Country Case Study

Quintana Roo, Mexico Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo (SPFEQR) Focus Community: Petcacab

ITTO, Forest Trends, RRI

Peter R. Wilshusen, Ph.D. Environmental Studies Program Bucknell University

Lewisburg, PA 17837 [email protected]

1. Country Background

In Mexico, the structure of land tenure and resource use rights essentially obligates a community- based approach, given that agrarian reform land grants—ejidos and indigenous communities— occupy approximately one-half of national territory (INEGI 1988). When applied exclusively to commercially valuable forested areas this figure may rise to as high as 80 percent. Community forestry in Mexico presents some of the most advanced examples of common pool resource management anywhere and yet due to a range of factors such as internal conflicts, market pressures, and institutional reforms, most community forestry enterprises have not fulfilled their full potential (for discussion see Bray et al. 2005).

1.1: Forest Sector Overview

Forest Types

Forests and associated vegetation types cover almost 142 million hectares in Mexico or about 72 percent of the nation’s territory. Approximately 41 percent of this total land cover corresponds to arid and semi-arid ecosystems such as scrublands, deserts and grasslands while another 21.5 percent comprises temperate forests. Mexico’s tropical forests, including evergreen, semi-evergreen and deciduous associations, total 26.4 million hectares (18.6 percent). The evergreen and semi-evergreen forest types cover 5.8 million hectares, primarily in the states of Campeche, Quintana Roo, Chiapas, and Oaxaca. Tropical deciduous types spread across 10.9 million hectares of coastal plains along the Pacific coast, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the northern part of the Yucatán Peninsula. Another 9.7 million hectares of mangrove, palm, savanna, and gallery forests appear primarily in coastal areas as well as on the Yucatán Peninsula (SARH 1994, Table 1). FAO ’s Global Forest Resources Assessment considers only the temperate and tropical forest types in its calculations of total closed canopy forest cover. This places Mexico’s total coverage at 56.8 million hectares or 28.8 percent of all land cover types (FAO 2000).

1 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Table 1: Forest Cover by Type (1993 ) Forest Type Area Relative % (million area national ha.) (%) . territory a Temperate 30.4 21.5 15.4 Coniferous 6.3 4.4 3.2 Mixed coniferous/broadleaf 14.5 10.2 7.4 Broadleaf 9.6 6.8 4.9 Plantations 0.1 0.1 0.1 Tropical 26.4 18.6 13.4 Evergreen/Semi-evergreen 5.8 4.1 3.0 Deciduous 10.9 7.7 5.5 Other b 9.7 6.8 4.9 Subtotal 56.8 40.1 28.8 Other Forest Cover Types 84.9 59.9 43.2 Arid and Semiarid 58.5 41.3 29.8 Wetlands 4.2 2.9 2.1 Disturbed forest areas 22.2 15.7 11.3 Total 141.7 100.0 72.0 Source: SARH . 1994. Inventario Nacional Forestal Periódico, 1992-94 . aTotal national territory calculated at 196.7 million hectares. bRefers to mangrove, palm, savanna, and gallery forests as well as mixed fragmented coastal stands.

Market Participation

The 1994 National Forest Inventory counted 21 million hectares of closed canopy forests (37 percent of the total area) as having commercial potential with one third (7 million ha.) under active management, yielding an average of 7.4 million cubic meters of wood products between 1990 and 1999. 1 In terms of standing volume, just over 65 percent constituted coniferous and broadleaf temperate forests while close to 35 percent corresponded to evergreen and deciduous tropical forests. Over 80 percent of all wood harvested consisted of pine from states such as Chihuahua, Durango, and Michoacán (SARH 1994, SEMARNAT 2000). Estimates suggest that average annual productivity per hectare for Mexican commercial forests stands at 1.3 m 3, which is 3.5 times and 2.3 times less than averages reported for the U.S. and Canada respectively (Segura 1997). The estimated gross value of all wood products was 3.7 billion pesos (US$ 408 million) in 1998 and 4.3 billion pesos (US$ 476 million) in 1999 (SEMARNAP 1999, SEMARNAT 2000). The potential and real values of non-timber forest products, non-consumptive uses such as ecotourism, and environmental services like watershed protection and carbon sequestration have received only limited attention in forest policy circles. Studies by the World Bank and others from the mid 1990s conservatively estimated that Mexico’s forests could be worth approximately US$ 4 billion annually (Adger et al. 1995, World Bank 1995).

1 Total forestry production for 1999, for example, included lumber (73.4 percent), pulp and paper (14.8 percent), paneling (4.1 percent) and other products such as postwood, firewood and charcoal (7.7 percent). During the decade from 1990-1999 total production dipped from 8.2 million cubic meters in 1990 to 6.3 million in 1995. Output has steadily increased since then with 8.3 and 8.5 million cubic meters in 1998 and 1999 respectively (SEMARNAT 2000).

2 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Table 2: Standing Volume by Forest Type Forest Type Volume (m 3) Relative Volume (%) Temperate 1,831,003,948 65.3 Coniferous 568,614,469 20.3 Mixed coniferous/broadleaf 776,889,518 27.7 Broadleaf 399,638,899 14.3 Other 85,861,067 3.0 Tropical 972,483,913 34.7 Evergreen/Semi-evergreen 634,462,437 22.6 Deciduous 234,964,612 8.4 Other 103,056,864 3.7 Total 2,803,487,861 100.0

Source: SARH . 1994. Inventario Nacional Forestal Periódico, 1992-94 .

The forestry sector contributes only a small percentage of Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP), which is dominated by oil production, tourism, services, and manufacturing. Throughout the 1990s, forestry—including both wood products and pulp and paper—held steady at between 1.2 and 1.4 percent of total gross national production. The sector presented a negative trade balance of almost 4.5 to 1 in 1998 due in large part to heavy reliance on imported pulp and paper. Mexico imported US$ 1.2 billion of cellulose products and exported only US$ 100 million over the course of that year (SEMARNAP 1999). Despite its small contribution to national GDP, the forestry sector represents a significant portion of rural economies in states like Durango, Chihuahua, Oaxaca, and Quintana Roo among others.

For temperate forests, the states of Durango and Chihuahua lead production, each with 25 percent of total pine cut in 1998. Michoacán follows with 15 percent while Oaxaca and Jalisco each harvested 9 percent of total pine. For tropical forests, Quintana Roo harvests more than a third of all mahogany and cedar in Mexico annually (33 percent in 1998), followed by Veracruz (20 percent), Tabasco (17 percent) and Campeche (10 percent) (SEMARNAP 1999).

In both temperate and tropical regions several community forestry enterprises have sought to enhance market competitiveness by certifying their timber management operations with the Forest Stewardship Council ( FSC ). The FSC ’s main function is to accredit independent certification programs such as Smartwood, which is run by the Rainforest Alliance. As of May 2005, the FSC had certified 35 forestry operations in Mexico including twenty-nine ejidos, one community forestry association (UZACHI in Oaxaca), and 5 private enterprises for a total area of 617,676 hectares (FSC 2005). Production Efficiency

Mexico’s forestry sector realizes only a small percentage of the potential annual harvest in part because of its relatively small and inefficient processing industries (especially compared to the U.S. and Canada). As of 1997, there were a total of 3,497 secondary processing installations nationwide including 2,058 sawmills (mostly small-scale), 48 veneer and plywood factories, and 7 paper mills (SEMARNAT 2000). Most of these are located in the states of Michoacán, Durango and Chihuahua.

3 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

According to production figures for that same year, Mexico’s forest industry was only processing 60 percent of wood products relative to total installed capacity (sawmills at 56 percent and paper mills at 74 percent respectively). By one estimate, the average production capacity of Mexican sawmills is less that one fifth of an average medium-sized mill in Canada or the United States (Segura 1997). Industrial capacity varies by region. Chihuahua’s transformation capacity exceeds its harvest potential, forcing its mills to import wood from other regions. In contrast, processing capacity in the states of Durango and Oaxaca is significantly less than their potential annual yields, allowing them to consume only 64 and 47 percent of possible harvests respectively. Other limiting factors include inefficient management and silvicultural techniques, poor transportation infrastructure, and severe marketing bottlenecks (Segura 1997).

