Conditions for Multilevel Governance, Co-Management and Sustainability in Two Forest Communities in Central Mexico

Abstract

Multilevel governance (MLG) and co-management are indispensable to sustainable forest management (SFM) and the maintenance of ecosystem services (ES). Through interviews with key external and community actors and workshops in two ejidos in central Mexico, we qualitatively analyzed information on the historical and current uses of forests and the ways the ejidos evolved toward SFM by implementing MLG regulatory frameworks that enabled forest co-management. By studying the perceptions of local stakeholders and the relevance of their interactions to effective local forest management, we found that the history of forest use in the region has favored the local appropriation of socioecosystems through co-management. However, these principles have not simply led to harmonized development and conservation. Although such technical interventions favor forest productivity in local communities, the stakeholders also recognize that certain adjustments could improve and maintain the local ES. Thus, while the conditions of community forest management in Mexico exemplify how local decision-making processes can be both relatively democratic and ecologically beneficial for local communities, it is also necessary to move from a traditional management model to shared governance in community contexts.

1. Introduction

In the last 20 years, the forest area legally recognized for local and indigenous communities has grown almost 11% in 41 countries that contain 85% of the world’s forests [1]. The devolution of rights over forests in Mexico and other developing countries began in the 1980s and 1990s [2,3]; many communities in various states resisted the concessions demanded by persistent policy-making and demanded full control of their forest resources [2,4]. Then, the idea emerged that community management was a viable strategy for sustainable extraction, community development, and forest conservation [2,4]. Therefore, the co-management approach, which is represented by institutional arrangements between local communities and different authority levels and nongovernmental organizations that share the responsibilities and power for natural resource management activities, has been considered an adequate regime in different ecosystems for governing common goods [5,6,7]. However, there is limited knowledge on the effects of the sharing of power between government authorities and local forest communities for sustainable forest management and the maintenance of local ecosystem services [7,8,9,10,11,12], and there is a lack of understanding about the dynamics of socioecosystems and the implementation of multilevel governance institutions over time in specific communities, as well as the relevance of the participation of specific actors in these processes as government agencies [13,14].

The aim of the case studies we develop in two ejidos (collective land ownership) is to show that the development and fulfillment of institutional frameworks to promote the participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors, especially the owners of forest resources, are responses to a set of governmental public policies that has evolved over several decades. To a large extent, the existence of functional and coherent institutions at different levels, particularly those that govern the use and management of the territory, contributes to avoiding the degradation of ecosystems [14]. These policies have tried to articulate the strategies, visions, and interests of local actors with the involvement of decision-makers and existing and useful scientific technical knowledge for sustainable forest management (SFM) and ecosystem services (ES). These efforts have been completed through multilevel governance (MLG), mainly at the constitutional and operational levels. In this regard, the objectives of this research are (1) to analyze the effects of the implementation of constitutional rules at the local level, mainly on the adoption and harmonization of operative rules for forest management in two ejidos; and (2) to explain whether MLG and co-management have favored the adoption of sustainable strategies in forest SES and the maintenance of management provisions and regulatory ES. Our hypothesis suggests that the decisions of local communities are strongly influenced and conditioned by constitutional rules; therefore, changes in forest management and exploitation policies will have repercussions on the quality and quantity of SES in the medium and long term, which could reduce or enhance the effects of forest ES.

The relevance of this research is based on the use of empirical information that shows how MLG operates, some of the effects this governance has at the local level, and the strategies that communities have implemented to develop sustainable forest co-management. In addition, it allows one to determine the key actors that participate in these processes, their influence in decision-making, and the forms of interaction that occur between them. This information is relevant for future environmental public policies that can promote co-management strategies in different socioecosystems.

2. Theoretical Framework

To understand the complexity of forest SES management over time, we integrate three theoretical frameworks in an interdisciplinary manner. We derive a model that amalgamates three complementary analytical frameworks: SES, SFM, and ES. This integrated framework conceptualizes the key relationships among socioecological systems, sustainable forest management, and multilevel governance [15]. The MLG approach, also known as polycentric governance or nested hierarchies [16,17,18], is based on the assumption that the state is not the only entity capable of deciding and acting on the management of resources, opening the possibility for organization and polycentric action; that is, multiple decision-making centers can act independently but remain interconnected through networks of cooperation or competition [18,19]. This governance reflects the nested nature of institutional arrangements, which extends beyond the hierarchical arrangements that formerly defined command and control or top-down patterns, giving rise to more strategic, autonomous, or interdependent behavior among different actors. This alludes to processes that link and coordinate the actions of public and private actors, promoting their exchange, cooperation, and collaboration both vertically and horizontally at different scales and levels (supranational, national, regional, and local) [9,20,21,22,23,24,25].

