Social capital in community forestry: Findings from a quick scoping review about Oaxaca State, Mexico

(1)

Social capital in community forestry:

Findings from a quick scoping review about Oaxaca State, Mexico

Robert Croezen

Master Environmental Policy & Law University of Eastern Finland

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Master’s thesis

Department of Geographical and Historical Studies

28.11.2021

(2)

University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Department of Geographical and Historical Studies

Master of Social Sciences in Environmental Policy & Law Croezen, Robert J.: Social capital in community forestry

Thesis instructors, Prof. Irmeli Mustalahti & PhD Violeta Gutiérrez-Zamora November 2021

Abstract

Community forestry is regarded as support to the sustainable development of the world’s forests and could thereby contribute to the targets of fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals. The purpose of this study was to determine whether and how community forestry initiatives could generate social capital while harnessing the use of institutional structures to generate trust, social norms and social networks. This study focused on community forestry in the case study region of Oaxaca, Mexico. Oaxaca has been one of the states with the earliest forms of communal organization among its inhabitants and was the first state in Southern Mexico with conserved areas by use of a community-managed model. A Quick Scoping Literature Review of Scopus has been used to find articles related to enabling institutional factors that facilitate social capital.

Trade-offs between different institutional arrangements have been found to help generate social capital in community forestry initiatives by increasing trust, social norms and social networks.

Checks and balances in the decision-making process prevent elite capture, while measures to ensure transparency facilitate accountability. Accountability is enforced by different delegations of the institutional structure, by for example the General Assembly and the Oversight Board. A range of civil society, government, and private actors facilitate capacity building within the institutional arrangements, by involvement in local and regional initiatives, which shows that the trust generated within an institution, which is typical of social capital, can be bridged to external actors. To further understand how social capital can be generated in community forestry it is recommended to further study, how the apparent conflict between community traditions and neoliberal enterprise models could be bridged, while generating social capital.

Keywords: community forestry, social capital, institutional structure, accountability.

(3)

Foreword

This thesis has been written as a part of the Natural Resource Governance Major for the Master’s degree of Social Sciences at the University of Eastern Finland. I want to thank for the support that has been given to me by the university staff that was involved with my thesis. My special thanks goes out to Irmeli Mustalahti and Violeta Gutiérrez-Zamora, the supervisors of my thesis.

Furthermore, I want to thank Tuomas Palosaari for the general thesis instructions, Reforestamos for the willingness to host an internship and the Library staff for helping me to figure out the search queries for the literature review. I hope my research will contribute to the available literature on this topic.

Robert Croezen

(4)

List of Figures, Drawing, Maps and Tables

Figure 1. Conceptual framework, social capital in institutional arrangements of community forestry. Source: Author.

Drawing 1. Common institutional structure of community with CFE in Oaxaca. Based on López- Arzola (2005).

Drawing 2. External support from ERA in an UZACHI community. Based on Chapela (2005).

Map 1. Case study area Oaxaca. Source: Wikipedia.

Table 1. Results obtained by search queries in Scopus and application of criteria. Source:

Author.

(5)

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CBC Comisariado de Bienes Comunales CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CF Community Forestry

CFE Community Forestry Enterprise CONAFOR Comisión Nacional Forestal

DGDF Dirección General para el Desarrollo Forestal ERA Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina A.C.

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FSC Forest Stewardship Council

FTS Forest Technical Service GEF Global Environment Fund IMF International Monetary Fund

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NGO Non-governmental organization

NTFP Non-timber forest product

ODRENASĲ Organization for the Defense of Natural Resources of the Sierra Juarez PEFC Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification

PES Payments for Ecosystem Services

PROCEDE Program for the Certification of Ejido Rights

PROCYMAF Proyecto de Conservación y Manejo Sustentable de Recursos Forestales en México REDD Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

SEMARNAT Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales SDG Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UZACHI Union of Zapotec and Chinantec Communities in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement

WWF World Wildlife Fund

(6)

1 Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) incorporate, nr. 15 Life on Land & nr. 13 Climate Action. Nr. 15 Life on Land focuses on the preservation of biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems, while nr. 13 focuses on limiting climate change by mitigative measures (Yu et al., 2020). Although these are especially relevant for forest and nature governance, effective forest and nature governance most likely will be achieved by a mix of all SDGs, as they are interconnected. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in the Global Forest Resources Assessment (2020) that ‘4.7 million hectares of forest’ have been deforested every year globally, between 2010 and 2020.

Rates of change in deforestation could threaten what Rockström et al. (2009) defined in the ‘safe operating space for humanity’ study. In this study planetary boundaries were established for nine processes. Three of these processes, namely biodiversity loss, climate change and the human- induced change in the nitrogen cycle, are already past the established thresholds that the earth, could sustain according to Rockström et al. (2009). Other processes like land-use change, are still in the ‘safe-operating space’ but show a clear negative trend. Whereas the process of ozone depletion for example is linked to different industries using chemicals that affect the ozone layer, biodiversity loss, climate change, and land-use change are directly linked to forest and nature conservation. In these processes, the way forest and nature governance is conducted can lead both to a partial solution of the problems or to an increasingly negative trend towards exceeding planetary boundaries.

The FAO reports in 2020 that deforestation mainly continued due to conversion into agricultural lands, whereas the reforestation that the place was either natural expansion of the world’s forests or assisted reforestation (FAO, 2020). Divided into regions, the temperate and boreal forests in the northern hemisphere either expand or remain the same, whereas in the global South, especially in tropical regions, deforestation is present but showing a slowing trend. Deforestation is linked to biodiversity loss, loss of carbon sinks, and, illegal logging.

(9)

According to Rockström et al. (2009), deforestation has several negative ecological, social, and economic implications. To tackle deforestation and other forest and nature governance-related problems several policy initiatives have been launched at varying institutional levels. For example, to protect biodiversity the Convention on Biological Biodiversity (CBD) was ratified as an international legislative instrument by 157 countries. It serves the purpose of protecting biodiversity, using it sustainably, and sharing the benefits equitably (CBD, 1992). The European Union launched the policy framework ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’, FLEGT. It

‘aims to tackle illegal logging and improve forest governance in countries exporting tropical timber to the EU’, but has been found in a case study in Laos to have a lack of civil society involvement (Mustalahti et al., 2017) and increase state territorialization (Ramcilovik-Suominen, 2019). FLEGT’s Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) use bilateral agreements as an approach to improve upon the forestry practices of the country in question. While it tries to engage actors to increase problem-solving capacities, Hansen et al. (2018) argue in a case study about Ghana, that VPAs can actually enforce already existing regimes, rather than rebuilding them.