1.2: National Policy Environment

Land and Resource Tenure

Collectively held land grants known as ejidos form the foundation of community forestry in Mexico. An ejido is a uniquely Mexican form of communal land tenure that covers large portions of the rural landscape in many states (including Quintana Roo). 2 The ejido classification was the principal vehicle of agrarian reform that came out of the Mexican revolution (1910-20). The term “ ejido ” refers to both the physical location (geographical dimension) and the community of beneficiaries or holders of rights (institutional dimension). These beneficiaries or ejidatarios enjoy usufruct resource use rights and are widely recognized as the de facto property owners although natural resources on ejido lands such as forests or minerals belong to the state. Most ejidos are divided into collective use lands (forests, pastures) and individually cultivated arable lands or plots ( parcelas ). Other forms of land tenure in Mexico include private property, national lands, and indigenous communal lands. While the ejido continues to form the “fabric” of rural regions in most Mexican states, a series of institutional reforms completed in 1992 changed core elements of agrarian law that pertain directly to community forestry.

Institutional Reforms of 1992

Beginning in the late 1980s, President Carlos Salinas de Gotari (1988-94) instituted fundamental constitutional and policy changes that transformed the agrarian sector. In addition to privatizing numerous state-owned corporations, the Salinas administration passed constitutional amendments and legislative revisions ending agrarian reform and changing the status of collectively held land grants ( ejidos ). The contemporary ejido system has its legal foundation in Article 27 of the Constitution of 1917. Whereas the 1917 Constitution and the 1934 Agrarian Code established the inalienability of ejido lands, the 1992 reforms changed Article 27 and the Agrarian Code such that ejido lands could be converted to private parcels and sold, rented, or used as collateral on the open market. Article 27 also stipulated that corporations could not own land in Mexico. The changes to the Constitution reversed this, allowing private enterprises—including foreign controlled interests— to own land and establish commercial partnerships with ejidos (Cornelius and Myhre 1998; Taylor 2000).

2 According to INEGI (1988), Mexico’s rural landscape includes some 28,058 ejidos and indigenous communities. Collective property ( propiedad social ) comprises two forms: ejidos and comunidades agrarias . The latter form refers to indigenous communities. The two tenure designations are the same in most respects except inheritance of land-use rights. Ejido members ( ejidatarios ) must designate an heir while all men born and residing in indigenous communities enjoy resource access and use rights.

4 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

A subtle but important change to the Agrarian Code allowed for the creation of independent producer groups within an ejido , separate from the communal governance structure (see Articles 108-111). This became an important issue in Quintana Roo, among other states, where the most prominent forestry ejidos experienced the formation of semi-autonomous sub-groups dedicated to harvesting, post-production, and sale of timber (discussed below). As a result, ejido authorities did not directly administer community forestry enterprises as in the past although forest commons continued to be managed under the same long-term management plan.

Forest Law of 1997

As with the Agrarian Code, Mexico’s Forest Law was reformulated in 1992 to generate economic growth including most notably promotion of private plantations, commercial partnerships between ejidos and private sector enterprises (including foreign corporations), privatization of forestry technical services and deregulation of harvesting, transport, and sale of wood products. The 1992 Forest Law heavily supported private sector growth and de-emphasized the ejido sector. A strong backlash from ejido sector advocates led to substantial revisions to the law in 1996-97 including a strengthened regulatory framework to combat illegal logging, clearer parameters for technical service providers, and increased financial support for producers.

The 1997 Forest Law provided for significant public support for forest management (PRODEFOR— Forestry Development Program), development of plantations (PRODEPLAN—Plantation Development Program) and reforestation (PRONARE—National Reforestation Program). Initially, public expenditures on plantations far surpassed support for natural forest management although outlays favored the latter starting in 1999 (Table 3). Since a significant majority of productive forests are managed by ejidos (with a smaller percentage in private holdings) rather than state-owned, national forests, public investment allows for forest inventories and management planning that would not otherwise be economically feasible for communities.

Table 3: Public Expenditures for PRODEPLAN and PRODEFOR , 1997-2000 Program Amount (million pesos) 1997 1998 1999 2000 a b PRODEPLAN 141.0 -- 185.0 137.0 c PRODEFOR 23.3 61.6 210.5 241.7 Total 164.3 61.6 395.5 378.7 Source: (SEMARNAP 2000); US$1 = +/- 10 pesos a projected amounts. b no public auction was held although payments for existing projects were made. c assumes total payment of approved projects for that year (first installments had been made on two-thirds when report was issued).

1.3: Community Forestry Enterprises in Mexico

Mexico’s unique land tenure system sets it apart from the rest of Latin America and the world regarding natural resource management issues. Perhaps the most widely cited statistic in forest policy circles states that between 70 and 80 percent of the country’s forests are found on collectively controlled lands, comprising an estimated 7,831 to 9,047 ejidos and indigenous communities (World Bank 1995; see Bray et al. 2005).

Since the early 1980s, when community forestry began to consolidate in regions throughout Mexico, a number of moderately successful enterprises have emerged, including those managed by several ejidos in Quintana Roo. At the same time, however, the majority of communities with collectively managed forests do not produce or sell wood products. A series of studies carried out in mid 1993

5 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

for the World Bank’s Forest Sector Review (published in 1995) offers the most comprehensive assessment of community forestry nationally. These reports classified forest communities based on indicators such as degree of industrialization or organizational and management capacity. In terms of degree of industrialization, for example, Madrid (1993) estimated that, of the 7,200 ejidos and indigenous communities with forest resources, 5,100 (70.8 percent) were not involved in production, 1,000 (13.9 percent) sold their standing volume to sub-contractors, and only 150 (2.1 percent) had industrial production capacity. Regarding organizational and management capacity, the same report presented a survey of 1,348 forest communities and found that only four percent featured high organizational and management capacity. The assessment estimated that 27.5 percent of the communities had low capacity while 68.5 percent were classified as marginal (Madrid 1993, see Table 4 for an explanation of these categories).

Table 4: Classification of Forest Communities by Organizational and Management Capacity State # of # of Community Capacity c Associations a Communities b Type “A” Type “B” Type “C” (High) (Low) (Marginal) Campeche 2 105 0 7 98 Chihuahua 10 182 1 29 152 Durango 14 277 31 138 108 Guerrero 3 58 0 27 31 Hidalgo 2 39 0 0 39 Jalisco 6 118 0 27 91 Michoacán 12 206 3 27 176 Nayarit 2 33 0 0 33 Oaxaca 12 155 5 34 116 Puebla 6 55 4 41 10 Quintana Roo 4 45 4 33 8 San Luís Potosí 1 33 0 0 33 Sinaloa 1 21 0 0 21 Tamaulípas 1 8 0 0 8 Veracruz 1 13 5 8 0 Total 77 1,348 53 371 924 Source: Madrid (1993) a Includes ejido unions, associations and other second tier organizations that represent and provide forestry technical services for communities. During the 1980s, the Mexican Forest Service created a special designation that included many of these associations as legal providers of technical services: “Conservation and Forest Development Units” (Unidades de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal or UCODEFOs). The designation became obsolete once forestry technical services were privatized under the 1992 Forest Law. b The number of forest communities includes only those linked to one of the associations. c Type “A” communities have high organizational and management capacity and thus maintain or increase the standing volume and quality of their forest resources. Type “B” communities have low organizational and management capacity. They are able to maintain a logging operation with difficulties but not sustain standing volumes and forest quality over the long-term. Type “C” communities feature little or no organizational and management capacity. Internal dynamics are characterized by intense, often protracted, conflict as well as corruption. As a result they are unable to maintain a viable logging operation and often sell their standing volume to subcontractors. Their forest resources experience significant degradation. For a complete description of these classifications including indicators, see Madrid (1993).

