2015
DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2015.1040514
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Community Forestry Enterprises in Mexico: Sustainability and Competitiveness

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
25
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, our analysis comparing CFM type or degree of adoption and implementation shows that greater organization, investment, vertical integration, and community participation in forest management can produce favorable conditions for forest cover maintenance and biodiversity conservation and, in turn, provide greater economic benefits to those ejidos with CFM. Cubbage et al (2015) have shown that community forest CONAFOR CFM Type % DeforestaƟon Rate Figure 4. Comparison of means of the annual rate of loss of the forest coverage in ejidos with different types of forestry management according to the CONAFOR typology: Type 1 without CFM adoption but with forestry potential; Type 2, with CFM but only sale standing timber and do not participate in forestry operations; Type 3, with CFM that sale cut timber and participate in forestry operation; and Type 4, with sale of cut timber and lumber cut with their own sawmill and participate forestry operations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, our analysis comparing CFM type or degree of adoption and implementation shows that greater organization, investment, vertical integration, and community participation in forest management can produce favorable conditions for forest cover maintenance and biodiversity conservation and, in turn, provide greater economic benefits to those ejidos with CFM. Cubbage et al (2015) have shown that community forest CONAFOR CFM Type % DeforestaƟon Rate Figure 4. Comparison of means of the annual rate of loss of the forest coverage in ejidos with different types of forestry management according to the CONAFOR typology: Type 1 without CFM adoption but with forestry potential; Type 2, with CFM but only sale standing timber and do not participate in forestry operations; Type 3, with CFM that sale cut timber and participate in forestry operation; and Type 4, with sale of cut timber and lumber cut with their own sawmill and participate forestry operations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This involves 10 provinces comprising areas with the highest timber production at national scale: The northern region includes the provinces of Durango and Chihuahua, while the central-south is represented by Michoacán, Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco and the state of Mexico. Differences regarding forestry at a regional scale are shown in Table 10, based on information from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography [22], and the two documents "Diagnóstico de las capacidades y situación tecnológica del sector forestal y forestal industrial del país" (Diagnostic of the capabilities and technology situation of the forest sector and forest industry in the country) [23] and "Competitividad y Acceso a Mercados de Empresas Forestales Comunitarias en México" (Competitiveness and market access of community forest enterprises in Mexico) [24]. The "average transportation distances" refers to distances between the loading point in the forest and final unloading point at a fictional power plant.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to estimate the economic potential of the regionally supplied woody biomass for energy use, the harvesting and transportation costs for utilizing the available forest woody biomass for energetic use were calculated. Data from 27 community forest enterprises, distributed on 12 provinces along the country was used to estimate costs [24].…”
Section: Extraction Limit According To Mechanization Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the last 30 years, many forest communities explored forest production at a commercial scale, creating their own communal forestry business and successfully concurring to the national markets with their timber and non-timber products [6]. The social and economical impacts of this approach were tremendous, steadily improving the living standards of communities with their own forestry businesses [7].…”
Section: The Challenge Of Crafting Institutions For the Commons: The mentioning
confidence: 99%