REDD+ (‘Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’) differs to community-based management, as it is defined as a program where ‘countries may receive financial rewards for reduction of deforestation and degradation and increases in forest stock due to sustainable management, forest enhancement and conservation’ (Skutsch & Turnhout, 2020).

Skutsch and Turnhout (2020) argue that states tend to identify local stakeholders above large- scale external stakeholders as main drivers of deforestation and thereby take misdirected measures in their REDD+ projects. Ramcilovik-Suominen (2019) argues similarly that states could steer REDD+ projects away from politically sensitive issues, and instead use it to benefit their own policies.

Among other local, regional, and global initiatives, private certification schemes have been developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which require the forest owner to manage their forests in line with a certain code of conduct to promote sustainable forest management. As a voluntary market-based mechanism, Rametsteier and Simula (2003) argue that certification provides a private sector

(10)

approach to impose sustainability standards of equal or stringent weight as legal requirements.

They argue that the main success of certification to date has been the promotion and education of forestry, that is focused on promoting sustainable social, ecological and economic outcomes.

Despite its initial objective to increase sustainable forest management in tropical forests, Ehrenberg-Azcárate and Peña-Claros (2020) found that certification in the tropics had stagnated since 2008. They argue that particularly, small-scale communities have failed to obtain certification and lack the means to maintain it for a period of more than five years.

Protected areas are another type of strategy for nature conservation, which the IUCN estimated to count for 12% of global land coverage. Huntley et al. (2019) shows how protected areas in the case of Angola, were designated in the colonial era by the Portuguese, and have been perpetuated by the current government, while failing to take into account the local situation. This shows how protected areas can have varying levels of community engagement. Oldekop et al. (2016) undertook an analysis of 165 protected areas in different countries around the world. In this analysis they compared environmental and social outcomes in protected areas with varying levels community engagement in the nature conservation and restoration process. The study found that protected areas with higher levels of community engagement tended to be more effective in obtaining the desired environmental and social economic objectives.

Government initiated programmes are also an approach that could be taken for the restoration of landscapes and forests. McElwee and Nghi (2021) show how the Vietnamese government implemented tree planting programmes focused on smallholders to initiate reforestation. The case study found that the top-down implementation of the programme failed to make long-term sustainable impacts, as it was focused on reaching short-term goals, rather than implementing the program as a long-term process. Therefore, the program failed to take into account the needs and wishes of the local communities and missed an opportunity to educate on the benefits of sustainability. Erbaugh et al. (2020) emphasize that restorative efforts of landscapes and forests need to include the engagement of local communities in order to achieve their objectives. Erbaugh et al. (2020) furthermore argue that historically restorative efforts, that fail to take into account

(11)

the local communities, ‘have been associated with environmental conflicts, poor conservation performance and negative social outcomes’.

Community-centered initiatives have appeared in countries like Mexico, where in 1978 a new forestry plan was launched which included that communities should be able to participate throughout the entire process of the industrialization of forest products (Bray & Merino-Pérez, 2002) and since the mid-1970s in Nepal when ‘the Government of Nepal came to the conclusion that active involvement of local people in forest management was essential for forest conservation in the country’ (Ojha et al., 2009).

In the case of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Reforestamos in Mexico, there are hybrids where community forestry initiatives are for example combined with FSC certification. But in Mexico, when you compare protected areas to areas managed with community forestry, Bray et al. (2008) conclude that in terms of deforestation, it doesn’t matter which management method is being used, except that in inhabited areas community-based management is preferred.

Community-based management focuses on the environmental and socio-economical dynamics of nature conservation.

Community forestry, therefore, seems to have a holistic approach with potential additional benefits not only for the environment but also socio-economically. Although practiced across different continents, the Mexican community forestry system has a unique approach, by means of establishing changes that made it possible for communities to manage their forests, like land reform and transferring rights (Barsimantov, 2010). According to Barsimantov (2010) the government authorities are mainly providing funding for programs, subsidies and projects for which communities can apply, thereby staying in the background. In this case, it is rather, the communities with private (non-profit and profit) parties collaborating on collective forums.

Barsimantov (2010) states that these private parties fall into two categories, on the one hand, non- profit organizations like NGOs aiming at developing the community, and on the other hand timber companies aiming at revenues. This seems to me to be an important difference, as the incentive structures should be considered for communities to function sustainably long-term.

(12)

In the past twenty years, several papers have been published, focused on researching which factors make community forestry successful. For example, Baynes et al. (2015) studied the key factors that contribute to successful community forestry initiatives in developing countries, while Pagdee et al. (2006) studied property right regimes and institutional functioning. By analysing from such literature, the common features that potentially make community forestry successful, NGOs can specify their approaches to promote effective community forestry initiatives.

The localized nature of community forestry initiatives, in potential has the benefit of having rather limited external influences that can have negative impacts upon their operations and objectives (Varghese et al., 2006). Meanwhile, as Lindsey et al. (2020) have shown, the COVID-19 pandemic has proved to be one of the external influences that can have a significant impact as a disruptor.

These impacts can include a reduction in budgets of environmental NGOs that aid community forestry initiatives, threats to certain operations, environmental impacts, et cetera. Anyhow, the research on specific regional cases which provide an overview of the current governance practices is limited. And although previous research from Pagdee et al. (2006) and Baynes et al. (2015) has offered a theoretical insight into what practices could deliver successful community forestry, their hypotheses haven’t been tested in cases of major crises. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to gain insight into how these practices are institutionally structured and whether those practices facilitate the presence of social capital. Social capital is elaborated upon in the conceptual framework to show how institutional arrangements can help facilitate the generation of social capital in community forestry initiatives.