Numerous factors contribute to the low productive, organizational and management capacity of most forest communities. Referring again to Madrid (1993), these included (1) inefficient technology and high operational costs, (2) low organizational capacity, (3) boundary disputes, (4) conflictive state- community relations, (5) degradation of forest resources, (6) deficient technical services, (7) lack of trained personnel, and (8) low product marketing capacity. Related assessments add to this list by

6 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

pointing to limited access to credit and internal division into independent sub-groups as important challenges (Merino 1997).

2. Overview of Country Case Study—Community Forestry in Quintana Roo

Community forestry in Quintana Roo under the Plan Piloto Forestal model has been widely acclaimed in the literature as a model of community-based conservation. Kiernan and Freese (1997:124) concluded, for example, that the community-forestry program in southern Quintana Roo had developed “one of the most promising efforts underway anywhere in the tropics to produce a system of forest production that is both socio-economically and ecologically sustainable.” In similar fashion, Synnott (1993) noted that the PPF was, “probably the largest, most important and successful forest management operation in Latin America.” Vargas’s (1998) institutional analysis of the program finds that it is an example of “effective intervention.” Observing similar trends among Mayan communities in the central part of the state, Bray and others (1993) predicted that they were “on the road to sustainable forestry.” According to Richards (1991:308), the relative success of community forestry in Quintana Roo stemmed from a “unique combination of advantages” including secure land tenure, strong producer organizations, high commercial value of forest products, ease of extraction, market accessibility, political support, low demographic pressures and political and social stability.

Despite these successes, major challenges confront community forestry enterprises in Quintana Roo including marketing of lesser known species, financing of forestry planning and technical support, and maintaining second tier and community level organizations.

2.1: Forestry Production in Quintana Roo

Of Quintana Roo’s total area of 5,084,300 hectares, 93% (4,732,325 ha.) are forested to some extent. The federal environmental ministry, SEMARNAT, estimates that 591,993 hectares of forest are under long-term management programs with another 128,034 hectares experience less frequent harvest (SEMARNAT 2005). Quintana Roo’s forests are classified as tropical deciduous with an annual rainfall of 1,000 – 1,300 millimeters per year. There is a marked dry season peaking around March and April when many tree species drop their leaves for a short time. The region’s forests stand on highly calcareous soil with elevations between 0 and 200 meters above sea level (Snook 1993).

Table 5: Approved Timber Extraction Volumes and Forest Reserves in Quintana Roo, Mexico (2005) Municipality # of Timber Classifications Reserves Permits (ha.) Mah/Cedar Softwoods Hardwoods Polewood Total (m 3) (m 3)a (m 3) (m 3) (m 3) Felipe Carrillo 40 5,764 16,217 52,883 9,975 84,839 208,883 Puerto Othon P. Blanco 27 2,282 10,761 22,683 22,399 58,125 141,575

Jose Maria 16 130 2,802 3,792 1,713 11,242 39,224 Morelos Lazaro Cardenas 6 38 546 3,792 3,713 8,089 42,800

Solidaridad 1 0 0 66 63 129 150

Benito Juarez 1 0 394 4,938 235 5,567 18,773

7 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Total 91 8,214 30,720 91,349 37,708 167,991 451,405 Source: SEMARNAT 2005 a High value species with secure markets—broadleaf mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla ) and Spanish cedar (Cedrela odorata ).

Of the 160 tree species found in the forests of Quintana Roo, eight have secure markets while another 66 lesser known species of hard and softwoods present economic potential but have no defined market (Forster et al. 2004). Classification of tropical species falls along high value varieties (mahogany/cedar), softwoods, hardwoods, and polewood. 3 The three southern municipalities of Quintana Roo (Felipe Carrillo Puerto, José María Morelos, and Othon P. Blanco) house the states most productive forests (see summary table). The land grant community (or ejido) Petcacab (map) has the state’s largest permanent forest reserve and highest permitted extraction volumes of high value species (mahogany and cedar).

The main non-timber forest products ( NTFP s) harvested for sale include chewing gum latex (chicle— Manilkara zapota ) and Guano palm leaf ( Sabal mexicana ). The latter is used in the construction of thatch roofs. Other NTFP s such as vines, resins, and fruits are extracted for traditional and/or ritual use.

2.2: History of Community Forestry in Quintana Roo

Community forestry in Quintana Roo dates from 1983 when the Mexican Forest Service established a pilot program in six ejidos with the support of the German government. The so-called Plan Piloto Forestal ( PPF ) officially lasted for three years but spawned an organizational model that numerous other communities adopted across the central and southern regions of the state between 1986 and 1989. Similar to other parts of the country, the push for community forestry in the early 1980s followed a twenty-nine year government concession to a state-sponsored timber company, Maderas Industrializadas de Quintana Roo, S.A. ( MIQRO ). The firm maintained exclusive harvesting rights on mahogany-rich ejido and federal lands, using much of the wood for veneer and plywood production at a factory near Chetumal. The company benefited from favorable economic conditions during most of its existence given government controlled prices and subsidized production.

The Plan Piloto model instituted three key changes, each of which was unprecedented in the region at the time. First it required the creation of forest reserves in each ejido. In order to participate, the general assembly of each community established a permanent forest reserve that would become the foundation for a twenty-five year management plan. Second, the program devolved forest management authority to the ejido level. In this respect, each community assumed responsibility for all aspects of management, harvesting, transport and sale of its timber and non-timber forest products. Finally, the Plan Piloto helped the six communities to establish local forestry enterprises including purchase of sawmills and extraction machinery as well as negotiation of substantially enhanced sale prices for sawn timber and roundwood. At all levels of development, program staff provided substantial technical support and training.

All six of the ejidos that participated in the Plan Piloto Forestal—Noh Bec, Petcacab, Tres Garantías, Caoba, Chacchoben and Nuevo Guadalajara—developed community forestry enterprises by 1986.

3 The term “polewood,” or palizada in Spanish, refers to small diameter hardwood trees (5-30 cm diameter at breast height) harvested for use in construction of traditional housing and small, rustic open air pavilions ( palapas ) at beaches and other tourist areas. Polewood has been in high demand since the late 1990s with the continuing development of Quintana Roo’s coastal tourism zone.

8 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

With the pilot phase of the program scheduled to end that same year, organizers worked to establish a community forestry association in order to maintain a unified commercial and political front. The new organization also received authorization from the Mexican Forest Service to provide technical services, following passage of the 1986 Forest Law. The Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo, S.C. (or Sociedad Sur) joined a total of ten ejidos in the central and southern part of the state, corresponding in large part with the former MIQRO concession. The organization generated some of its own revenues through fees collected from member ejidos for technical services although it continued to receive significant support from the Ministry of Agriculture ( SARH ) and the German development agency, GTZ . In late 1986, another group of foresters based in Felipe Carrillo Puerto formed the Organización de Ejidos Productores Forestales de la Zona Maya, S.C. with an initial membership of sixteen communities. By 1989, the state government signed an agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture ( SARH ) to initiate a statewide program—the Plan Forestal Estatal—that would organize most of the remaining ejidos with commercial forests. Under the new initiative, planners established two new associations: the Organización de Ejidos Forestales de Quintana Roo, “Chaktemal,” S.C. and the Sociedad de Pueblos Indígenas Forestales de Quintana Roo, “Tumbén Cuxtal,” S.C. Despite financial and political challenges, these four organizations continue to play a central role in forestry production in Quintana Roo and currently represent forty-two ejidos with 396,811 hectares of forest reserves and total authorized harvest volumes of 80,485 m 3. Another fourteen ejidos operate independent community forestry enterprises comprising 137,602 hectares of forest reserves and harvest volumes of 155,622 m3 (see Table #).

