Despite the country´s widespread deforestation problems, community-based forestry enterprises in Mexico are found to provide ecological and social benefits to the campesino and indigenous communities. Drawing on five years of inter-disciplinary research by public and private Mexican and US universities, research centers and funders, this article examines the advantages of community forestry in Mexico.

Researchers discovered that the amount of communities managing their forests for commercial wood production is higher than previously thought. The article states that 2,300 communities had permits for forest exploitation between 1992 and 2002. Of these communities, 163 had sawmills and wood processing equipment; no other country in the world has community forestry with this amount of vertical integration. The data suggests that the communities with more monetary benefits from their forests, are more inclined to conserve more forest area.

It is also shown that community forest management can protect forests and biodiversity to the same extent as, or better than, officially protected natural areas. Many communities have internal regulations for communal protected areas. Examples are given, including longstanding indigenous and campesino tropical forests in Quintana Roo that have lower rates of deforestation than areas dominated by protected natural areas.

The study shows that community forestry, especially when it includes vertical integration of wood production and processing, generates local incomes and helps lessen poverty. Community forest management is also seen to contribute to the reduction of social conflicts and violence in some regions. Its businesses have been shown to support professional training for locals in forestry, up to the master's degree level. The authors found that public policies play a key role in community forestry and can have significant impacts on community organization and forest management.

In conclusion, the authors offer seven recommendations for improving the experiences of communities that manage their own forests: 1) completion of a national study of the community forestry sector and development and implementation of a data management system; 2) technical capacity building and strengthening of social capital for community silviculture programs; 3) consideration by interventionists of differing degrees of vertical integration as suitable to each unique community; 4) development of environmental services payment programs that are more equitable and long-term; 5) government support for commercial development and market access for community forest products; 6) government support for communities achieving and maintaining robust standards for green-certified timber products; and finally, 7) consideration and promotion of strategic plans for forest uses that provide alternatives to timber extraction.

Prepared by Megan Glore