry organizations in Durango and Quintana Roo reveals that internal and external pressures lead the organizations to reformulate objectives, rework how they “deliver the goods” to members, and redefine the boundaries of stakeholder “communities.” Peasant-based organizations remain key actors in the pursuit of sustainable forestry and merit support in adapting to new conditions. Common pool resource research might fruitfully view such organizations as historical processes embedded in structural contexts ranging from local to global.

?

How to Cite

[1]
Leigh Taylor, P. 2021. Community Forestry as Embedded Process: Two Cases from Durango and Quintana Roo, Mexico . The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. 9, (Jan. 2021), 59-81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.48416/ijsaf.v9i.345.
Abstract 19 | PDF Downloads 15

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References
Alchian, Armen and Harold Demsetz. 1973. “Property Rights Paradigm.” Journal of Economic History 33:16–27.
Argüelles Suárez, Luis Alfonso and Natalia Armijo Canto. 1995. Utilización y conservación de los recursos forestales en Quintana Roo, problematic y perspectivas del manejo forestal. Unión Nacional de Organizaciones de Foresteria Comunal, A.C.
Armijo Canto, Natalia and Harald Albrecht Arellano. 1998. “Participatory Analytical Workshops about the Problems and Issues of the Forestry Sector in Quintana Roo.” Department for International Development, mimeo.
Armijo Canto, Natalia and Julio Robertos Jiménez. 1998. “Distribution of the Forest’s Socio-economic Benefits: Study of Five Forest Ejidos in Central and Southern Quintana Roo.” Department for International Development, Government of Great Britain, mimeo.
Bartra, Armando. 1991. “Pro, contras y asegunes de la ‘apropiación del proceso productivo’.” Pp. 3–22 in Los nuevos sujetos del desarrollo rural, edited by Armando Bartra et al. Mexico City: ADN Editores.
Bray, David Barton. 1997. “La Reconstrucción Permanente de la Naturaleza: Organizaciones Campesinas y Desarrollo Popular Sustentable.” Pp. 3–17 in Semillas para el cambio en el campo: medio ambiente, mercados y organización campesina, edited by Luisa Paré,
David B. Bray, John Burstein and Sergio Martínez Vázquez. Mexico City: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, La Sociedad de Solidaridad Social ‘Sansekan Tinemi’ y Saldebas, Servicios de Apoyo Local al Desarrollo de Base en México, A.C.
Bruce, John W. and Louise Fortmann. 1991. “Property and Forestry.” Journal of Business Administration 20(1/2):471–496.
Cabarle, Bruce, Francisco Chapela and Sergio Madrid. 1997. “Introducción: el manejo forestal comunitario y la certificación.” Pp. 17–33 in El manejo forestal comunitario en méxico y sus perspectivas de sustentabilidad, edited by Leticia Merino. Cuernavaca, Mexico: UNAM, SEMARNAP, CMSS, WRI.
Chapela, Gonzalo. 1994. “De abogados a empresarios. La Unión de Ejidos y Comunidades Forestales General Emiliano Zapata de Durango, México.” In La organización de los campesinos forestales en mexico. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, mimeo.
___ 1997. “El Cambio Liberal del Sector Forestal en México: Un Análisis Comparativo Canadá-México-Estados Unidos.” Pp. 37–56 in Semillas para el cambio en el campo: medio ambiente, mercados y organización campesina, edited by Luisa Paré, David B. Bray, John Burstein and Sergio Martínez Vázquez. Mexico City: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, La Sociedad de Solidaridad Social ‘Sansekan Tinemi’ y Saldebas, Servicios de Apoyo Local al Desarrollo de Base en México, A.C.
Feeny, David, Fikret Berkes, Bonnie J. McCay and James M. Acheson. 1990. “The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later.” Human Ecology 18 (1):1–19.
Fernández Villegas, Manolo. 1991. “No queremos que nos den, nomás con que no nos quiten: la autonomía campesina en México.” Pp. 23–45 in Los nuevos sujetos del desarrollo rural, edited by Armando Bartra et al. Mexico City: ADN Editores.
Fortmann, Louise and John W. Bruce, eds. 1988. Whose Trees? Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry. Boulder: Westview Press.
Fortmann, Louise and Emery Roe. 1993. “On Really Existing Communities – Organic or Otherwise.” Telos 95:139–146.
Fox, Jonathan and Gustavo Gordillo. 1991. “Entre el estado y el mercado: perspectivas para un desarrollo rural autónomo en el campo mexicano.” Pp. 48–100 in Los nuevos sujetos del desarrollo rural, edited by Armando Bartra et al. Mexico City: ADN Editores.
Galletti, Hugo, Paulino Rosales Salazar and Alfonso Argüelles. 1997. “Agenda forestal de Quintana Roo.” Paper presented at the Foro de la Agenda Forestal de Quintana Roo, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, México.