Table 6: Authorized Harvest Volumes in Quintana Roo by Organizational Affiliation (1999) Association Area Forest Authorized Volume (m 3) (# Members) (Ha.) Reserves Mahogany/ Tropical Tropical Pole- Total (Ha.) Cedar Softwoods Hardwoods wood Sociedad Sur (9) 271,104 118,780 2,994 8,031 12,337 5,561 28,923 Zona Maya (20) 295,725 194,750 2,210 3,975 28,006 2,214 36,405 Chaktemal (7) 177,016 60,000 939 1,580 2,732 0 5,251 Tumbén Cuxtal (7) 79,539 27,281 65 3,032 6,459 350 9,906 Independent (18) 412,170 146,602 3,598 12,715 79,544 13,426 109,283 Total 1,235,554 547,413 9,806 29,333 129,078 21,551 189,768 Sources: SEMARNAP , Delegación Federal en Quintana Roo, Subdelegación de Recursos Naturales, Permisos Vigentes 1999; Registro Agrario Nacional ( RAN ), Chetumal.

aDoes not include private lands comprising 6 parcels (198 m 3 mahogany/cedar, 1,207 m 3 softwoods, 3,028 m 3 hardwoods, 143 m 3 pole wood for a total volume of 4,576 m 3).

2.3: Description of Community Forestry Association-- Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo

The Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo or Sociedad Sur is currently comprised of nine ejidos located in the central and southern parts of the state. In terms of total area, forest reserves, authorized timber volumes and existing timber processing infrastructure, three of these ejidos—Petcacab, Caoba, and Tres Garantías—feature medium to high economic development potential. Another three—Botes, Chacchoben, and Nuevo Guadalajara—present medium to low prospects while the remainder—Divorciados, Manuel Avila Camacho, and Plan de la Noria—have minimal potential for forestry. The association represents the interests of 1,918 registered ejido members whose communities housed some 9,681 inhabitants in 2000 (Table #, below).

Key productive activities

9 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

The Sociedad Sur’s main reason for being is forestry but a number of other activities have emerged over the years including wildlife management, ecotourism, and artisan groups. The ejido Tres Garantias led the way with projects starting in the mid 1990s focused on managing wildlife. The community received game hunters from the U.S. to hunt deer and game birds. The ejido also constructed rustic cabins to receive visitors. More recently the ejido Chacchoben has developed a cultural tourism enterprise in partnership with INAH, the National Institute for Archeology and History. With support from INAH, the community has restored some ancient Mayan ruins and has negotiated a concession to manage the site as a community enterprise. Foreign tourists from cruise ships docking on the southern coast of Quintana Roo began visiting the site in 2002. The ejido Caoba has diversified its production, turning to apiculture and collection of locally abundant grasses (for thatch roofs). The ejido Petcacab has developed a women’s artisan enterprise with support from the Social Development Ministry (SEDESOL). Women’s groups gather local understorey vines and weave baskets and other artisan products. The larger forestry ejidos—Petcacab, Tres Garantias, and Caoba—have all maintained small-scale gum (chicle) gathering operations over the past ten years.

Table 7: Member Ejidos of the Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo (SPFEQR) Ejido Area Forest % Population Men Women Ejidatarios (Ha.) Reserve Total (2000) (2000) Botes a 18,900 8,000 42.3 1,771 929 842 298 Caoba b 68,553 32,500 47.4 1,535 749 786 311 Chacchoben c 18,450 6,000 32.5 1,140 575 565 294 Divorciados 12,000 1,500 12.5 961 476 485 187 Manuel Avila 12,000 1,500 12.5 829 426 403 189 Camacho NCPE Guadalajara d 28,500 6,000 21.1 1,390 720 670 276 Petcacab e 46,000 32,500 70.7 947 484 463 206 Plan de la Noria 9,450 5,000 52.9 228 132 96 52 Poniente Tres Garantías 43,678 28,000 64.1 820 445 375 105 Total 257,531 121,000 avg. 9,621 4,936 4,685 1,918 39.6 Sources: SPFEQR . 2000. Informe Final. Anualidad 17. Chetumal, QR.; INEGI . 2000. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda, Principales Resultados por Localidad . Aguascalientes (www.inegi.gob.mx). a includes José Narciso Rovirosa and San Francisco Botes. b includes Caobas and San José de la Montaña. c includes Chacchoben and Lázaro Cárdenas. d includes La Unión; NCPE = Nuevo Centro de Población Ejidal. e includes Petcacab and Polinkín

Market share and participation along the value chain,

Most of the mahogany sold on the Mexican market comes from Quintana Roo with lesser amounts coming from Chiapas, Campeche and Yucatan. [get %s] The large forestry ejidos aligned with the Sociedad Sur control most aspects of harvesting, post-production, and marketing of their wood. Smaller associated ejidos such as Botes and Chacchoben subcontract timber harvesting and post production but control marketing.

10 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

3. Enterprise organization, management and governance

3.1: Management structure, internal rules and procedures

The formal goals of the Sociedad Sur, as set down in the organization’s bylaws, center on (1) forest management and conservation, (2) timber products marketing, (3) support for local economic development, (4) forestry technical services and training, and (5) support for local planning and administration of community forestry enterprises. When the association was formed in 1986, its mission emphasized three areas: the establishment of “rational” or scientifically-based forest management, consolidation of community enterprises and promotion of effective local governance and administration. As such, the Sociedad Sur allowed member ejidos to form a marketing front for their forest products, increase their collective bargaining power, and legally contract their own forestry technical services provider. The organization’s bylaws remain in force for twenty-five years (until 2011). Since its founding it has maintained political independence (no party affiliation). Except for the withdrawal of Noh Bec in 1998, the Sociedad Sur ’s membership has stayed the same although the high and medium potential communities listed above participate regularly in the organization’s affairs while three ejidos—Nuevo Guadalajara, Manuel Avila Camacho, and Plan de la Noria—are largely inactive.

The organization’s structure includes two tiers of formal authority including the General Assembly of Delegates and the Executive committee and Oversight Council (Figure #). The bylaws recognize a General Assembly of Members comprised of the ejido assemblies of each member community, however, such a body has never been formed. The Assembly of Delegates is made up of two elected representatives from each member ejido who are collectively responsible for all major decisions regarding the organization’s planning and actions. The Assembly also includes the organization’s founding members from each ejido (two each) who serve as permanent “Counselors.” These older representatives do not have voting power but provide historically-informed opinions at public meetings. Although the bylaws do not define term limits, all delegates serve at the pleasure of their respective ejido assemblies, which decide when to replace their representatives. The bylaws give numerous responsibilities to the delegates including completion of marketing studies, development of cooperative agreements with public and private entities, and administration of sub-contracts.

The Executive committee administers the organization’s daily activities including interactions with public and private agencies, use and disbursement of resources and reporting back to the Assembly of Delegates. The committee structure mirrors the generic ejido administrative form including a President, a Treasurer, and a Secretary. In addition, the delegates elect a representative to preside over an Oversight Council. Officially the council includes three members, however, only one typically receives compensation and participates actively in daily activities. Community members serve on both the Executive committee and the Oversight Council for one-year terms with the possibility of reelection. Only delegates are eligible to serve on the association’s Executive committee. An administrative office, including a full-time staff member and a part-time certified public accountant, oversees the organization’s finances although the Treasurer shares responsibility for disbursements.

The position of Technical Director represents a third tier of authority that is subordinate to the Assembly of Delegates and the Executive committee and Oversight Council. As such, the Technical Director is contracted by the organization to manage all administrative and technical aspects of forest management but does not have formal decision-making power. The technical services arm of the organization includes five full-time staff in addition to the director and another four part-time personnel. The majority of effort is dedicated to forest management and research in the ejidos although periodic activities to encourage ecotourism and wildlife management also occur. In

11 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

practice, the Technical Director performs numerous additional tasks that are central to the organization’s operations. These include most importantly the development and administration of state sponsored grants from the Social Development Ministry, SEDESOL , the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, SEMARNAT, and other federal and state agencies.

3.2: Role of community and resident members in decision-making

With respect to decision-making, the Sociedad Sur ’s bylaws do not provide formal procedures or other specific guidance. In assembly meetings and other “public-sphere” events, participants choose a facilitator, who administers the agenda. Any person in attendance can offer an opinion but only the elected delegates have voting rights. In general, however, decisions are based on broad consensus. When agreements do not emerge, participants adopt decision-making rules for ejido governance established in the Agrarian Code, which are based on simple majority votes. The organization has not elaborated a set of operational procedures to supplement the bylaws but both delegates and Executive committee members carefully observe requirements set down in the bylaws including annual elections and periodic budget reports.