This study aims at Mexican community forestry. Mexico has community forestry initiatives in several states, despite the knowledge being limited about the scope and nature of these initiatives (Madrid et al., 2009). For these reasons, Madrid et al. (2009), acknowledge that it is unknown to the Mexican government how community forestry initiatives can contribute most optimally to the requirements of a modern society. Therefore, this study aims to do a quick scoping literature review of the institutional structure of the community forestry initiatives and to discuss how these institutional structures affect social capital. To limit the scope of the quick scoping literature

(13)

review, the case study will be focused on the state of Oaxaca. Oaxaca has been one of the states with the earliest forms of communal organization among its inhabitants and was the first state in Southern Mexico with conserved areas by use of a community-managed model (Brown et al., 2011). During this thesis, a conceptual framework for the research has been developed and the case study has been described. The conceptual framework contains the definition of the concept, a literature overview and finish with the relationships of the concepts to each other. The case study contains an overview of Mexican forestry policies since broadly the end of the 19^th century that impacted community forestry. The case study developed the contextual understanding regarding geological, climatological, environmental and institutional circumstances for community forestry in Oaxaca specifically. The case study is followed by a chapter where the methods used for this thesis and especially the quick scoping literature review are discussed, including a discussion about the use of search queries and the criteria for filtering and analyzing the literature that have been applied. This is then followed by a chapter with the actual results and discussion of the research and its main conclusions.

1.1 Research Objectives and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to gain insight into how community forestry initiatives are structured institutionally and to discuss whether and how social capital can emerge from the enabling institutional factors that are identified in the conceptual framework. The enabling factors are categorized as the institutional structure and connected factors like accountability, transparency, continuous learning and the involvement of external actors in the process. The case of choice in this study is community forestry based in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. Oaxaca is one of the states with the earliest forms of communal organization among its inhabitants and was the first state in Southern Mexico with conserved areas by use of a community-managed model (Brown et al., 2011).

To further guide the literature research, a main research question and several sub-questions have been developed, which are listed below.

(14)

Main research question:

How can institutional arrangements facilitate social capital in community forestry initiatives?

Sub-questions:

1. How are institutions structured in community forestry initiatives?

2. How are transparency and accountability mechanisms ensured in community forestry initiatives?

3. In what way does continuous learning and training take place in community forestry initiatives?

4. What role do external actors fulfil in community forestry initiatives?

(15)

2 Conceptual Framework

In this chapter, I explore and clarify the main concepts of the research, to explain my conceptual framework. The concepts have been retrieved from existing theoretical literature that applies to community forestry and governance. The main concepts of this research are ‘community forestry’

and ‘social capital’. Social capital is the meta-theory that is applied to the research of community forestry. Therefore, first, the concept of community forestry is discussed and then the concept of social capital. As a result of these two concepts, important enabling institutional factors of community forestry initiatives that can be present in the case of Oaxaca, with the potential of enabling social capital, are found. The research questions are based on these aspects that can enable social capital. The identified important aspects of community forestry are researched in the case study and are then discussed through the lens of the social capital conceptual framework.

2.1 Community forestry

This section is devoted to analyzing how community forestry evolved on a global level over time and how the events and debates surrounding the topic shaped the concept to where it is today.

Community forestry combines two concepts, ‘community’ and ‘forestry’. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) find that ‘community’ has mainly been described by the body of literature as ‘a small spatial unit, as a homogeneous social structure, and as shared norms’. However, they argue as well that despite their commonalities communities are not necessarily ‘homogeneous’. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) argue that within communities there are different actors and interests at stake ‘which shape the decision-making process’. Forestry has been defined as the managing of forests for exploitative purposes of timber and the science of forest cultivation, however ‘equity and ecological sustainability’ are increasingly included as part of the scientific field (Umans, 1993). The combination of the two, the concept of community forestry, which is also known as a process, is difficult to define. The concept varies across multiple geographies, and is interchangeably interpreted and defined in academic literature as well as in practice.

The FAO synthesizes the varying conceptualisations of community forestry into ‘any situation which intimately involves local people in a forestry activity’ (Gilmour, 2016) but defines it ‘not as a

(16)

separate form of forestry but as part of the process whereby forestry itself is meeting broader societal, environmental and economic challenges and changes’ (Arnold & FAO, 2001). This does not mean that community forestry is limited to the involvement of local communities, the concept does allow for collaborative regimes with external actors like smallholders, timber processors and government entities. For example, Baked and Kusel (2003) define community forestry as ‘an integrative enterprise that seeks to re-order relations between forest-dependent people and communities; between them and the forests they depend on, in a manner that advances equity (especially within contexts of historically marginalized and disenfranchised communities) and promotes investment in both natural and community capital’. Due to community forestry’s broad potential scale of application, it could be categorized as one of the potential solutions to fit within the Rockström et al. (2009) framework to stay in ‘a safe operating space for humanity’.

Glassmeier and Farrigan (2005) describe in their article how this variability of the concept and its practices makes it challenging to conduct comparative studies across the different forms of the concept and geographies as it implicates a different set of conditions on factors as land ownership and decision-making structures.

Charnley and Poe (2007) note that the concept of community forestry is underpinned by several assumptions that are required to implement it. So is it assumed that in the concept of community forestry, the ‘community’ is the entity which plays the centre role. I think that a community can be a homogenous entity that can fulfil that role, but can also fail to fulfil that description due to lack of homogeneity or by playing an additional role next to an influential stakeholder. Glasmeier and Farrigan (2005) argue however, that external actors can still be the influential stakeholders in community forestry, for example when they have been licensed in a partnership, as long as the benefits also flow to the local communities. Another underlying assumption in community forestry, identified by Charnley and Poe (2007), is the presence of a devolution of decision-making power over their forests from centralized entities to the communities, which might be absent. For example, Chomba et al. (2015) found that the Kenyan government has tended to maintain their grip on rule-setting and economic powers of community forestry, thereby rendering benefits to the community obsolete. Even when the communities received benefits from community forestry,

(17)

it was still possible that the benefits were distributed solely to the local elites. Essougong et al.

(2019) note that the failure of creating a clear distribution mechanism, within community forestry, leads to the unequal benefit distribution across the community, thereby affecting mainly women and increasing social disparity.

The final assumption of community forestry is that the implementation will lead to greater ecological outcomes in the particular ecosystem and, social and economic benefits for the communities. Due to the complexity and non-universality of each community case, this should be up to evaluation of each individual or type of community forestry focused project. For example, Paudyal et al. (2017) argue that community forestry can improve Ecosystem Services by giving communities responsibilities over their natural resources, which incentivizes having dedication to take care of them so as to create sustainable outcomes over the long term.