Galletti, Hugo Alfredo. 1992. “Aprovechamientos e industrializacion forestal: desarrollo y perspectivas.” In Los retos del fin de siglo edited by CIQRO. Chetumal, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo.
1994. “Las actividades forestales y su desarrollo historico.” Pp. 109–171 in Estudio integral de la frontera Mexico-Belize edited by CIQRO. Chetumal, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo.
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1243–1248).
Harvey, Neil. 1996. “Impact of Reforms to Article 27 on Chiapas: Peasant Resistance in the Neoliberal Public Sphere.” Pp. 151–171 in Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform, edited by Laura Randall. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Hellman, Judith Adler. 1994. “Mexican Popular Movements: Clientelism, and the Process of Democratization.” Latin American Perspectives 21(2):124–142.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática). 1994. Durango: resultados definitivos – VII Censo Agrícola-Ganadero. Aguascalientes, Mexico: INEGI.
Klooster, Daniel James. 1997. Conflict in the Commons: Commercial Forestry and Conservation in Mexican Indigenous Communities. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California–Los Angeles.
López Nogales, Armando and Rafael López Nogales. 1999. Ley Agraria Comentada.
Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Porrúa.
McCay, Bonnie J. and Svein Jentoft. 1998. “Market or Community Failure? Critical Perspectives on Common Property Research.” Human Organization 57(1):21–29.
McCay, Bonnie J. and Barbara Jones, eds. 1997. Proceedings of the Workshop on Future Directions for Common Property Theory and Research, 28 February, 1997. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
McKean, Margaret. 1997. “Common Property Regimes: Moving From Inside to Outside.” Common Property Resource Digest 42:3–5.
Merino, Leticia and Gerardo Alatorre. 1997. “Las Condiciones de los Aprovechamientos Forestales en los Casos de Distintas Comunidades de Mexico.” Pp. 35–56 in El Manejo Forestal Comunitario en México y sus Perspectivas de Sustentabilidad, edited by Leticia
Merino. Cuernavaca, Mexico: UNAM, SEMARNAP, CMSS, WRI.Merino Pérez, Leticia.
___ 1997. “Organización Social de la Producción Forestal Comunitaria.” Pp. 141–154 in Semillas para el cambio en el campo: medio ambiente, mercados y organización campesina, edited by Luisa Paré, David B. Bray, John Burstein and Sergio Martínez Vázquez. Mexico City: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, La Sociedad de Solidaridad Social ‘Sansekan Tinemi’ y Saldebas, Servicios de Apoyo Local an Desarrollo de Base en México, A.C.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1999. Self-Governance and Forest Resources. Bangor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
Richards, Michael. 1997. “Common Property Resource Institutions and Forest Management in Latin America.” Development and Change 28:95–117.
SEMARNAP. 1996. “Capitulo X: Estadísticas Forestales de Referencia.” In Anuario estadístico de la producción forestal 1996. Mexico City: SEMARNAP. At .
Taylor, Peter Leigh and Carol Zabin. 2000. “Neoliberal Reform and Sustainable Forest Management in Quintana Roo, Mexico: Rethinking the Institutional Framework of the Forestry Pilot Plan.” Agriculture and Human Values 17(2).
Téllez Kuenzler, L. 1994. La Modernización del sector agropecuario y forestal. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
UNECOFAEZ. 1992. General Assembly Meeting, December 13. Santiago Papasquiaro, Durango, Mexico, videotape.
Wade, Robert. 1987. “The Management of Common Property Resources: Collective Action as an Alternative to Privatisation or State Regulation,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 11:95–106.
Wexler, Matthew B. and David Barton Bray. 1996. “Reforming Forests: From Community Forests to Corporate Forestry in Mexico.” Pp. 235–245 in Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform, edited by Laura Randall. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
World Bank. 1995. Mexico: Resource Conservation and Forest Sector Review (Report No. 13114–ME). Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources and Rural Poverty Operations Division.
Zabin, Carol. 1998. “Free Markets and Forests in Mexico: Community-based Forestry in the Era of Neoliberal Reform.” Pp. 401–425 in The Transformation of Rural Mexico: Reforming the Ejido Sector, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius and David Myhre. San Diego/La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
Section
Articles