Figure 1: Organizational Structure of the Sociedad Sur

EJIDO DELEGATES (Counselors)

Ejido Authorities Wood Products (Group Leaders) Marketing Fund EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT COUNCIL Sharpening Workshop Administration

TECHNICAL SERVICE S

Harvesting Research Wildlife & (Forest Inventories) Ecotourism

Decision-making channels:

Primary Secondary Tertiary/informal

12 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Although participants respect the organization’s formal authority structure, significant power rests with the Technical Director as administrator of the legal requirements related to forest management, the principal means of production for many ejido members. While the director and staff are contracted by the Assembly of Delegates, they possess specialized knowledge that forms the core of the organization’s operations—including development and fundraising. Thus, in addition to the legal authority entrusted by the state, the director and more experienced technical personnel strongly influence decision-making in both formal and informal settings.

Finally, a significant amount of “private sphere” dialogue and decision-making typically occur at three levels: between members of the Executive committee and the Technical Director, between ejido authorities and the Technical Director, and between ejido authorities or leaders of independent sub-groups and the marketing fund administrator. In terms of day-to-day decision-making, these “sites” represent the three main loci of power. In the context of day-to-day activities, members of the Executive committee and the Technical Director meet informally on a regular basis to discuss political, technical and administrative activities. While many of these conversations focus on strategies for improving the organization’s performance, the majority attends to immediate needs such as cash-flow shortfalls, government-sponsored grants, and legal issues related to timber transport.

3.3: Organizational effectiveness, ability to address diverse goals and mediate any internal conflicts

Like many community-based and non-governmental organizations throughout Mexico, the fulfillment of formal goals as well as organizational consolidation and growth of the Sociedad Sur have been hampered by factors ranging from inter and intra organizational conflicts, weak rule systems, and minimal oversight and accountability. Despite theses challenges, the organization plays a key role in channeling resources to communities, mediating potential and actual local conflicts, and stabilizing local forest management. In this, I examine the organization’s actions in terms of goal commitment, sustainability, regime stability, community representation, and learning. Goal commitment refers to the degree to which the organization’s activities positively reflect its formal goals. Sustainability focuses on the organization’s ability to maintain operations over the short (5 years), mid (10 years) and long-term (15 years) through the acquisition and use of material and non-material resources. Regime stability centers attention on the development of formal and informal rule systems including in particular compliance and conflict resolution. Community representation refers to the extent to which the organization’s activities advance communities’ social, political, and economic interests as well as the degree to which communities are able to hold the organization accountable for its commitments. Finally, learning centers on whether the organization monitors and modifies its actions in response to successes and failures.

Goal Commitment

With respect to goal commitment, the Sociedad Sur dedicates the majority of its resources and time to providing forestry technical services and channeling monies from state sponsored development programs. It expends proportionately less effort on marketing timber products but maintained a special marketing fund between 1998 and 2001 with support from the Social Development Ministry (SEDESOL ). In general, the organization’s task environment comprises technical and administrative duties related to timber harvesting and transport as well as project solicitation and reporting. It has been less able to provide consistent support to ejidos and independent subgroups for the consolidation of local forestry enterprises. It is important to note that the Sociedad Sur offers key political representation on behalf of communities and subgroups particularly with respect to state agencies (discussed below).

13 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Organizational Sustainability

In comparison to other community forestry organizations in Quintana Roo, the Sociedad Sur has the strongest resource base in terms of annual timber harvest volumes, existing infrastructure and external support. Only the Organización de Ejidos Productores Forestales de la Zona Maya based in Felipe Carrillo Puerto has greater financial support, in part because it has come to serve as a project subcontractor for state and federal agencies. In general, the Sociedad Sur ’s current situation suggests that it will maintain its existing operations over the short-term however the state of its existing infrastructure as well as its prospects for securing new resources call into question the organization’s mid and long-term sustainability. The organization has its main offices in Chetumal including a two-story house, seven vehicles, four computers, irregular internet access, and telephone and fax service. The Sociedad Sur derives the core of its budget from fees paid by member ejidos for forestry technical services. During 2000, for example, the organization charged a total of $742,575 pesos (US$ 82,508), which represented 62 percent of the total budget. 4 The remaining 38 percent comes from state sponsored grants such as those provided by the Environment Ministry (SEMARNAT ) and the Social Development Ministry ( SEDESOL ). Throughout much of its first ten years in existence, the Sociedad Sur was supported by the Forestry Department, the National Ecology Institute ( INE ) and the MacArthur Foundation among others. In recent years, the organization has faced severe cash flow shortages due to the expiration of foundation support and delays in receiving technical services fees from member ejidos and funds from government sponsored projects. The organization has a strong core group of 12 personnel including 3 full time executive committee representatives, 2 administrative staff and 7 technicians. All but three are from member communities. In general, the Sociedad Sur has limited information management and research capacity.

Regime Stability

Two sets of procedural rule systems guide the majority of formal activities of the Sociedad Sur. The first set pertains to forest management and timber harvesting and is clearly delineated in Mexico’s forest law and regulations. The second set has to do with organizational operations such as formal meetings, voting, and budgetary management.

The forestry procedures provide a strong legal basis from which the organization’s technical director can oversee timber extraction and transport. It details basic requirements such as creation of a permanent forest reserve, management plan and annual harvesting permit. The law also sets standards for documenting and reporting on all phases of timber harvesting including stand delineation, calculation of useable timber volume, secondary production into sawn lumber, and transport. Since the federal agency responsible for enforcing national environmental laws—the Environmental Protection Authority ( PROFEPA ), has very limited personnel and other resources, it depends heavily on registered foresters like the Sociedad Sur ’s technical director to monitor and enforce forestry regulations. The organization provides strong oversight of community forest management and timber harvesting operations, however, most forestry ejidos in the state do not have

4 The technical staff of the Sociedad Sur presents a costs table to the Assembly of Delegates each year for approval. For 2000, the organization charged $170 pesos (US$ 19) per cubic meter of mahogany and Spanish cedar and $45 pesos (US$ 5) per cubic meter of tropical hard and softwoods. The percentage of market value charged for technical services varies depending on how ejidos or subgroups sell their wood whether as roundwood or sawnwood. With respect to mahogany, producers receive approximately $2,000 pesos (US$ 222) per cubic meter of roundwood and $4,000 (US$ 444) per cubic meter of sawnwood. This represents 8.5 percent for roundwood and 4.3 percent for sawnwood.

14 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

such a high level of support. In addition community members often report violations by fellow ejidatarios or representatives of neighboring communities as a means of protecting their own interests.

In sharp contrast to the forest management procedures, the Sociedad Sur does not have a formal operational rule system beyond its bylaws that might guide internal decision-making. Beyond the basic organizational structure contained in the bylaws, a great deal of daily decision-making occurs under ambiguous formal and informal rule parameters. For example, technical staff often loan the organization’s pick-up trucks to community members for personal errands in urban centers like Felipe Carrillo Puerto or Chetumal. In the aggregate, personal use of vehicles generates significant added costs in terms of maintenance even though ejidatarios often pay for fuel. Community members typically argue that since the organization is “theirs,” they should have ready access to its resources. Technicians, in turn, seek to maintain a supportive relationship within the community. In the absence of enforceable rules regarding vehicles, regular abuses occur. Vehicles that are borrowed for an afternoon, many times are returned two days later leaving the technician unable to perform work related tasks. Similarly, in the event of an accident, the organization ends up paying the repair bill.

Community Representation

Since the Sociedad Sur ’s technical staff, assembly of delegates and executive committee are comprised almost entirely of community members (ejidatarios), the organization generally provides high levels of representation and accountability. Regarding communities’ economic interests, one of the organization’s main roles is to secure small project grants from government subsidy programs, especially SEMARNAT ’s Forestry Development Program ( PRODEFOR ) and forestry-related activities financed by the Social Development agency, SEDESOL . For example, for 1999 the Sociedad Sur successfully solicited ten small grant projects for a total of $2,564,100 pesos (US$ 284,900) and in 2000 channeled eight projects for $1,396,619 pesos (US$ 155,180). During 2001, the organization administered eight projects for $2,128,810 pesos (US$ 236,534). 5 These projects covered diverse activities such as establishment and maintenance of individual agroforestry plots, experimental forest plantations, wildlife studies, artisan and sewing workshops, technical studies on wildlife and chicle as well as support for the sharpening workshop and the timber products marketing fund. As such, most resources went directly to the communities with the exception of those targeted for technical studies, the sharpening workshop and the marketing fund.