In Mexico, indigenous communities used to manage their own forests. However, in the 1880s, when Porfirio Díaz ruled Mexico, a period known as the Porfiriato, indigenous communities were dispossessed and alienated from their forests (Boyer, 2015). In that time, the forests were

‘commoditized’ for foreign investment under the influence of increasing government intervention.

These models were mostly exploitative of nature and infringed upon the land ownership of the local indigenous people (Boyer, 2015). This persisted till modern post-colonial times, when top- down management models were still commonplace in the forestry discourse, in for example Indonesia, Mexico and Nepal (Guha, 2001 ; Bray & Merino-Pérez, 2002 ; Kanel & Acharya, 2008).

However, the community forestry concept has regained importance within the global forestry discourse in recent decades. The concept of community forestry became prominent when the FAO started programmes and actions that involved local community management of forests and thereby mentioning the term ‘community forestry’ in their policy documents for the first time (FAO, 1978). The FAO intends these programmes to book progress while keeping a balance between the well-being of the mainly rural population and their local environment. As De Jong et al. (2018) mentions in Arts et al. (2012), the current understanding of community forestry, also outside the FAO, within the rural development sector, seeks to balance between social and environmental

(18)

goals by certain tree management practices. A range of actors is involved in facilitating community forestry, including different levels of governments, supranational organizations like the United Nations (UN) and its constituents the FAO, the World Bank, and NGOs.

During the previous century, community forestry has evolved through three different periods in which different approaches were taken from an encompassing political, economic and cultural perspective, as Arts et al. (2012) describe. These are the ’forest resource scarcity, tropical forest conservation and community enterprise’ approaches.

In 1968, a group of experts from different disciplines like economics, science and business came together to discuss the contemporary state of humanity and to project how the world systems will develop for the future. The main outcome of this discussion was the Limits to Growth report that was published in 1972 (Club of Rome, 1972). In 1968, Garrett Hardin published a paper on the tragedy of the commons. The central assumption of this paper was that the environment would inevitably degrade whenever a group of individuals exploits a resource that is scarce and available to all. Countermeasures that should be taken according to Hardin, to prevent the tragedy of the commons were measures like regulations on the use of the resource and privatization (Hardin, 1968). The Limits to Growth report came to a similar conclusion which said, based on their models, unsustainable use of resources, will almost inevitably lead to a global crash of some sort. In 1974, the oil crisis and later the perceived wood fuel crisis shifted the global meta-approach of community forestry to one based on resource scarcity. This affected community forestry, in the sense that the FAO initiated their programmes in a new paradigm of international development theory that was focused on rural areas. Providing basic needs for the local people gave forests an increased role of importance (Arnold, 1991). The discourse was mostly focused on reforesting rural areas, with participation as a core component to enable this reforestation.

During the beginning of the 1980s, tropical deforestation became one of the main global issues.

This happened due to international organizations taking it up as their mandate after expert and public pressure raised attention to tropical deforestation. This led to a focus on tropical conservation and sustainable use of ‘non-timber forest products’ (NTFP) (Arts et al., 2012). The

(19)

sustainable consumption of NTFP has potential benefits for the rural population and the conservation of the forests, as I assume they can capitalize on their resources, while preserving them.

The third approach taken within community forestry coincided with the rise of the neoliberal economic paradigm and focused on the concept of the community forestry enterprise (CFE) (Pacheco et al., 2010). This approach became relevant in the 1990s and early 2000s and is still in place today. The enterprises are organized according to western business models focused mainly on timber exploitation. The concept of community forestry enterprise will be discussed further in the chapter about the contextual understanding and case study. During the same time the new neoliberal economic paradigm became pre-eminent, a new influential book and theory were published in 1990 on the commons. Elinor Ostrom in her publication ‘Governing the Commons:

the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action’ (1990), contrary to Hardin’s theory described how collective institutions could be made for self-governance of natural resources that belong to the commons. In her book, she discusses several cases of communities that managed to collectively govern their common-pool resources. This is opposed to Hardin’s countermeasures like privatization or central regulation by the government, which can be up to failure when managing the commons as well (Ostrom et al., 1999). Community forestry is a form of common-pool resource institutions as Ostrom described, that can self-regulate resources by communities as long as they have been granted property rights and have the ability to develop their practices.

According to Arts et al. (2012), during the 1990s the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) started lending on the condition that governments would cut public spending and decentralize their government. Community forestry became due to the popularity of Ostrom’s concept, demands from local communities and the decentralization trend, increasingly practiced, mainly in developing countries (FAO, 2010 & 2016). Gabay & Alam (2017) found that the proliferation of community focused forestry programs created social capital in communities where hitherto social capital was absent. These programs also provide the further benefit of an opportunity for communities to evolve community leadership, build back better institutions and modernize current practices.

(20)

However, where decentralization is potentially beneficial for CF, it cannot be concluded that it will.

The very nature of property rights given to local communities needs to suit the needs of the local communities, especially regarding decision-making (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001). The paradox between the duty to govern natural resources created by the decentralization trend and the actual capabilities to do so is called responsibilization (Mustalahti et al., 2020).

2.2 Social capital

To achieve the objectives of institutions in environmental governance, it is important that as an enabling factor there is the presence of social capital. Social capital can shortly be defined, as argued by Brondizio et al. (2009), as ‘the value of trust generated by social networks to facilitate individual and group cooperation on shared interests’. Or otherwise, as Ahn and Ostrom (2002) describe it as a ‘set of values and relationships created by individuals in the past that can be drawn on in the present and future to facilitate overcoming social dilemmas’. The value of trust can be applied to organizational structures on various scales but is due to its nature of subjectivity immeasurable. Putnam (1993) depicts social capital as ‘the features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’. Rolinda et al. (2017) adds to Putnam’s definition, that social capital can be perceived as something that is possessed by groups and individuals and can in that manner be beneficial to communities.

Social capital can also be interpreted, as to whether there is adherence to the norms of a community and what happens in case one disobeys. With its emphasis on collaboration in social networks, social norms and the generation of trust in the governance process, social capital is seen as an alternative to the sole use of markets and property rights to further the public good (Bowles & Gintis, 2002). It can be generated by community-defined institutional structures.

