IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i12p1340-d695477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vulnerabilities and Threats to Natural Forest Regrowth: Land Tenure Reform, Land Markets, Pasturelands, Plantations, and Urbanization in Indigenous Communities in Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Lazos-Chavero

    (Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City 04510, CP, Mexico)

  • Paula Meli

    (Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile
    Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4070374, Chile
    Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos, A.C., Mexico City 01000, Mexico)

  • Consuelo Bonfil

    (Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City 04510, CP, Mexico)

Abstract

Despite the economic and social costs of national and international efforts to restore millions of hectares of deforested and degraded landscapes, results have not met expectations due to land tenure conflicts, land-use transformation, and top-down decision-making policies. Privatization of land, expansion of cattle raising, plantations, and urbanization have created an increasingly competitive land market, dispossessing local communities and threatening forest conservation and regeneration. In contrast to significant investments in reforestation, natural regrowth, which could contribute to landscape regeneration, has not been sufficiently promoted by national governments. This study analyzes socio-ecological and economic vulnerabilities of indigenous and other peasant communities in the Mexican states of Veracruz, Chiapas, and Morelos related to the inclusion of natural regeneration in their forest cycles. While these communities are located within protected areas (Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, El Tepozteco National Park, and Chichinautzin Biological Corridor), various threats and vulnerabilities impede natural regeneration. Although landscape restoration involves complex political, economic, and social relationships and decisions by a variety of stakeholders, we focus on communities’ vulnerable land rights and the impacts of privatization on changes in land use and forest conservation. We conclude that the social, economic, political, and environmental vulnerabilities of the study communities threaten natural regeneration, and we explore necessary changes for incorporating this process in landscape restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Lazos-Chavero & Paula Meli & Consuelo Bonfil, 2021. "Vulnerabilities and Threats to Natural Forest Regrowth: Land Tenure Reform, Land Markets, Pasturelands, Plantations, and Urbanization in Indigenous Communities in Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1340-:d:695477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1340/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1340/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bray, David Barton & Antinori, Camille & Torres-Rojo, Juan Manuel, 2006. "The Mexican model of community forest management: The role of agrarian policy, forest policy and entrepreneurial organization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 470-484, June.
    2. Carmen Deere & Magdalena Leon, 1998. "Gender, land, and water: From reform to counter-reform in Latin America," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(4), pages 375-386, December.
    3. Chazdon, Robin L. & Wilson, Sarah J. & Brondizio, Eduardo & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Herbohn, John, 2021. "Key challenges for governing forest and landscape restoration across different contexts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Sunderlin, William D. & Larson, Anne M. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Huynh, Thu Ba & Awono, Abdon & Dokken, Therese, 2014. "How are REDD+ Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-52.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuge Wang & Apurbo Sarkar & Min Li & Zehui Chen & Ahmed Khairul Hasan & Quanxing Meng & Md. Shakhawat Hossain & Md. Ashfikur Rahman, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Forest Tenure Reform on Farmers’ Investment in Public Welfare Forest Areas: A Case Study of Gansu Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    2. Abhilas Pradhan & Rabinarayan Patra, 2013. "Heterogeneity, collective action and management sustainability in common property forest resources: case study from the Indian state Odisha," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 979-997, August.
    3. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    5. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    6. World Bank, 2008. "Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa : Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor, Volume 2. Technical Annexes," World Bank Publications - Reports 19520, The World Bank Group.
    7. Md. Shafiqul Bari & Md. Manik Ali & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mahmuod Abubakar Bashir & Oliver Tirtho Sarkar & Sharif A. Mukul, 2024. "Forest Restoration through Village Common Forests in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh: The Role of NGO Interventions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Vatn, Arild & Kajembe, George & Mosi, Elvis & Nantongo, Maria & Silayo, Dos Santos, 2017. "What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Post-Print hal-04044150, HAL.
    10. Pablo Cuenca & Juan Robalino & Rodrigo Arriagada & Cristian Echeverría, 2018. "Are government incentives effective for avoided deforestation in the tropical Andean forest?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    11. Duchelle, Amy E. & Cromberg, Marina & Gebara, Maria Fernanda & Guerra, Raissa & Melo, Tadeu & Larson, Anne & Cronkleton, Peter & Börner, Jan & Sills, Erin & Wunder, Sven & Bauch, Simone & May, Peter &, 2014. "Linking Forest Tenure Reform, Environmental Compliance, and Incentives: Lessons from REDD+ Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 53-67.
    12. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin & Phin, Sopheap, 2017. "Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 10-21.
    13. Jagger, Pamela, 2014. "Confusion vs. clarity: Property rights and forest use in Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 32-41.
    14. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    15. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Sanders, Anna J.P. & Ford, Rebecca M. & Keenan, Rodney J. & Larson, Anne M., 2020. "Learning through practice? Learning from the REDD+ demonstration project, Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Juan David Alonso-Sanabria & Luis Fernando Melo-Velandia & Daniel Parra-Amado, 2023. "Unveiling the critical role of forest areas amidst climate change: The Latin American case," Borradores de Economia 1254, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    18. Amy W. Ando & Titus O. Awokuse & Nathan W. Chan & Jimena González-Ramírez & Sumeet Gulati & Matthew G. Interis & Sarah Jacobson & Dale T. Manning & Samuel Stolper, 2024. "Environmental and Natural Resource Economics and Systemic Racism," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(1), pages 143-164.
    19. García-Morán, Ana & Yates, Julian S., 2022. "In between rights and power: Women’s land rights and the gendered politics of land ownership, use, and management in Mexican ejidos," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1340-:d:695477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.