Community resilience is the sustained ability of a community to use available resources while responding to stress, as well as the ability to recover from adverse situations accounting for social vulnerability, environmental hazards, and economic conditions. As climate change increases risk and unpredictability for management and planning, understanding resilience is crucial. Focusing on Mexico, this work explores international forestry sector investments as a tool to increase resilience. This research uses interviews, surveys, and programmatic documents comparing two case studies to explore the impact of certain foreign investments on community resiliency. The resilience concepts measured include diversity, economic and ecological variability, social capital, tight feedbacks, innovation, governance overlap, and ecosystem services. Results show that such investments can increase community resilience by improving community management, resource utilization, and recovery ability in times of economic, social, or biophysical stress.
INTRODUCTION
Forested landscapes face many threats, including changing climatic conditions, invasive insect and plant species, and land use conversion to agriculture and urban development (Liu et al. 2016, McDowell and Allen 2015). In many developing countries, the risks posed to forests are also risks to humans, many of whom rely on forests for their livelihood, drinking water, or a sense of spiritual and cultural wellbeing (Newton et al. 2016). Forests play an important role in resilience (e.g. Zemp et al. 2017), which is defined as the ability of systems to absorb disturbance and retain nearly the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walker et al. 2004). This definition of resilience is rooted in ecology (Hollins 1973) but includes recent advancements in adaptive capacity, which refers to an ability to assimilate and respond to changes, (Berkes et al. 2003, Engle 2011) and transformative capacity, which refers more explicitly to a paradigm, worldview, or fundamental systemic change in social systems (Wilson et al. 2013).
One important threat forests face is development, which often leads to permanent or semi-permanent changes to land use and land cover, for agriculture or infrastructure. Development is driven by economic growth that may result in environmental degradation, such as natural resource exploitation, pollution, or habitat destruction (Stern et al. 1996). The goal of many forest protection and management programs is to balance social-ecological resilience (both within the forest and in the broader landscape) with sustainable development and support of livelihoods (Agrawal 2009).
Another growing threat is climate change, which affects forests in primary and secondary ways. Primary effects of climate change include prolonged droughts, increased moisture, and increased numbers of severe weather events (e.g. hurricanes) all of which have been linked to increased tree mortality (Allen et al. 2010). Secondary effects of climate change include exacerbation of invasive insect and pest invasions due to warmer winters or drier summers (Ramsfield et al. 2016). It is likely that changing climatic conditions will lead to more stressed forests that are unable to maintain essential function and structure. Effects on forest-based economies are another secondary or tertiary impact of climate change in forested landscapes.
These changing climatic conditions have led to global policy formation, such as the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) member country adoption of the Paris Agreement. This agreement addresses climate change via mitigation (emissions reduction) and adaptation (addressing and responding to climate change impacts) recommendations (Iverson 2016, UNFCCC 2014). The agreement includes Article 5, which has key language for forests (as emissions 'sinks'), and Article 6, which establishes a new mechanism to reduce overall global emissions. In many developing countries, forest protection and management strategies require special policy and finance mechanisms.
Successful policy and finance mechanisms typically account for local level complexities, often directly engage local-level actors and stakeholders, and tap into local knowledge (Adger et al. 2009, Doughty 2016). Further, local actors and organizations a re often better situated to develop and lead adaptation and resilience efforts because of their understanding of local dynamics and processes and long-term involvement with communities (Agrawal 2009, Doughty 2016). Doughty finds, for example, local actors have been able to “take charge of their own resiliency efforts” (pg. 2187), while Adger et al. (2009) point out that many already have experience making such changes to address climate change. That noted, while issues related to resilience and land degradation are often rationally understood by a governing body, the ability of a country to intervene, counter, or mitigate these issues are often limited by financial, expertise, and capacity constraints. In such cases, international finance may provide a catalyst for systemic change by introducing capital, oversight, and structure to resource management and poverty reduction efforts.
In adopting policies for forest management and conservation, Mexico has been perceived by the international finance community as a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation (Ramírez 2014, Borrego 2018). Mexico has a relatively unique ability to both contribute to and receive climate change mitigation and resilience funding because it is both a developing country and an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member (SEMARNAT-INECC 2016). Mexico has accessed international funding networks for countries with both forest management and human development issues because of the country's internal capacity to participate in negotiations, track and report emissions, and manage land and forests at multiple scales.
For more than two decades, the World Bank has been supporting the forest sector as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation in Mexico. The scope of this support has evolved to respond to specific needs, beginning with institutional support during the launch of the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) in the 1990s (World Bank 2003) and piloting standalone programs such as the Community Forestry and Payment for Environmental Services projects (World Bank 2018a, 2018b) in the 2000s.
One of these funding sources, the Forest Investment Program (FIP), part of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) portfolio, aims to address rural poverty, reduce deforestation and degradation, and support healthy forest product economies that feature Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The FIP supports developing countries' efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation by providing financing for forest management reforms and public and private investments for forest owners, with a focus on communally-held land. The FIP finances efforts at a broad programmatic scale to address underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation and to overcome barriers that have hindered past efforts (CIF 2009). Many investment projects in Mexico, such as the FIP, consider key social (e.g. addressing potential impacts on indigenous communities) and environmental (e.g. protection of natural habitats) safeguards (CIF 2011). However, these programs are seldom evaluated using a holistic framework (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006, Miteva et al. 2012), such as community resiliency indicators.