According to Roslinda et al. (2017), social capital can be perceived as not only the social networks, but also as the individual components and its resources, thereby becoming an asset as well.

(21)

To develop trust in governance there must be both participation and commitment of the stakeholders. Without stakeholders committed to the process, no reciprocity among the actors can be built, which weakens the opportunities for further collaboration in the process.

Furthermore, transparency in one’s motives and actions during the process is key for an open process in which no suspicion among actors is created (Musavengane & Simatele, 2016). Social capital can be created between the actors themselves, but can also be enhanced by the institutional structures. Guillén et al. (2015) found in a case study in Sweden, that trust played a key role in forming social capital in Swedish forestry. The trust that was generated between stakeholders in their personal relationships, was identified as key catalyst to trust and creates social capital in exclusive settings like professional agencies. Qurniati et al. (2017), additionally found that social capital can be generated in interactions with external actors, thereby bridging trust outside your own community. When these actors interact over the long-term, they can gradually increase their social capital and create mutual benefits (Qurniati et al., 2017).

Bodin and Crona (2008), emphasize the importance of cohesion within a community to act collectively. The community can be divided into sub-groups of which their relatedness to the other groups and the strength of ties within their sub-group, determines the strength of the available social capital. The relations between sub-groups facilitate the exchange of information on the use of natural resources. Conflict resolution mechanisms can be included in the institutional procedures, which would create opportunities for social capital. Institutional procedures can be neglected once they aren’t perceived as legitimate and when they are of a non-binding nature.

However, as Bodin and Crona (2008) note, in most cases of community conflict resolution coming to an agreement can be perceived as being an outcome of social capital, not social capital itself.

Roslinda et al. (2017) add that social capital should be considered as the social glue of a community, of which social binding and traditions form the basis for it to function. As a result, Roslinda et al. (2017) think that social capital enhances the capacity to form social networks.

The existence of social capital from social networks can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. In community forestry, for example, a group can benefit from social capital by having effective environmental management without in-group conflicts. However, the social capital from

(22)

one group, can lead to exclusion of others, or can be used for negative purposes. Arguably, besides social capital there is also physical capital. There are a couple of key differences between the two, as Dasgupta and Seregaldin (1999) describe. Whereas physical capital can be depleted by exploitation, social capital gets depleted by non-use. Social capital is hard to measure and is hard to affect from outside the process. Governments and regulations can restrict in what manner individuals can interact and, thereby, if they can form collaboration for long-term results.

Social capital as a concept allows for a better understanding of different aspects like culture, community structure, and institutional procedures and how they interact. A greater understanding of these interactions can influence the political and economic outcomes of communities (Ahn & Ostrom, 2002). Despite the successful outcomes at the local level, the significant challenge will be to implement principles from local collective resource management to counter threats on a global level. For example, in the case of fisheries in the oceans, there are an increasing amount of actors involved and there is less excludability. The lesser degree of excludability in the property right regime, makes it difficult according to Pretty (2003), to generate social capital.

Social capital is an important concept within collective resource management and has therefore been central in the development of new community initiatives since the 1990s. Around 500,000 community groups, ranging from 20 to 30 inhabitants, were set up in the early 1990s. The majority of these groups, as shown in Pretty (2003), has seen positive ecological and economic results, among which its implementation of social capital is identified as key for success. Nepal et al. (2007) argue that social networks benefited tree planting quantities in conservation efforts, but only in social networks that were specifically related to conservation efforts. Social networks with no specific connection to the conservation efforts had an indifferent effect to the amount of trees planted. In my opinion this could present an opportunity, as these conclusions suggest that institutions build around conservation efforts, like community forestry, could have a positive impact on conservation efforts, when social capital is generated. Roslinda et al. (2017) add that community forestry where social capital is present, helps communities to withstand economic downturns, because the benefits of social involvement contribute to the economic domain.

(23)

Lee et al. (2017) distinguish two different types of factors of social capital in community forestry.

Firstly, the internal variables within the community forestry initiative. Secondly, the external factors concerning the community forestry initiative. Within community forestry, Lee et al. (2017) found ‘age, level of income, health, number of family dependents, period of stay, and motivation to participate’ as important components contributing to social capital. While as external variables relations with external stakeholders, in their case ‘forest farmer groups’, training in practical forestry issues and access to procedural information were found to be beneficial to social capital.

Those forest farmers groups form social networks that form part of knowledge sharing networks that enhance or secure social capital.

The differences between the notions of Lee et al. (2017) and Roslinda et al. (2017) show how social capital in community forestry can be perceived as consisting out of separate internal and external factors (Lee et al., 2017) or as ‘the features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’ (Putnam, 1993) which Roslinda et al. (2017) consider to consist out of components that form next to Putnam’s (1993) definition, assets at the same time. This thesis builds upon these conceptual understandings of the features of social organization in the institutional structures of the social networks within community forestry. It discusses how institutional factors can enable ‘trust, norms and networks’ (Putnam, 1993) to create social capital in the Oaxacan case of community forestry.

Building upon the discussions surrounding the concepts of social capital and community forestry, these enabling institutional factors are discussed in the next subchapter.

2.3 Enabling institutional factors for social capital

From the previous two subchapters, several important institutional factors are identified which, when present, can potentially facilitate the emergence of social capital within community forestry practices. Besides the literature on which the previous two subchapters have been based, also Agrawal (2001) has added to my understanding on which institutional factors might impact social capital. For example, in his synthesis of factors that facilitate governance from ‘Wade, Ostrom, and

(24)

Baland and Platteau’, he identifies to be important the institutional arrangements, accountability of officials, monitoring and ‘appropriate levels of external aid’, among other factors. Johnston (2006) further stresses the importance of transparency and accountability. While Lockwood et al.

(2010) besides the overlap with the other articles, also add capability and adaptability as important principles, which in my research have been adapted to ‘continuous learning and training’.

Therefore the following enabling institutional factors for social capital have been chosen.

1. Institutional structure

The way decision-making is structured within an institutional setting can impact, whether all the relevant stakeholders have their opinions heard. The absence of decision-making abilities can lead to the loss of consensus and trust in the process. That would reduce the potential for the creation of social capital. Giurca and Metz (2018) argue that institutional structures can form a process, in which the collective could organize in a cohesive manner, determine a strategy, and thereby facilitate innovation. Institutions do not only consist out of the formal rules established in the institutional setting, they are also determined by the sociocultural setting, which sets informal codes of behavior (Lowndes & Wilson, 2001). These norms and rules facilitate, according to Lachapelle et al. (2004), cohesion and the exertion of power to guide interactions within the institutional setting.