The Sociedad Sur also provides political representation. In large part, the organization legitimizes community claims vis-à-vis state agencies and other organizations, particularly by applying technical and legal knowledge, and facilitates community access to government officials. A brief example—concerning the resolution of a potentially violent impasse regarding land-use rights within a community’s annual harvesting area—illustrates this process. In early 2000, the head of the a member ejido’s executive committee reported to the Sociedad Sur that two community members had initiated legal action against the ejido contesting the boundaries of the communal forest reserve. The two ejidatarios alleged that the year’s harvest area overlapped with 100 hectares of land under their control for a period of 10 years. They thus claimed that the annual cut would deprive them of land- use opportunities and sought a halt to all harvesting activities in the area. The two men were advised by a member of another ejido, advocating on their behalf as a representative of a peasant political organization. In response, the ejido argued that both men had land-use rights on a total of 10

5 Exchange rates for both 1999 and 2000 calculated at $9 pesos per US$1. Source: SPFEQR . 2001. Desglose de Proyectos . Unpublished report.

15 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

hectares of agricultural lands in another part of the ejido (5 hectares each) not the 100 hectares in question and thus rejected the claims. In addition to direct dialogue with the two men, ejido authorities sought the organization’s support in substantiating the legality of its case before the state attorney general’s office for agrarian affairs (Procuraduría Agraria). The organization’s president and technical director accompanied ejido authorities to all audiences and provided clear documentation regarding the long-term planning behind the community’s harvesting practices as well as the boundaries of the communal forest reserve. Largely as a result of this organized response, the two men eventually dropped their suit against the ejido.

Learning

Like many grassroots organizations, the full-time staff of the Sociedad Sur spend a significant amount of time in formal and informal settings reflecting on the strengths and weakness of their activities, including bi-weekly meetings of the technical team and weekly (if not daily) encounters between the organization’s executive committee and the technical director. With respect to day-to- day problem solving, then, the organization seeks performance-related information and attempts to respond to perceived failures. In addition, during 2000, the Sociedad Sur carried out an internal review aimed at restructuring the organization. The executive committee and technical director held meetings in seven of the nine member ejidos during which they discussed organizational challenges and sought input from each ejido assembly regarding recommendations for change. The full-time staff then collected all of the recommendations and organized them for presentation to the Assembly of Delegates and ejido authorities. Although the Sociedad Sur carries out learning activities, it is has been largely unable to provide consistent follow-up on many of the creative ideas that emerged from the restructuring workshops. As a result, many of the structural and procedural problems identified continue to limit the organization’s effectiveness.

4. Economics of the Enterprise

In line with national trends, most communities with timber harvesting permits in Quintana Roo sell their standing volume to subcontractors. A 1995 study by Argüelles Suárez and Armijo Canto of sixty communities and one group of private property owners found that only nine operations had secondary processing capacity (sawmills) while fifty-one sold their standing volume. Trends based on 1999 harvest permits remained largely unchanged. Regarding development potential, the aforementioned 1995 study concluded that five ejidos had high chances for consolidation because they featured established enterprises with extraction and secondary processing machinery as well as sufficient forest reserves to support long-term growth. Another seven communities fell into the category of medium development potential because they had similar infrastructure and forest reserves compared to their high potential counterparts but required stronger organization and technical assistance to stabilize local operations. A total of thirteen ejidos presented low development potential mostly due to their reduced per capita forest reserves. The remaining thirty- six communities were gauged to have minimal development potential given their small size and limited standing timber volumes. These ejidos established forest reserves to obtain harvesting permits but did not have operative forest management programs (Argüelles Suárez and Armijo Canto 1995). The community members of the Sociedad Sur present both high and low capacity forestry enterprises.

16 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Table 8: Authorized Harvest Volumes for SPFEQR Member Ejidos (2000) Authorized Volume (m 3) Ejido Mahogany/ Tropical Tropical Pole- Total Cedar Softwoods Hardwoods wood Botes 341 1,403 1,217 750 3,711 Caoba 301 1,210 2,745 855 5,111 Chacchoben 135 855 960 191 2,141 Divorciados 22 109 491 0 622 Manuel Avila Camacho a ------NCPE Guadalajara b ------Petcacab 1,499 2,545 3,927 2,357 10,328 Plan de la Noria Poniente c ------Tres Garantías 718 2,018 3,488 1,368 7,592 3,016 8,140 12,828 5,521 29,505 Total Source: SPFEQR , 2000. Volumenes de Aprovechamiento . a did not receive harvesting permit in 1999 and 2000. In 1998 authorized harvest was 15 m 3 mahogany/cedar, 344 m 3 softwood, 713 m 3 hardwood for a total of 1,072 m 3 (no data on polewood). b has not held a harvesting permit since 1995. NCPE stands for “ Nuevo Centro de Población Ejidal .” c did not receive harvesting permit in 1999 and 2000. In 1998 authorized harvest was 0 m 3 mahogany/cedar, 168 m 3 softwood, 300 m 3 hardwood for a total of 468 m 3 (no data on polewood). It proved unviable economically to harvest such a small volume and the ejido has not sought a new permit since 1998.

4.1: Production, Harvesting, and Processing in Petcacab

Table 9: Forestry Production Status and Capacity of SPFEQR Member Ejidos Ejido Status Modality Mgmt. Machinary Sawmill Secondary Planning Capacity Capacity Capacity Botes Active Sub-contract 25-yr. plan None None None Caoba Active CFE/groups 25-yr. plan Medium Low Medium Chacchoben Active Sub-contract 25-yr. plan None None None Divorciados Active Sub-contract 25-yr. plan None None None Manuel Avila Inactive n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Camacho NCPE Guadalajara Inactive n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Petcacab Active CFE/groups 25-yr. plan Medium Low-Med. Medium Plan de la Noria Inactive n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Poniente Tres Garantías Active CFE/groups 25-yr. plan Low Low-Med. Medium Source: Wilshusen, 2003.

4.2: Enterprise Efficiency and Reinvestment—The Work Group Model in Petcacab

While specific income and reinvestment data do not exist for Sociedad Sur ejidos, initial experience with internal separation into what are locally known as “work groups” is instructive regarding advances and challenges in enterprise development.

By the mid 1990s, members from mahogany-rich ejidos like Petcacab began questioning the organization of timber harvesting operations given chronic inefficiencies and conflicts over

17 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

administration of funds. At this time, the Plan Piloto Forestal ejidos were operating more independently and changes in agrarian law facilitated formation of registered producer groups. Moreover, many members recognized that, despite long histories of pursuing collective forestry, livestock, and agricultural enterprises, ejido assemblies had been unable to overcome internal conflict, petty corruption and free riding. Petcacab was the first ejido to divide into multiple work groups during the 1996 harvest season, followed a year later by Caoba and Tres Garantías. Those remaining Sociedad Sur ejidos that did not divide into independent sub-groups had little economic incentive to do so, given low mahogany harvests and dominance of other agricultural activities.

In general, the work group model devolves decision-making power over production and sale of timber to independent sub-groups of ejidatarios. In Petcacab, the ejido’s total authorized harvest volume is divided among registered members. During 2000 and 2001, this amounted to 7.276 cubic meters per ejidatario (in 2002, Petcacab’s per capita mahogany volume increased to 8.7 cubic meters). The main motivation for forming sub-groups was to overcome chronic in fighting over administration of communal funds. Each group manages its own finances and is responsible for contributing proportionate amounts of labor and payments to cover timber-harvesting costs. While ejidatarios have divided into groups that vary in size, annual cuts continue to follow previously established management plans. Thus, Petcacab has maintained its community forest reserve and work groups coordinate their actions with the resident technicians of the Sociedad Sur during all phases of planning and harvesting.