Forests and forest industry in Mexico
In Mexico, 65 million hectares are classified as commercially viable forest, with just over 8% of the forest cover under some form of protection (Torres-Rojo et al. 2016, World Bank 2017). In the 1990s, Mexico experienced the second-highest overall deforestation rate across countries in Central and South America. Forested land decreased from 35.6% in 1990 to 33.74% in 2015, reflecting a loss of nearly 3.7 million hectares of forests and rainforests in those 25 years (World Bank 2017). There continue to be high forest degradation rates (Segura 2000). While agriculture and forestry have declined as a percentage of GDP (from 7% in 1990 to 3.6% in 2016), they remain an important source of employment at 13.5% of the total workforce (UN Data 2017, World Bank 2017). Torres-Rojo et al. (2005) estimate that forestry work provides over 70% of local paid employment in some places. Mexico's rapidly growing economy demands increasing timber consumption but continues to import timber in spite of the country's abundant forest resources. Currently, most production in Mexico is small-scale and distributed across the country, and many of these operations are dated and inefficient. This creates a gap in the ability to meet local and regional demands for timber, resulting in a market disconnect between supply and demand, potential employment benefits, and subsequent poverty-reduction (Segura 2000, Skutsch et al. 2015).
The majority of Mexico's forests (61%) are collectivelyheld land by ejidos and communities (Torres-Rojo et al. 2016, Cubbage et al. 2015, World Bank 1995, Taylor 2005). Ejidos are a system of collective land tenure and governance of groups that previously did not have land but were granted property rights by the government. Comunidades are indigenous communities that have received formal recognition and title to their traditional and/or established lands. When referring to both groups, this paper will refer to ‘rural communities’. As many rural communities have substantial forest land holdings, this tenure system creates both unique challenges and opportunities for forest management for timber and other ecosystem services. Community Forest Enterprises (CFEs) are partnerships formed within or between rural communities to engage in cooperative business endeavours such as operations, working forests management, and market access (Cubbage et al. 2015, Hodgdon et al. 2013). Officially, 990 CFEs operate in M exico (Cubbage et al. 2015) although many have limited functions and in a large number of cases, timber extraction is simply contracted out to commercial companies (Ellis et al. 2015). There are a number of issues critical to long-term success in Mexican forestry, including identification, deployment, and monitoring of best practices, and foreign investments to build capacity have a potentially strong influence.
There has been research exploring the specific dynamics of communal forestry in Mexico (Bray 2010, Boyer 2015), and analysis on the role of certification and production (Cubbage et al. 2015), but there is little work that specifically examines the role of international investments in deployment of sustainability practices, capacity building, well-being, and resilience across communally held land in Mexico. This research aims to identify how international investments influence the economic, political, environmental, and cultural aspects that contribute to resilience and well-being in peoples' lives.
As in early study in this domain, this paper used a qualitative case study approach and resiliency indicators in Mexico to examine two ‘best case scenarios’ that demonstrate how foreign investment can build capacity and foster community resilience. ‘Best cases’ were selected since these could serve as a model for other interventions. Specifically, our objectives were to 1) describe the timeline and approach for foreign investment in Mexico's forestry sector 2) identify factors that contribute to resilience in forest-based communities and forest-based economies, and 3) determine which factors were present in two successful rural communities and which may contribute to long-term success.
METHODS
National forest sector investment analysis
To meet Objective 1, interviews with government officials were conducted with CONAFOR and international funding institutions, including the World Bank and the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB). Project databases were accessed and reviewed and Mexican policies and stated objectives at the agency were analysed (e.g. CONAFOR and Ministry of the Environment). A timeline for major investments with direct impacts on the forestry sector was determined, with a focus on synergies between funded projects across institutions, for example improving joint land management conservation and productivity objectives.
Case selection
To meet Objectives 2 and 3, case studies were sought that would allow in-depth community resilience exploration. Partners at the CIF FIP nominated several states, and after consultation with CONAFOR, two sites were selected that differed ecologically (mesic vs. xeric) and geographically (northern vs. southern), representing locations that were deemed 'successful’ in leveraging foreign funds to improve community resilience. The nominated pilot projects were in the Yucatan, Quintana Roo, Jalisco, Oaxaca, and Durango. Criteria for final selection of the two cases were: contrasting biophysical conditions, prior evidence of poverty and gender imbalance, and presence of partners and stakeholders. The Oaxaca and Durango cases were selected with final approval from all project partners as these sites represent a diverse range of social and ecological factors.
Description of study sites
Site 1: State of Durango (northwestern region)
Durango has the second-lowe st population density in Mexico (INEGI 2017) yet is considered the most important state for timber production (Taylor 2005). While vast open plains support cattle ranching and agriculture here, the altitude rises into the largely forested southwest mountainous region. In recent decades, this region of Durango has also been supported by multi-investor international funds, such as the Transforming Management of Biodiversity-rich Community Production Forests project (GEF 2018), which has an overarching objective of implementing biodiversity conservation while improving operations and profitability of CFEs, and the Forest Investment Program (FIP), which supported training, learning exchanges, technical support, and loans for improved equipment.