Chai and Zeng (2018) find that communities dealing with institutions centred around irrigation networks, have been able to adapt to exceptional climate disturbances via institutional change. By adopting new institutional measures, they adapted to the new circumstances and thereby overcome the climate disasters. This showcases how institutional arrangements play a role in forming social capital. Persson and Prowse (2017) on the other hand, show that decentralisation of responsibilities from governments to communities can burden the communities with bureaucratic duties, while failing to obtain resources to deal with them effectively. This shows how institutional arrangements as sole factor can fail to obtain social capital. Kimengsi and Azibo (2017) stress that in order to tackle issues surrounding natural resources, to complement other institutions like governments, local institutions are considered indispensable. In order to make

(25)

those institutions function, Ostrom (1990) stresses the need for a rational weighing of the costs of institutional change to the benefits that can possibly be obtained.

2. Transparency

Transparency has been identified as another enabling institutional factor that could enhance social capital. Transparency within an institutional setting signifies, according to Lachapelle et al.

(2004), that information and know-how flows freely between the different stakeholders without dishonesty. They found transparency to be essential for institutional functioning, as withholding information can lead to manipulation and elite capture. The exchange of information can lead to building and maintaining trust between the stakeholders which, as shown before by Putnam (1993) facilitates social capital. This exchange of information can facilitate cooperative behaviour, which in turn generates social capital (Ostrom 1997).

Kasimba & Lujala (2019) show how lack of transparency in a trust fund of natural resource extraction directed towards the communities can become challenging. The absence of access to relevant and timely information led to a lack of education and thereby lack of influence on the trust fund. This impacted the ability of the community to hold fund members accountable and to trust them. Thereby failing to obtain desired outcomes.

3. Accountability

Once decisions are made, there should be an accountability mechanism so that people can be held accountable if they make mistakes. This aspect is closely linked to transparency, as with a lack of transparency it is hard to hold someone accountable for one’s actions. Bovens (2007) defines accountability as a ‘general term for any mechanism that makes powerful institutions responsive to their particular publics’. For example in community forestry, the board would be responsive to the general assembly. Bovens (2007) adds that accountability can be perceived as a relationship between two actors, in which pre-defined responsibilities have been set, to which one actor can be held accountable if it fails to conduct his responsibilities. The other actor is responsible for questioning so that eventual consequences can be faced.

(26)

Lockwood et al. (2010) add that accountability according to the community-defined standards that have been set in advance. This requires monitoring and adequate access to information. Reporting stipulations can function as a standard against which compliance is measured, to enforce accountability. These standards can involve social norms that have evolved within the community.

Transparency and accountability are therefore closely linked.

4. Continuous learning and training

When there are processes that enhance continuous learning and training, group dynamics can evolve out of cooperative behaviour, which enhance social capital. Lee et al. (2017) find that training in practical forestry issues and access to procedural information were found to be beneficial to social capital. Lockwood et al. (2010) furthermore adds, that knowledge and information flows can contribute to good governance. They thereby emphasize that the ability of a group to adapt to changing circumstances, hazards and results, especially once part of an integrated approach, could enhance good governance, and so social capital. In my opinion, training contributes to the skill sets of the community, while continuous learning as a systematic approach can make the community evolve according to their needs. Thereby they can improve upon their trust, norms and social networks. Therefore it should be considered as an enabling institutional factor for social capital.

5. External actors

The presence of external actors can provide support to setting up a new governance practice.

External actors can help facilitate, mediate and resolve issues within the group of stakeholders (Qurniati et al., 2017). As Lee et al. (2017) discuss, external actors can help communities obtain procedural knowledge and practical training about community forestry. They found that statistically, when this is implemented social capital tends to occur. Furthermore, they have found that collaboration in forest farmer groups, which consists of external actors and can be facilitated by external actors, helps contribute to social capital. Thereby emphasizing the importance of external actors to facilitate social capital. Barnes and Van Laerhoven (2015) found, that for example in their case of 20 Indian NGOs, NGOs do not aim at influencing already functioning institutions. They rather contribute to the capabilities of the communities within the institution, at

(27)

least if they eventually achieve their intended goals. The NGOs crafted their approaches based upon the needs of the communities and showed flexibility to changing circumstances.

Conceptual framework explained

In the Figure 1 the conceptual framework of this thesis is visualized. The research takes place in the context of community forestry, specifically the case of community forestry in Oaxaca. The institutional structure is have been depicted as being either beneficial or detrimental to achieving social capital, depending on its configuration. The institutional structure furthermore affects either positively or negatively transparency, accountability and continuous learning. However, these factors can in reverse also enable institutional structures to improve. External actors have been identified as aiming to improve the capabilities of communities, but depending on the execution, can have an either positive or negative effect on transparency, accountability and continuous learning. Once these three factors are achieved, it is argued earlier on, it will generate social capital. This research does not study the effects of social capital in reverse, when it is already present and what the results would then be on the enabling institutional factors.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework, social capital in institutional arrangements of community forestry. Source: Robert Croezen.

(28)

3 Contextual understanding and case study

In this chapter firstly, the context of Mexican community forestry policies in which the case study takes place is clarified. An emphasis has been put on shaping the context of how community forestry originated, from pre-colonial times, to the changes after independence, the Mexican Revolution, state forest concessions, governmental forestry agencies and to where community forestry stands now. In the second subchapter, the case of this particular study has been described. The subchapter focuses on the geographical, cultural and historical features of community forestry in Oaxaca. The case study is followed by a conceptualisation of a key institution within Oaxacan community forestry, the community forestry enterprise. The literature review deals with several aspects of community forestry as institution and therefore community forestry enterprises have been described in this chapter.