Petcacab was the first forestry ejido in Quintana Roo to subdivide into independent work groups in 1996. The ejido experienced multiple levels of subdivision corresponding to family clans and later individual families. By 2000, Petcacab featured eleven work groups, most of which had further subdivided into a total of 18 sections (see Table #). Whereas groups collectively administered most of the costs associated with their portion of the timber harvest (including labor), sections individually managed timber profits. In all, there were twenty-eight representatives including both groups and sections, although only group leaders had voting power in work group assemblies. During 1996 and 1997 groups collectively managed their profits but many members distrusted their leaders and expressed dissatisfaction with how finances were managed. Most sections represented small family groups of between four and ten ejidatarios . Differences in gross group or section income varied not just on size (combined per capita volumes) but also based on relative accumulation of timber volume from local purchases and sales. This is reflected in Table #, for example, where one individual accrued 90 cubic meters of mahogany worth a minimum gross of $162,000 pesos (US$ 18,000) while a section composed of eight ejidatarios sold their entire combined volume and thus had no timber income for that year.

Table 10: Work Group Timber Volumes and Income in Petcacab (2000) # Volume (m 3)a Gross per Group Section Members Group ($) b c Machiche, S.P.R. --- 17 131.692 $237,046 Tankasché --- 7 127.916 $230,249 Poot Medina Family 5 18.104 $32,587 Francisco Poot M. d 0 77.208 $138,974 Emilio Poot M. d 0 90.000 $162,000 Uc Chan Family 6 9.552 $17,194 Sinanché 4 35.104 $63,187 Secc. Tankasché 3 14.828 $26,690 Canul Family 8 0.000 $0 Yaití --- 3 18.828 $33,890 Sección Yaití 4 17.828 $32,090

18 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Zapote Negro --- 22 135.796 $244,433 Gongora 1 5 20.828 $37,490 Sufricaya, S.P.R. --- 31 234.556 $422,201 Rodríguez Family 10 69.088 $124,358 Pech Family --- 4 35.380 $63,684 Reyes Poot Family 4 29.104 $52,387 Selva Tropical --- 10 77.036 $138,665 Verdes 8 42.932 $77,278 Dzul Family 6 43.036 $77,465 Botan --- 3 46.380 $83,484 Botanes 7 37.380 $67,284 Cruzché --- 4 26.104 $46,987 Tzalam 2 46.932 $84,478 Quebrahacha --- 3 9.552 $17,194 Quebrahacha 2 3 16.828 $30,290 Gongora 2 4 32.104 $57,787 Nicolas 1 24.552 $44,194 Caracolillo --- 5 29.104 $52,387 “Desvalagados” e 17 0.552 $994 Total 206 1498.304 $2,696,947 a Source: SPFEQR . 2000. Individual and family names are pseudonyms. harvest volume for mahogany and cedar (high-value species). Group volumes show totals managed during harvest year including internal sales of individual timber volumes not just per capita distributions; b based on $1,800 pesos (US$ 200) per m 3 in 1999-2000 (avg. internal community exchange rate); c The denomination “ S.P.R.” or “Sociedad de Producción Rural” indicates that the group is formally registered with the National d Agrarian Registry ( RAN ); indicates an individual timber buyer whose membership and individual volume are counted under the family section; e “Desvalagados” translates roughly as “disengaged” or “unaffiliated.” It does not represent a group per se but rather a grouping of individuals not affiliated with other groups.

Work groups in Petcacab had varying development strategies and capacities. Three groups— Machiche, Sufricaya and Zapote Negro—registered as legal producer groups (or SPR s) in 1999 and thus administered their own credit, grants and timber sales. All three of these groups tended to consolidate as mini-enterprises. They chose to reinvest significant percentages of their timber incomes from 1999 and 2000 on collective goods such as agricultural tractors, pick-up trucks and carpentry workshops. Their stated goal was to purchase equipment to reduce production costs and develop small industries to generate employment and add value to wood products. In addition, of the three groups that demonstrated an interest in economic development, two—Machiche and Sufricaya—obtained favorable government loans to help finance some equipment acquisitions. These two groups also met on a regular basis during 2000 in order to discuss and make decisions on harvest planning and economic development. By comparison the group Zapote Negro met less frequently but maintained strong internal cohesion given family and religious ties. Finally, Machiche and Sufricaya had members with experience in forestry, including planning and harvesting. Zapote Negro’s members showed interest in learning about forest management but had no prior experience with the community forestry enterprise. The remaining small groups and sections in Petcacab presented similar trends to their counterparts in other ejidos in that they simply divided up profits and did not reinvest in enterprise development.

While some groups made gains as small enterprises, communal investments languished. In Petcacab in 2000-2001, community level infrastructure such as road, large equipment (e.g., skidders), and sawmill maintenance were all suboptimal and produced significant delays in harvesting and post- production.

4.3: Position in Domestic and International Marketplace

19 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

4.4: External Support

The Sociedad Sur has enjoyed significant technical support since it was founded in 1986. For the first ten years, it benefited from financial and technical support from the German development agency, GTZ . From approximately 1996-1999, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development ( DFID ) funded projects focused on improved harvesting techniques. The MacArthur Foundation provided some six years of support for forestry technical services including activities such as training. Mexican government agencies such as SEDESOL have funded community development projects linked to strengthening community forestry enterprises. The environment ministry SEMARNAT provides annual support from the PRODEFOR program discussed above. While the Sociedad Sur does not currently receive international donor support, it has yet to achieve financial sustainability. Were it not for the project support from SEDESOL and PRODEFOR , the organization would be unable to sustain itself. Technical service fees from member ejidos account for approximately 60 percent of the Sociedad Sur’s minimum annual operating budget.

Table 11: Summary of Federal Government Support Projects to SPFEQR Ejidos (1996-2001) Project/Federal Agency 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Seedling Production/ PRONARE $15,050 $0 $184,800 $184,800 $173,600 $0 Forest Inventories/ SEMARNAP -PRODEFOR $450,000 $180,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 Establish Agroforestry Plots/ SEDESOL $140,448 $0 $576,160 $735,840 $0 $829,278 Maintain Agroforestry Plots/ SEDESOL $0 $0 $92,758 $110,000 $275,268 $315,424 Forest Plantations/ SEDESOL $0 $0 $112,000 $99,840 $52,809 $541,984 Wood-drying Kiln/ 1 SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 Lesser-known Species Fund/ SEDESOL $617,195 $550,000 $499,968 $400,000 $449,964 $0 Technical Training/ 4 SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $87,500 $0 $0 Sewing Workshop I/ 2 SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $547,070 $0 $0 Sewing Workshop II/ 3 SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $79,050 $0 $0 Seed Collection/ PRODEFOR $0 $400,000 $88,008 $0 $0 $0 Artesan Workshop/ 3 SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $61,428 Wicker Vine Plantation/ 3 SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,998 $25,696 Sharpening Workshop Matching Funds/ $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,000 $0 4 SEDESOL Chicle Latex Inventory/ SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $0 $249,980 $250,232 Tree Nursery Maintenance/ PRODEFOR $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 Forest Plantation/ SEDESOL $0 $0 $93,438 $0 $0 $0 Swine production/ SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,464

20 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Forest Plantation Maintenance/ SEDESOL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,304

Total (pesos) $1,222,693 $1,130,000 $1,677,132 $2,564,100 $1,396,619 $2,128,810

Total (USD) $160,880 $143,038 $182,297 $269,905 $147,012 $226,469 Source: SPFEQR 2001. Projects summary. Exchange rates, peso:dollar; 1996=7.6, 1997=7.9, 1998=9.2, 1999=9.5, 2000=9.5, 2001=9.4; official rates furnished by the National Institute for Statistics, Geography and Informatics ( INEGI ). 1funds channeled to the ejido Tres Garantías; 2funds channeled to the ejido Los Divorciados, 3funds channeled to the ejido 4 Petcacab, funds administered by the SPFEQR . Remaining project funds were divided primarily among six SPFEQR member ejidos : Botes, Caoba, Chacchoben, Los Divorciados, Petcacab and Tres Garantías.