The ejido of San Pablo was selected for further study. San Pablo was created in 1936 and, after two territory expansions in 1965 and 1979, covers nearly 35 000 hectares today. There are 230 ejido members, led by a 30-member advisory council. Forestry is the most important economic activity, with 80% of the community working permanently in forestry related activities. The ejido is a member of the CFE Pino Real Forest Corporation (Corporación Forestal Pino Real in Spanish), which was formed in 2012 across three ejidos (San Pablo, La Ciudad, and Vencedores) to consolidate technology and wood harvesting capacity, improve organizational structure, reduce transaction costs, and improve market access. All three ejidos are certified by the Rainforest Alliance in the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) program. Interviews and field visits took place only in the San Pablo and La Ciudad communities. The tree species mix in Durango is dominated by pine (Pinus) and oak (Quercus).
Since 2002, the territory has continuously maintained 12 000 hectares of FSC-certified forests and is projected to continue steadily increasing. San Pablo has reforested an average of 60 hectares annually since 2001, sourcing seedlings from their tree nursery, which produces more than 200 000 native plants per year. The Forest Management Plan (PMF in Spanish), has planned for a total of 2 100 hectares for restoration. There are 11 different conservation areas with an area of approximately 40 to 50 hectares, divided by hydrological, biodiversity, or forest ecosystem values. The community has received financial support to improve forest management, conserve high-biodiversity areas, boost business planning abilities, and expand legal wood extraction (Table 2).
Site 2: State of Oaxaca
The State of Oaxaca has roughly 13% (7 million) of Mexico's forested hectares (World Bank 1995) and the second highest percentage of indigenous population at 48% (Millán et al. 2008). Forests cover over 70% of Oaxaca, with climatic zones covering both tropical and temperate forests, some considered of very high importance in conservation due to high numbers of endangered species (SEMARNAP 2000). Oaxaca is in southern Mexico and nestled amongst mountains linking the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It supports many CFEs across a region of climatic conditions and forest ecosystem types and the state is well-known in Mexico and globally for its biodiversity (Chapela 2005).
In Oaxaca, upwards of 90% of forests are communally held (Millan et al. 2008). The community can trace its origins to the Zapoteca civilization (Chapela 2012). Today, there are approximately 265 families with a total population of nearly 1 800 people that are considered community members. The territory of the indigenous community San Pedro el Alto is just under 30 000 hectares, 26 000 of which are working forests. Forestry dominates major economic activities (80%), alongside ranching (12%), agriculture (6%), and commerce (2%) (Antinori 2005). The vegetation in San Pedro el Alto reflects the cooler climate and higher altitude (7 200 feet above sea level), with a species mix predominantly of pine (Pinus), juniper (Juniperus), oak (Quercus), and alder (Alnus). The community has maintained FSC certification in all working forests since it was first certified in the early 1990s.
Among other activities, international financial support has encouraged forest conservation and protection practices which have become an important part of community forest management in San Pedro el Alto (Table 3). A specific example includes the now standard practice of erosion control techniques during and following harvesting, such as rows of berms from harvesting residue. They also employ a variety of silvicultural treatments including Arboles padres (parent trees) or natural regeneration, selection techniques, and the operation of a community native tree species nursery to supplement natural regeneration.
Data collection
Objective 1 was met by gathering program documents for all forest investment programs administered at case study sites. Internet searches, and interviews with program directors and executing agencies were used to find relevant documents. Objectives 2 and 3 were met using an inductive approach based on two contrasting case study sites (Patton 1990) to better understand resiliency. At each site, data was collected in three ways, 1) Telephone and in-person interviews with a total of 31 interviews, including meetings in Mexico and in Washington, DC, 2) A survey, administered in-person and through internet on a web-based platform called Qualtrics, collected a total of 45 responses, and 3) Observational field notes during a visit to each case study site. A different interview guide was written for each stakeholder group including foreign aid officials, governmental agencies, private sector investors, community leaders, and community members. Interview topics focused on foreign investment, institutional capacity, regional management strategies, participation of indigenous and rural communities, and financial access. Interviews were conducted over the phone and in person, depending on availability, and lasted between 45 minutes and one hour. Interviews were conducted privately without supervisors or other community members present, particularly important with potentially vulnerable subjects (e.g. women). All subjects were guaranteed anonymity in all reports, unless they wished for their statements to be used in connection with their position.
The same survey was administered to individuals across stakeholder groups asking about their knowledge, values, and awareness of sustainable forest management, climate change impacts, and forestry investment. The survey was emailed to stakeholders acting in a professional capacity (e.g. agency and aid group officials) and administered in person to community leaders and community members. Interview data was triangulated with observational field notes and with key documents via a content analysis.