3.1 Mexican community forestry policies Land reforms and the Mexican Revolution

Since pre-colonial times Mexico has had communal-based land tenure systems to govern their resources at a local level. Within this system, the communities have the right of self-determination over its own resources (Brown et al., 2011). When the Spanish colonists came, the new administrators initially respected this system and let the traditional systems be, although periodically requiring taxation over their resources. In 1856 however, a new land reform regulation in the constitution led to the (temporal) abandonment of common property regimes. Instead, by the end of the implementation, 96 percent of the population owned virtually no land (Brown et al., 2011). The 1856 land reform was aimed at privatizing communal and church-owned lands, attracting investment from foreign companies, modernizing the country. Mainly English and American companies received large-scale forest concessions of which the exploitation had a major impact on the environment and local communities (Bray et al., 2005).

During the second half of the 19^th century and the Porfiriato (1876-1911), there were no regulatory frameworks that put constraints on the companies’ abilities to develop mines, roads, railways and

(29)

how to exploit the forest concessions. Unrest surrounding the unequal land distribution eventually played a major factor that led to the culmination of the Mexican Revolution in 1910. The Revolution entailed a newly signed constitution in 1917 which in Article 27 laid out the base of a new agrarian reform. It took eventually more than six decades to implement these reforms but led to the re- establishment of indigenous territory in roughly half the country (Klooster, 2003). The lands were restored to two groups, the comunidades and the ejidos. The comunidades consisted of indigenous groups and other communities that were able to prove that their lands had been confiscated. The ejidos were land grants to communities consisting of landless peasants of various ethnic backgrounds (Brown et al., 2011).

Public forests and state concessions

In this thesis, when the word ‘community’ is used it includes both concepts, and when needed it will be specified with either indigenous community (comunidad) or ejido. After the Revolution with the land property right structure being in reversal, a lead conservationist started advocating for turning the forests into public properties, inspired by the policies that took place elsewhere in North America during that time. This led to the first forest regulation in 1926, which restricted the exploitation of timber and restricted the use of forests for the rural communities (Bray et al., 2005).

Although the 1927 forestry law intended to limit the extraction of forest resources, it had the opposite result. Whereas the implementation of the law would have been possible with a well- functioning forest department bureaucracy, it was not able to do so. The forest department repeatedly got bribed by logging companies and the rural peasants continued to clear lands to extract resources (Klooster, 2003). Due to the short-term logging contracts that the forestry department provided, logging companies started to maximally exploit the forests during those contract times, thereby harming the forests. This phenomenon, which also takes place when communities contract logging companies, is called rentismo, and in some regions occurs to this day (Klooster, 2000).

(30)

In 1940, a new forestry law was enacted to counter the forest degradation that was occurring due to rentismo. Instead, it created forest concessions from 25 up to 60 years, which allowed for long- term investments. Although during the Revolution the process of increased property rights for the communities started, the new forestry law in 1940 reversed some of this, as it restricted the use for local communities. Even when the communities allowed concessions on their lands, the profits were reduced to a stumpage fee that went to a trust fund of which the money only was available once the community applied with an investment plan (Bray et al., 2005). In 1960, a new law facilitated the Mexican state to nationalize forestry companies to try to improve the management of the forests. The results however were comparable to the results of the private companies. The high involvement of government and the top-down management structure led to discontent among the rural peasants (Segura, 2000). Major decisions from ejidos required approval of the forestry department and only the state-owned companies were allowed to be contracted, basically leaving no other choice for the communities. The communities owned the land but were not able to produce, which led to illegal exploitation of the forest (Klooster, 2003).

Neoliberalism and community forestry enterprises

In 1973, a new policy plan for forestry development was made. It included the formation of the

’Direccion General para el Desarrollo Forestal’ (DGDF), which had to implement the new national forestry plan. Although initially the DGDF was tasked with solving the issues around public logging companies, eventually they would help communities to develop their capacities for timber production. In 1978, a new forestry plan encoded that communities should be able to participate throughout the entire process of the industrialization of forest products (Bray & Merino-Pérez, 2002).

During the Miguel de la Madrid administration (1982-1988), major reforms to the Mexican economy were made that, according to Bray et al. (2005), reduced the involvement of the state in the Mexican economy, which decision was linked to the new neoliberal economic paradigm.

Former parastatal forest concessions were abolished and suddenly communities’ demands to end the concessions were met and they could start CFEs to manage their forests. The DGDF during

(31)

that period provided technical assistance to several hundreds of communities to make their newly started CFEs function properly (Bray et al., 2005). Despite the new rights for the communities, the 1986 forestry law came with significant environmental regulations, placing basically the entire sector under heavy regulations (Segura, 2000). This regulatory framework is overseen by the Federal Environmental Agency of Mexico, ’Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales’, or SEMARNAT. This agency was created during the Zedillo administration between 1994-2000 (Bray

& Merino-Pérez, 2002).

In 1992, the Mexican Constitution was changed to include new forestry incentives. It promoted mainly the formation of plantations and the market functioning of the forestry sector. The modification in the constitution also led to the formation of a new consultative council where different branches of government, the forest sector, NGOs and others came together as a collaborative forum. The ability to discuss forestry issues among different scales and actors led to an increased public consultation and participation (Bray & Merino-Pérez, 2002). The 1992 forestry reform allowed for the privatization of communal lands if certain conditions were fulfilled. This

’Program for the Certification of Ejido Rights’, called PROCEDE, eventually had a minimal impact.

Only 10% of the ejido communal lands were privatized under the programme, which was less than expected (Barsimantov & Antezana, 2012).

NAFTA and the forestry agencies

In 1994, Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which liberalized the Mexican economy, including the forestry sector, to the markets of North America. This liberalization of the market went together with the new availability of credit to rural peasants, allowing them to operate as market entrepreneurs. Community forestry enterprises that already existed would integrate management and efficiency strategies that are common to neoliberal western enterprise models, along with communal objectives (García-López, 2019). Bray and Merino-Pérez (2002) argue how the NAFTA created extra competition for Mexican community forestry enterprises, because the trade agreement allowed for the importation of cheap timber from countries like the USA and Chile. Due to differences between community forestry and foreign

(32)

forestry in scale and the level of subsidies received, there was an uneven competition with which CFEs had to deal (Bray & Merino-Pérez, 2002). Bray et al. (2005) state that during the presidency of Vicente Fox, a new National Forestry Plan was created which increased the available resources of the SEMARNAT. The new administration facilitated the creation of the National Forest Commission, CONAFOR. The commission is part of SEMARNAT and with its links to other ministries, it is tasked with undertaking the activities that allow for the furthering of the conservation of Mexican forests, except for regulatory activities which are still SEMARNAT’s mandate. CONAFOR focuses mainly on integrating forestry geographical information systems, supply chains, enhancing CFEs, certification and creating mechanisms for external funding (Bray et al., 2005). Forest certification is a nongovernmental response to tackle forestry problems and to provide an additional source of income to rural communities. Currently, the NGO Reforestamos is one of the actors in developing community capabilities for FSC (Reforestamos, 2021).