4.5: Timber Certification

The principal forestry ejidos of the Sociedad Sur—Tres Garantias, Caoba, and Petcacab—were among the first in Mexico to receive certification under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), starting in 1996. Each of these communities benefited promotionally from having certification status, yet have been unable to capitalize further. The difficulty in gaining market leverage from certification stems mainly from the organizational factors mentioned above. Community members express frustration that they must pay annually to maintain certification but see no increase in premiums since the Mexican timber market has yet to respond to ecolabelling. Several of the lesser known species have attracted international buyers interested in certified wood however ejidos such as Petcacab have been unable to deliver the product reliably.

5. Environmental Benefits and Impact on Biodiversity

5.1: Impacts on Biodiversity

No systematic studies exist. Data from forestry inventories in ejidos such as Petcacab and Tres Garantias strongly suggest that regeneration of species like mahogany is strong. Also suggests that overall forest recovery under 25-year plan is strong. No specific data on wildlife. No studies on forest ecology including stand structure and nutrient cycling, etc.

5.2: Social Returns from the Enterprise

Investment in social infrastructure

Initially significant investment of communal funds (historically managed by the Agrarian Reform agency until the mid 1980s) in roads, sawmills, equipment, community infrastructure. Much lower reinvestment under CFEs.

Professional training or skills building of community members

GTZ in particular invested heavily in training young foresters. Often went to Chapingo or Honduras. Recently problem is that trained forestry technicians have a tough time finding adequate employment given lack of resources for salaries.

6. Intersection with Government Regulations and Policies

6.1: Enabling Conditions

21 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

Infrastructure—access roads, equipment, sawmills (although antiquated and poorly maintained). Organizational support (although weakened in last 8 years) Indirect governmental subsidies such as PRODEFOR (although significant administrative costs). External donor support (although vastly reduced since approximately 1998).

6.2: Appropriateness of Regulatory Requirements

Mexican forest law, despite updates and revisions, has burdensome regulatory requirements. Communities and support organizations depend on grants to maintain CFEs, especially value-added such as training, monitoring, inventories, management plan updates.

7. Ways forward and opportunities

7.1: Changes Needed in the Enabling Environment

Structure of federal and state support for forestry technical services—currently indirect and inadequate. Stronger internal mechanism for collective marketing of high value and lesser known tropical species. Easier access to credit for rural communities. Stronger oversight mechanisms.

7.2: Challenges for Consolidation and Success

Internal conflict and lack of effective conflict resolution mechanisms. Resource imbalance among member ejidos. Relative disinterest in forestry by state government given strong growth in tourism sector. Rigid regulatory structure to market timber, access government-sponsored loans and grants leads to community-based organizations outsourcing for government agencies.

7.3: Potential for Replication

The Plan Piloto model was replicated widely throughout Latin America in the 1990s in places like Guatemala and Ecuador. Mexican ejidos enjoy strong guarantees regarding land and resource tenure that do not often exist in other Latin American contexts.

7.4: Lessons for Similar Initiatives

CFEs largely unable to compete with global market forces such as importation of mahogany substitutes. Thus subsidization or other support might be considered on conservation and social grounds.

On-the-ground political and organizational support lacking in QR since support organization focuses most energy on managing state-supported grants.

On-the ground training to support groups and CFEs non-existent for same reason.

22 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

References

Adger, W.N., K. Brown, R. Cervigni, and D. Moran. 1995. Total Economic Value of Forests in Mexico. Ambio 24:286-96. Argüelles Suárez, L.A. and N. Armijo Canto. 1995. Utilización y Conservación de los Recursos Forestales en Quintana Roo: Problemática y Perspectivas del Manejo Forestal. Chetumal, QR: Unión Nacional de Organizaciones de Forestería Comunal, A.C. Bray, D.B., L. Merino, and D. Barry. 2005. “Community Managed in the Strong Sense of the Phrase: The Community Forest Enterprises of Mexico. Pp. 3-26 in Bray et al. (eds.) The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Landscapes . Austin: University of Texas Press. Bray, D.B. and L. Merino. 2004. La Experiencia de las Comunidades Forestales en México: Veinticinco Años de Silvicultura y Construcción de Empresas Forestales Comunitarias . Mexico City: SEMARNAT, INE, and CCMSS. Bray, D.B., M. Carreon, L. Merino, and V. Santos. 1993. “On the Road to Sustainable Forestry: The Maya of Quintana Roo are Striving to Combine Economic Efficiency, Ecological Sustainability, and a Democratic Society.” Cultural Survival Quarterly Spring: 38-41. Cornelius, W.A. and D. Myhre, eds. 1998. The Transformation of Rural Mexico: Reforming the Ejido Sector . San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. FAO. 2000. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Forster, R.A., A. Argüelles, N. Aguilar and S. Kaatz. 2004. Opciones y Barreras de Mercado para Madera Aserrada de Michoacán, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Campeche y Quintana Roo, Mexico. Universidad de Quintana Roo,Tropica Rural Latinoamericana A.C., PROCYMAF- CONAFOR, Forest Trends. www.forest- trends.org/documents/publications/Opciones%20y%20Barrera_final_06-29-05.pdf (Accessed 8-23-05). FSC. 2005. “FSC Certified Forests.” Forest Stewardship Council, Bonn Germany. May 10. www.fsc.org/keepout/en/content_areas/92/1/files/ABU_REP_70_2005_05_10_FSC_certified_forests .pdf Accessed June 26, 2005. INEGI. 1988. Atlas Ejidal Nacional . Aguascalientes: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). Kiernan, M.J. and C.H. Freese. 1997. “Mexico’s Plan Piloto Forestal: The Search for Balance Between Socioeconomic and Ecological Balance.” In Harvesting Wild Species. Edited by C.H. Freese, pp. 93-131. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mardrid, S. 1993. La Participación de Grupos Indígenas en Actividades Forestales y de Conservación: Obstáculos y Oportunidades de los Ejidos y Comunidades Forestales en México. Oaxaca City: Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, A.C. Unpublished report. Merino, L. 1997. El Manejo Forestal Comunitario en México y sus Perspectivas de Sustentabilidad. Cuernavaca: UNAM-CRIM-SEMARNAP-WRI. Richards, E.M. 1991. “The Forest Ejidos of South-East Mexico: A Case Study of Community-Based Sustained Yield Management.” Commonwealth Forestry Review 70: 290-311. Richards, M., G. Navarro, and A. Vargas. 1995. Decentralizing Forest management and Conservation in Central America. Working Paper No. 93. London: Overseas Development Institute. SARH. 1994. Inventario Nacional Forestal Periódico, 1992-1994. Mexico City: Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos (SARH), Subsecretaría Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Segura, G. 1997. The State of Mexico’s Forest Resources Management and Conservation. Centro de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de México (UNAM). SEMARNAP 1999. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Forestal, 1998. Mexico City: Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP), Dirección General Forestal.

23 Wilshusen. Quintana Roo, Mexico Case Study. August 2005

SEMARNAT 2000. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Forestal, 1999. Mexico City: Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Dirección General Forestal. SEMARNAT 2005. Permisos Vigentes, 2005. Delegación Estatal de Quintana Roo. http://semarnat.gob.mx/groo/ . Accessed July 2005. Snook, L. 1993. Stand Dynamics of Mahogany ( Swietenia Macrophylla King) and Associated Species after Fires and Hurricanes in the Tropical Forests of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT. Synnott, T.J. 1993. Quintana Roo Forest Management Project. British Overseas Development Administration (ODA) Project Memorandum. Taylor, P. 2000. “Producing More with Less?: Community Forestry in Durango, Mexico in an Era of Trade Liberalization. Rural Sociology 65: 253-274. Vargas, A. 1998. Effective Intervention: External and Internal Elements of Institutional Structure for Forest Management in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. World Bank. 1995. Mexico Resource Conservation and Forest Sector Review. World Bank, Natural Resources and Rural Poverty Operations Division Country Department II, Latin American and the Caribbean Regional Office 13114-ME.

24