TABLE 1
Resiliency indicators and their definitions
TABLE 2
FIP Investments in ejido San Pablo, Durango from 2012–2017
Data analysis
Data was assembled in NVivo (Version 11.2.4, QSR International) and analysed with thematic coding procedures. First, in vivo codes were created from document and interview text. Next, thematic codes were developed from these codes. In addition to emergent themes, the data were coded based on 9 pre-determined resiliency indicators (Table 1, Walker and Salt 2006, Dekker and Uslaner 2001). Although there are many ways to understand and measure resiliency, these indicators appear most commonly in the literature pertaining to natural resource management and a social-ecological systems approach. We sought evidence of SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-sensitive) when evaluating outcomes of foreign investment (Shahin and Mahbod 2007). However, the foreign aid programs did not incorporate this framework into their mission, objectives, implementation, or evaluation protocols, so we were not able to evaluate community resilience in this way. Instead, the resilience indicators are linked to the perceptions and opinions of interview and survey respondents, rather than observable measures. Codes were checked between two raters and discrepancies were discussed and resolved.
TABLE 3
FIP Investments in rural community San Pedro el Alto, Oaxaca from 2012–2017
RESULTS
Investment in Mexico's forestry sector has steadily increased since 2010, with a spike of investment in the recent year 2017–2018 (Figure 1). Investment has been made through a combination of grants and loans, some of which will phase out in the coming year, 2019.
There was a high degree of change in both Durango and Oaxaca between 2010 and 2017 across multiple metrics, confirmed via document content analysis and field observation. In Durango, the number of employees in the forestry sector, number of female employees, cubic meters processed, financial returns, and FSC-certified hectares all increased (Table 4). In Oaxaca, the same metrics increased except the number of FSC-certified hectares. Market opportunities expanded to both national and international exports in both locations and new products were produced by 2017.
Perspectives on climate change and sustainable forestry affirmed that across all sectors and affiliations, most people were convinced climate change is happening, although fewer at the ejido and NGO level were convinced that the cause was primarily anthropogenic (Table 5). While participants working in NGOs and academia reported they were knowledgeable about forest management, ejido members did not feel they knew much about sustainable forest management (20%). Nevertheless, 80% of respondents felt that sustainable forest management was becoming more important.
Resiliency indicators1
The following section identifies the primary indicators and sub-indicators used in the analysis, as well as specific coded examples of each. See table 6 for a breakdown of these indicators with data from study locations.
Acknowledging slow variables
Forests are inherently slow growing and management strategies take decades to show results. One community member noted “with (the forest), it is such a slow relationship” (Operations, Executing agency, Durango), evidence of ‘Longterm Thinking’. ‘Intergenerational Considerations’ included concerns with sustainable forest management, and planning for growth opportunities that will attract younger generations. Surveyed individuals felt climate change will have dangerous impacts either currently or as soon as the next 5–10 years (Table 5), indicating that climate change introduces new threats and uncertainties into intergenerational planning of resource management. Despite this, interview respondents shared beliefs that adaptive approaches and good management could lessen this impact and provide long-term forest sustainability and economic productivity.
Diversity
The Diversity indicator includes both ‘Ecological Diversification’ and ‘Economic Diversification’ sub-indicators. ‘Ecological Diversification’ was noted by community leaders and members as an increased emphasis on biodiversity from governmental agencies. In Oaxaca's San Pablo el Alto, reforestation drew from their native species nurseries, however, there were only a few species grown there. It was not clear if reforestation would mimic the diversity of natural forests in the area. There was also a growing emphasis on protection of ecologically diverse areas, which required analysis of biologically rich and important areas. Further examples of ecological diversity include an experimental orchard and organic garden for fruit and vegetable production.
TABLE 4
Percent change between 2010 and 2017 of business and production indicators for two community forest enterprises
TABLE 5
Climate change perspectives grouped by affiliation within forestry sector
‘Economic Diversification’ further encompasses ‘Employment and Business Opportunities’ and ‘Market Information and Value’. For ‘Employment and Business Opportunities’, examples were found in both case study communities, and resulted in a clear and marked increase in employment both directly to forestry-related activities and in additional opportunities that were possible in part because of forestry revenue as initial capital. In Durango, such additional opportunities included eco-tourism, rental cabins, recreational zip lines, and tours of key geologic structures like caves and a climbable ‘rock garden’. The protected forests nearby provided the motivation to run these eco-tourism enterprises and, in some cases, harvesting revenues provided initial capital. However, the enterprises were not well advertised and poor infrastructure (e.g. roads) may discourage visitors. In Oaxaca, the community leaders and government agency representatives mentioned that after foreign investment in forestry, the increased capital flowing through the sector led to investment in a spring-fed water bottling businessa fuel station, and a bus line provided both income and transportation.
‘Market Information and Value’ is leading diversification of products because of more informed business planning decisions, from planting to production. For example, an event called the Forest Expo takes place every two years and directly connects producers with consumers, including large international companies that can make direct agreements with CFEs (Business development, Ejido/CFE, Durango).