3.2 Case study: Oaxaca

Geography, topography, soils and climate of Oaxaca

Oaxaca is a Mexican state positioned in the central-southern part of Mexico (see: Map 1) of 93,793 km² (National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, 2020). Oaxaca is a mountainous region, with in particular two mountain ranges that determine the topography. Lorence & García- Mendoza (1989) state that firstly, the Sierra Madre del Sur which starts in the western part of Oaxaca and follows the coast towards Tehuantepec. In Tehuantepec the Sierra Madre del Sur and the Sierra Madre de Oaxaca encounter each other. The Sierra Madre de Oaxaca extends from the Northwest at the border with the state of Puebla, Southeast towards Tehuantepec. The Sierra Madre de Oaxaca stretches about 300 kilometres long and with 75 kilometres in width, the elevation is on average 3000 metres. In between these two mountain ranges lies a region with relatively lowly elevated mountains, the High Plains, in which also the capital is located (Lorence &

García-Mendoza, 1989).

(33)

Map 1: Case study area Oaxaca (source: Wikipedia).

The mountainous topography of Oaxaca has caused varying microclimates to occur, which facilitate a high degree of biological diversity. The region has a majority of pine/oak forests but also has some patches of tropical vegetation (Velázques et al., 2003). Of a peculiar interest to forestry is the part called Sierra Norte, which is known as Sierra de Juarez, it ranks as a ‘ecoregion ranks among the largest intact montane forests of southern Mexico’ (WWF, n.d.). The Sierra de Juarez differs from other regions within Oaxaca due to its geology. The Sierra de Juarez contains sedimentary rocks in contrary to the Sierra Madre del Sur and the Central Valley, where the geology is dominated by volcanic and metamorphic bedrock. The soils consist out of ‘Andosols, Lithosols and Acrisols’ and other subvariations (Lorence & García-Mendoza, 1989).

Average annual precipitation in the mountainous areas range between 800 and 1200 millimetre.

The wettest months of the year are between May and October. The lowest temperatures generally occur in the months of ‘December or January, varying between −3°C and 18°C’ while the highest temperatures are reached on average in May between 6.5°C and 30°C (Martin et al., 2021). In the Köppen classification, the mountain ranges within Oaxaca above one thousand metres fall within Cw, which is classified as temperate subhumid (Lorence & García-Mendoza, 1989).

(34)

Population and cultural influences

According to the Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics in their 2020 census, Oaxaca has a population of 4,132,148 inhabitants. The capital, Oaxaca de Juárez, has 258,913 inhabitants and the rest of the Oaxacan population is spread over the state with an average density of 44.06/km². In the state of Oaxaca, indigenous communities and ejidos own lands but it is unclear what the quantity is as the data remains insufficient, not alone in Oaxaca but in Mexico in general (Madrid et al., 2009). In the 1970s till 1990s Oaxacan communities with community forestry institutions have faced migratory pressures that were of a temporary origin, however since then labor losses to national and international markets have become permanent, as stated by Robson & Berkes (2011), and cause problems in filling the positions of the traditional community institutions. They question whether the outflow of migration in the Oaxacan communities can eventually raise the need to change the existing traditional arrangements.

In contrary, Asbjornsen and Ashton (2002) argue that Oaxacans have been historically able to fend off most outsider influences that posed a threat to their own local culture, traditions and institutions, like the Aztecs and Spanish missionaries’ influence were. That doesn’t exclude however, that Oaxacan indigenous culture likely has co-evolved with external cultural influences.

Gamio (1943) argues that cultures consist mostly out of dynamic values which co-evolve with the culture, while static values tend to disappear when they are no longer useful. So too might it be possible that the institutions co-evolve with the temporary or permanent migratory pressures.

Despite the historical influences that led to central government control of their lands, the 16 indigenous groups that are currently still present in the region, have been able to sustain their cultural and linguistic heritage (Asbjornsen & Ashton, 2002). During the twentieth century, as discussed before, Oaxacans like in other regions of Mexico, tried to re-establish their property rights and control over their lands, this led to confrontations with the government agencies.

(35)

Community forestry and interactions with the federal government

In 1956, the Mexican government decided to make the community forests into public lands where only forestry companies like FAPATUX were allowed to exploit the forests on behalf of the communities, leaving only a stumpage fee as revenue for the communities. In the 1960s, 15 communities in Oaxaca decided to boycott the concession exploitation by not signing the contracts and requesting a better deal with investments in return for the community other than a stumpage fee. After six years, the company finally gave in and agreed to give in to some of the demands (Bray et al., 2005).

In 1973 another boycott took place in Santiago Textilán which led to the end of the concessions.

Till 1976 the community started preparing for starting their own community forestry enterprise, which was established in 1977. Together with other boycotts that had taken place at the end of the 1970s, communities formed the organization ODRENASĲ, to protect the natural resources and social development of the communities, against the renewal of a new FAPATUX forest concession by staging mass protests (López-Arzola, 2007). The organization was dissolved after the communal rights were restored (Barkin, 2011). The movement that was formed in Oaxaca was not the only one of its kind in Mexico, several other movements were formed in the 1970s and 1980s that dealt with related issues.

In 1968, the student movement was established in Santiago Textilán which wanted to seek attention for rural issues of the peasant population and their growing divide with the urban population. Eventually, the government of the early 1970s gave in to the demands and started several initiatives that dealt with the urban and rural issues. Other movements that were initiated to end the forest concessions, as the ones in Oaxaca, were present in for example the state of Durango (Bray et al., 2005). In 1984 the practice of forest concessions by state-owned companies in Oaxaca was revoked and in 1986 the property rights were officially re-established into the hands of the communities when the new Forestry Law was established. Since then, the forestry industry in Oaxaca has been dominated by community initiatives and operations. Whereas particularly outside institutions and organizations have proven useful in the development of community

Social capital in community forestry: Findings from a quick scoping review about Oaxaca State, Mexico