Ecological variability
A respondent mentioned that, “current strategies [in both Durango and Oaxaca] are not only dedicated to timber timber production, they also focus on the care of biodiversity, flora, and fauna” (Operations, Executing agency, Durango). Therefore, an ‘Including Ecological Considerations’ sub-indicator was used to identify when specific acknowledgement and planning steps were taken to incorporate such factors, which have become prevalent in recent years (Project implementer, Executing agency, Durango). ‘Including Ecological Considerations’ also results in flexibility to address and anticipate ecological issues – or even leverage them – for example, by selecting certain species for planting or harvesting ahead of a blight (Forest technician, Ejido/CFE, Durango).
Ecosystem Services
The sub-indicator ‘Direct Ecosystem Service Benefits’, includes ecosystem service outcomes related to biodiversity, water, and timber and non-timber forest products, among others. Interviewees from within and outside the communities were able to link improved forest management to benefits like clean water in the case of the San Pedro el Alto community, or in ecotourism featuring birdwatching in conservation areas of La Ciudad (Governing official, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). Further, these activities supplement other international and national funds in direct payments for ecosystem service schemes, including in watershed management, which the San Pedro el Alto community was able to take advantage of as well.
Innovation
International funds creating ‘New Finance Opportunities’ results in access and opportunities for finance that did not previously exist, in particular for rural communities and CFEs. These funding sources were previously deemed too risky by larger banking institutions and showed CFEs to be valuable investments, even at small amounts (Project Implementer, Executing agency, Mexico City). Equipment purchased with foreign investment resulted in profound changes for CFEs and communities, via reduced destruction from forestry practices and access to new markets with additional products (Operations, Community/CFE, Oaxaca).
‘Transforming and Breaking Rigid Connections and Behaviours’ was found across a range of factors including the creation of a CFE, awareness and conservation values, transformations in forest management, transformations in income and earnings, in equity particularly for women, in community dynamics and wellbeing, in employment, and transformations of future scenarios (Administrator, Community/CFE, Oaxaca; Project implementer, Executing agency, Durango; Forest engineer, Executing agency, Durango).
For ‘Women and Indigenous’, multiple respondents emphasized being able to provide for their households and plan for bright futures for their children, with access to education and all basic needs met. There was even a feeling of genuine career excitement from some interview subjects, describing the important leadership role they had in their community in the forestry sector (Administrator, Community/ CFE, Oaxaca). However, this was directly specified as a condition of this investment, so cannot be attributed to all investments, generally. The site visits and analysis found female employees from high-ranking leadership positions to manual and assembly work (Administrator, Ejido/CFE, Durango).
‘Young and Innovative Professionals’ was evidenced both in practical implementation of international investment projects, including funds from the World Bank, IDB, and the Global Environmental Fund (GEF), and in interviews with the executing agencies, government, and the rural communities. At the communal level, respondents noted the impact that training courses had on young workers and professionals, particularly the emphasis on community, equality, and sustainability (Governing official, Ejido/CFE, Durango). However, they also noted that young people from the communities still desired to leave the community and that more must be done to retain young professionals in these rural areas. The presence of new workers entering the executing agencies (including women) was notable, particularly in CONAFOR and FINDECA. These individuals not only had new career opportunities implementing such projects, they received training aligned with values and objectives of that funding, for example, in gender and climate change issues. Involvement in international projects has both prestige and a certain influence on the individual professional. As another example, CONAFOR supported an employee working on internationallyfunded projects to earn a master's degree in forest engineering, which may not have been possible without international support (Forest engineer, Executing agency, Durango).
Modularity
Examples of ‘Organizations and Executing Agencies’ in Mexico's forests include USAID, UNREDD, multi-lateral development banks (MDBs), and European development organizations (e.g. Norwegian Government to create a national Monitoring, Reporting and Verification system). With a high degree of central organization through CONAFOR, Mexico has been able to assemble these activities to build on one another without being overly dependent on a single source of funding or project. Moreover, the FIP program structure encourages modularity at the executing agency level by utilizing different executing agencies for financing, outreach, and implementation of distinct funding pools. For example, National Development Finance (FND in Spanish) is responsible for one of the four FIP projects, called “Financing Low Carbon Strategies in Forest Landscapes while FINDECA for another (“Support for Forest Related Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) in Ejidos and Communities”) (Project Implementer, Executing agency, Mexico City). Instead of developing the CFEs with a singular highlevel vision in a centralized manner, the process unfolds more organically, resulting in greater buy-in and long-term support within the rural communities themselves, boosting resiliency outcomes.
‘Careful Investment’ was seen in ejido and community planning, executing agencies implementation, and FIP planning and program documentation. Depending on the size and development level of the rural communities, they were eligible for different program funds, which resulted in careful assessment of rural communities’ capacity and growth and offered unique support approaches for each community. Communities conscientiously accepted support, seeing that they are handled well and fit into larger community goals, and investments were acquired incrementally. The communities themselves, as indicated in various interviews, were reserved with investments because of the steady availability of financial support opportunities, they did not need to reach beyond their upfront needs in each financial assistance application (Operations, Executing agency, Durango).
Finally, the land management system in Mexico distributes risks and benefits through the mosaic of communallyheld land instead of centralized landholders by large companies, resulting in modular ‘Communities as Units’. CFEs and rural communities are then able to tap distinct parts of the value chain, instead of all competing for the same, limited raw timber markets. International funds can build capacity directly at the ejido level. Within the rural communities, modularity was also found in the separation of community and CFE. The ejidos themselves changed their counsels every three years through a democratic process, resulting in issues of cohesiveness for longer-term planning which CFE agreements can overcome. As an example, the Durango-based Pino Real CFE consisted of three ejidos and the resulting modular model allowed for productivity and governance fluctuations within the member ejidos (Operations, Executing agency, Durango).
Overlap in governance
This indicator was reviewed at: 1) ‘Executing Agencies’, 2) ‘Increased National Capacity and Inter-Agency Connectivity’, 3) ‘Local Level’, and 4) ‘Nesting and Redundancy in Institutions’. Executing Agencies play an important role in supporting rural communities, in information dissemination, and in capacity building for sustainable community management by overseeing technical aspects (Operations, Executing agency, Durango). CONAFOR leads connections between investment funds and rural communities with a strategy of sustainable forest management including conservation actions, restoration, and production. This provides technical assistance, planning support, and improved institutional capacities to uphold the law, including standards and regulatory improvements.
Increased national capacity and inter-agency connectivity
Though an inter-agency analysis is beyond the scope of this research, project documentation and interviews showed a successful communication and shared-goal strategy in place, not least because there are specific mandates for coordination of forest policies and rural development (Operations, Executing agency, Durango). While the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico (SEMARNAT) is responsible for natural resources including forests, CONAFOR has the specific role of managing and monitoring forests, and directly engaging stakeholders, particularly through the 2025 Strategic Forest Plan (FIP 2011).
Though respondents noted there are varying degrees of sustainability in regard to local level forests management, there was a sense of confidence in local level sustainable management but uncertainty that sustainable management is occurring at the regional or national level (Forest technician, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). It was clear that international investments have rewarded good steward communities and are actively encourage environmentally responsible behaviour.
Though respondents noted there are varying degrees of sustainability in regard to local level forests management, there was a sense of confidence in local level sustainable management but uncertainty that sustainable management is occurring at the regional or national level (Forest technician, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). It was clear that international investments have rewarded good steward communities and are actively encourage environmentally responsible behaviour.
For ‘Nesting and Redundancy in Institutions’, it was both observed and stressed by respondents that such a redundancy took the form of scaled and nested organizations, which created clarity and consistency for increasing sustainable forest management. Additionally, with layers of governance, stakeholders had access to scales of resources, checkpoints, tools, and approaches. For example, forest certification, national laws, and internationally funded projects often had similar or even the same stated targets. In fact, forests in Mexico have been identified as a matter of national importance and security from the Office of President, resulting in regional plans fitting into national plans, and local plans fitting into regional plans. However, some respondents identified a need for consistent messaging and goal alignment, as there can be confusion about where to look leadership and financial opportunities.
Social capital
There was strong evidence of bonding social capital (intracommunity), but less evidence of bridging social capital (inter-community). Bonding social capital was evident in: 1) ‘Gender Dynamics and Perspectives’, 2) ‘Inclusion,’ 3), ‘Leadership Support and Development’, 4) ‘Livelihoods’, 5) ‘Networks for Learning and Communication’, 6) ‘Technical Assistance and Professional Expertise’, and 7) ‘Traditional Knowledge (TK)’. Bridging social capital was evident in 5) ‘Networks for Learning and Communication.
‘Gender Dynamics and Perspectives’ represented a particularly important and visible sub indicator. As the FIP program language included an emphasis on women and indigenous populations, the change for women was both visible and easily discussed by most interviewees. Community members described “increased awareness” (Governing official, Community/CFE, Oaxaca) related to gender and how “more and more women are getting work in relation to industrial jobs” (Administrator, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). The women themselves highlighted the importance of these opportunities and training in transforming not only their individual lives, but their sense of security and in diversifying incomes streams at the household level. Women were present at all levels in the CFEs in this study, including leadership positions.
The role of ‘Inclusion’ as a key sub-indicator is because of its prevalence as a core concept of the primary international investment studied, the FIP. The FIP is designed to include forestland owners in financial, technical assistance, training, and market opportunities that previously were not available to them. This is particularly visible in the FIP projects which created dedicated financing line for communities and ejidos, with the project “Support for Forest Related Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) in Ejidos and Communities” being for entities just getting started or with fundamental training needs in business management.
Examples of ‘Leadership Support and Development’ can be found in placement of technicians in rural communities, training for women in leadership roles, executing agency support and training, hosting students and young people during vacation months, and peer learning including intercommunal exchanges. For example, the San Pedro el Alto community in Oaxaca, hosted an expert sawmill technician from Durango. Overall, this leadership support increased resilience because it results in a wide range of individuals and professionals thinking about planning, sustainability, risks, and management making them able to make critical and knowledgeable decisions.
In terms of ‘Livelihoods’, improvements took many forms, including household income, education, sense of security, governance, transportation, technology, business acumen, and even pensions for the elderly (Governing official, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). One respondent noted that recent years had shown “a breakthrough” for rural communities in regard to benefits to the community from management and market access changes. (Business development, Ejido/CFE, Durango). In San Pedro el Alto, forestry revenues have resulted in benefits such as a central municipal building, ambulance and health care centre, multiple levels of education (preschool, elementary, and high school), a church renovation, and even a water treatment plant (in construction). In Durango, capital for forest activities resulted in more income, access to education, and a transition to motor bikes from bicycles (Project implementer, Executing agency, Durango).
‘Networks for Learning’ were able to bring awareness and ability to implement financial and sustainable forest management. FIP funding, for example, supported a wide range of trainings and workshops on topics like gender issues, silvicultural, business management skills, and reduced impact logging. Peer learning and influences between rural communities had a word-of-mouth effect, for example when one community successfully maintained forest certification and tapped new markets because of that certification, nearby communities not only became more interested but had a practical, local example.
‘Technical Assistance and Professional Expertise’ played a key role at multiple scales and in various professional development areas and sectors, for example in forestry and in finance. One core example is in the approach and philosophy of CONAFOR, who developed a mechanism to embed technicians in ejidos and communities until they can eventually solve their own issues and “will no longer be part of the technician program” because they can effectively leverage resources and expertise (Project Implementer, Executing Agency, Durango). The rural communities were able to work directly with the professional experts in finance through executing agencies, like FND and FINDECA, who could assist with planning and investment decisions and undertake a cost-benefit analysis.
‘Traditional Knowledge (TK)’, defined as the knowledge, know-how, innovations, and practices of indigenous and rural communities, sustained and passed between generations can improve long-term acceptability and viability of investments and improve sustainability and climate adaptation outcomes (Huambachano 2015, IASG 2014, WIPO 2010). Despite the attention to education and training in many international investments, particularly in the FIP, inclusion of different perspectives and in particular traditional knowledge received little emphasis. For example, TK does not appear prevalently in FIP program documents nor is there an emphasis on a process to address grievances. As this research only focused on individuals directly related to the forestry sector, other community voices were not encompassed in interviews or surveying. However, a number of interviewees pointed out that “the reluctance in the localities is very strong, (which is) totally social” (Operations, Executing agency, Durango). While another respondent described the need to “change the mentality of people, of some properties or ejidos want to continue maintaining ancestral management and not to enter a management [strategy] that is intensive” (Business development, Ejido/CFE, Durango). It appears that some community members felt that the increased harvesting was “very extreme or intensive” (Forest technician, Ejido/CFE, Durango), to which the forest professionals would explain that they need to “show people that they are doing good management, they need to see results, that it is not something wrong, that it has a purpose” (Forest technician, Ejido/CFE, Durango). This highlights some possible tensions regarding new management approaches within the community, which may be rooted in the lack of traditional knowledge and values being incorporated into planning and management processes.
Tight Feedbacks
The final major resilience indicator is Tight Feedbacks, which allows detection of issues before thresholds are crossed. For example, forest loss, degradation, and fire weaken or destroy the forest structure, and are immediately visible and provide quick information to forest owners. Subtle degrees of degradation are more difficult to observe, and a system of tight feedbacks boosts ability to identify and respond to changes. Four major areas were identified: 1) ‘Acknowledging Risk’, 2) ‘Protecting Assets’, 3) ‘Including Adaptation Concepts’, and 4) ‘Certification’.
Rural communities and individuals were found to be ‘Acknowledging Risk’ from climate, fire, pests, disease, market changes. Respondents discussed fire concerns in Durango and Jalisco, illegal harvesting, and risks to ecosystems and their services including water provision, flora, and fauna. There was reference to the community “waking up” to the precise risks in their geographic area and undertaking efforts to mitigate that risk (Governing official, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). Some concern was expressed about the high risk and the inevitability of climate change, noting that without changing management practices their efforts could be undermined, saying that, “if (the forest) is not conserved and you have climate change, there will come a time, even with the activities we do, that it will be destroyed” (Project implementer, Executing agency, Durango).
‘Protecting Assets’ included risk identification, signage installation, and structured monitoring and reporting systems. Watching for fire, stopping illegal logging, even adding fences to protect from livestock addressed problems for natural regeneration in Durango “so there are fences so that animals do not enter” (Forest technician, Community/CFE, Durango).
Due to the emphasis on climate change, ‘Adaptation Concepts’ was an important indicator. For example, multiple community members and forest technicians commented on a recent drought in Durango, and they pointed to their sustainable management practices, supported by training from international investments, that resulted in trees surviving “because of (new techniques) and all the practices we do” (Forest technician, Community/CFE, Durango).
‘Certification’, primarily with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) by the Rainforest Alliance, creates tight feedbacks due to additional scrutiny by third-party verifiers. Community members reported this as an important source of information stating, “the commitment was really re-set with each annual audit” and resulted in greater security, and the “main beneficiary of that security is the ejido” (Forest technician, Community/ CFE, Durango). Once communities became certified, they managed to keep up the certification: one community in Oaxaca has done so for nearly two decades (Governing official, Community/CFE, Oaxaca). On the other hand, the added cost of certification and slow or disappointing financial returns in some cases have also created a feedback wherein some forest owners elect to not maintain their certification (Cubbage 2015).
DISCUSSION
This case study applied a resiliency indicators framework to understand how foreign investment may have helped to increase community resilience in two case study communities in Mexico. These cases were identified as successful examples, with high community resilience. Generally, it was found that foreign investment increased community resilience in Mexico's forestry sector. The most important and frequently found positive indicators were Modularity, Innovation and Bonding Social Capital. Recent years show a clear increase in ability to harvest and process wood. However, with training and sustainable forest management practices, including forest certification and protection of high biodiversity value conservation zones, such activities were able to increase production while also implementing environmental safeguards. Indicators that were lacking included Traditional Knowledge and Overlap in Governance. Generally speaking, the term Traditional Knowledge is not included in any of the reviewed FIP program or project documents. There is growing evidence that integrating traditional knowledge into forest management can lead to improved social-ecological outcomes (Emery et al. 2014, Lake et al. 2017). Overlapping governance was evident in the redundancy between national policies like National Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management (ENAIPROS), national agencies (e.g. the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources), the regional and local deployment of CONAFOR), and the local and autonomous rural communities. For example, certification, national laws, and internationally funded projects often had similar or the same stated targets, bolstering clarity and consistency for increasing sustainable forest management, and therefore increased resilience. With layers of governance, stakeholders had access to multiple and complementary resources, monitoring assistance, and support networks. However, there were communication gaps as local level actors were unclear how their actions were supporting or contributing to national level objectives.
TABLE 6
Resiliency indicators as described by the interview data, with associated quotes
Continued
Continued
According to our respondents, there was increased income in both rural communities, professional development in different sectors and positions within those sectors, as well as increased opportunities for indigenous people and women. These improvements all build community resilience, a key ingredient in societal-level sustainability (Magis 2010, Walker 2004). Diversification supports long-term community economic resilience through new careers, revenue streams, skills, and ideas. Overall, foreign investment supports slow and continual progression to a new regime, one which can better absorb disturbances and experiment with new equilibriums as it changes (Walker and Salt 2006). The distributed mechanization, training, natural resources, and professional perspectives has resulted in management of working forests in these case study communities that can deliver ecosystem services, economic wellbeing to rural communities, wood products, and climate change benefits.
There are several limitations of this study. First, the cases selected represent ‘best-case scenarios’ with high community resilience, to demonstrate what resiliency indicators have led to this success. Therefore, results cannot be generalized to other rural forest-based communities in Mexico or to communities receiving other sources and types of foreign investment. Although we examined the influence of specific program investment (e.g. FIP), we could not use their indicators for success in part because they were not SMART criteria (Shahin and Mahbod 2007). Instead, we used resiliency indicators as a way to explore characteristics of the forest investment in two exemplary cases to understand how investment could lead to improved community resilience. It is suggested that program goals always incorporate SMART criteria to aid in evaluation.
Future research could test the benefits of directly incorporating ‘Traditional Knowledge (TK)’ and values into management planning in these projects. Bliss (2000) found that incorporating community objectives into management is critical, even if they are not entirely congruent with the best silvicultural ideas of technical service providers. Finding practical and realistic approaches to bring traditional values and knowledge into internationally supported projects could build social capital, improve diversity, and contribute to governance overlap (Agrawal 2009). Another avenue in need of further research is better understanding the differences between success rates amongst communities, as many rural communities experience less progress than those highlighted in this paper. Interview responses suggested that internal organization and governance are key barriers in lower performing areas. Additional research could inform approaches to better support these communities in these topics. Finally, a pre- and post- test design on communities designated to receive funding (but that have not yet) with control group communities (who will not receive funding) would be ideal for evaluation, particularly if SMART criteria are used.
CONCLUSIONS
This case study explores the role of foreign investment in supporting community resilience in two regions of Mexico. Due to the qualitative nature of the research and the sample limitations, it is not possible to clearly attribute outcomes from specific investments. However, this analysis demonstrates how foreign capital, in addition to investing in durable goods for rural communities, allows communities to access new markets, improve resource management, build supply chains, and train community members. Because these funds are used in line with national climate change mitigation, sustainability, and human development objectives, they are contributing to larger programmatic efforts that extend beyond the specific investment. What is needed is a systematic analysis of social-ecological resilience before and after such investments are made to the forestry sector to determine where the most improvements are needed and achieved, and how such funds are leveraging existing resources to improve all resiliency indicators.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge support by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), and in particular support and contributions from partners at the World Bank and the Forest Investment Program. They further acknowledge input from the Mexico National Forestry Commission, CONAFOR, both at the national level and in the state teams in Durango and Oaxaca, and all those in the executing agencies that participated in interviews. They would particularly like to thank the communities of La Ciudad and San Pablo (Durango) and San Pedro el Alto (Oaxaca) for their generosity with time and information. Finally, helpful comments from 7 anonymous reviewers helped improve this paper.
REFERENCES
Notes
[1] 1 Quotes from respondents are provided with context information in the following format: (Affiliation, Organization, State in Mexico).
[2] 2 * denotes inclusion of tentative funds in FIGURE 1