Scholars [17,23,26] argue that the intrinsic complexity of the sustainable management of forest SES requires sophisticated polycentric or MLG systems rather than a single level or type of governance. Hence, the definitions of institutional arrangements, or the rules of the game for who can do what as well as how and when and where they can do it, are fundamental aspects of MLG [17,27]. From this point of view, each unit can independently carry out the elaboration, application, and transformation of norms and rules while ensuring consistency with the rules of the top level of the hierarchy. These rules are understood as the prescriptions that prohibit, allow, oblige, determine, define, and limit human behavior in a given situation [28]. There are three types of such rules. First, operational rules are direct interventions in systems and resources and directly affect the daily decisions made by the participants in a scenario (e.g., the intensity of a harvest or methods of cultivation). Second, collective choice rules determine and distribute the rights of participation in the operating rules and regulate how such decisions are made (e.g., deciding the level of a harvest or the technological contribution). Third, constitutional or higher-level rules provide the framework for the two previous types of rules; that is, they specify the terms and conditions of governance and stipulate who has the right to make decisions regarding the access to and use of a resource, as well as who has the right to share in the benefits thereof [15,29]. These three levels of rules form a hierarchy in which the higher-level rules determine the degrees of freedom of the lower-level rules; together, they are key in the management of SES [27,28,29,30].

For Schlager and Ostrom [31], management is “the right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by making improvements”; however, for other scholars, it refers to the activities carried out by individual actors or groups based on cooperation and has a communitarian character [29,32]. Co-management entails that other actors beyond the local community, such as the state, local authorities, or nongovernmental organizations, are involved in these actions, making local communities just one more actor in these processes [32,33]. In some cases, through co-management, the participation of state actors can be lukewarm because they are not willing to execute effective and binding power-sharing agreements; these processes can also be time-consuming and costly and reduce social capital [32,33,34,35]. However, community forest management can be effective in providing local residents with SFM incentives and has led to forest regeneration and the potential maintenance or recovery of multiple ES in various parts of the world [5,36,37,38,39,40,41]. In some regions of Mexico in particular, forest management has been realized through the existence of MLG built over time to promote co-management, specifically between the constitutional and operational levels. This process represents a continuum of arrangements based on various degrees of shared power and responsibility between governments and local communities [42], whereby co-management has emerged from adaptive and self-organizing processes that have been consolidated from both learning and practice over time [42] and via the contextual aspects of the benefits perceived at the sociocultural, economic, and political levels [32].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Region

The temperate forest socioecosystems (SES) in Mexico cover 17% of its national territory [43], and forested areas are inhabited by approximately 26 million people [44]. Mexico is the country with the greatest certified area of sustainable forests managed by local communities [45]. There are, thus, approximately 2300 communities with legal logging permits, harvesting timber in approximately 8.1 million ha of forest, mostly temperate pine and oak forests [5], making Mexico a notable but not generalizable case globally.

The ejidos of Llano Grande (LLG) and Las Minillas (LM) are in the Chignahuapan and Ixtacamaxtitlán regions, respectively, in the state of Puebla in central Mexico, where 20 of the 33 community forestry enterprises are located [46]. This region is one of the seven most important forestry areas in Mexico. The high demand for wood in the region is the result of an important industrial sector and the strong economic interaction with the metropolitan area of Mexico City, which makes it the most dynamic wood market with the highest prices in the country (Figure 1).

LLG has a population of 459, of whom 99 are ejidatarios (or people with recognized rights and responsibilities who participate in decision-making). The main economic activity is forestry. For the past 30 years, the inhabitants have mostly used the Method for Silvicultural Development (MSD) [46]. This method is a technique used in temperate forests located less than 3000 m above sea level. The ejido covers 2343 hectares, of which 59% are under forest management, 24% are used for agriculture (for food production for self-consumption), 11% are conservation areas and restricted use areas, and 6% have other uses (Management Plan 2013). The ejido has a sawmill and a nursery (in which it mainly produces Pinus patula and Pinus montezumae), and its timber production is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). From 2012 to 2017, it received support from the Payment for Environmental Services Program implemented by the National Forestry Commission (Conafor in Spanish) [46].

LM has a population of 255, and 66 of the residents are ejidatarios. The ejido occupies a total area of 1104 ha, of which 52% is forest. In this area, 33% has been used for commercial production for 30 years, mostly using the Mexican Method of Forest Regulation (MMFR). This technique is used in areas above 3000 m above sea level and where it is not possible to use intensive techniques. The main economic activity is agriculture, a use that occupies 46% of the territory of the ejido, and 19% is reserved for conservation. The main cultivated forest species are Abies religiosa, Arbutus xalapensis, Cupressus lindeleyi, Pinus patula, Pinus pseudostrobus, and Pinus rudis. The ejido has been registered in the Payment for Environmental Services program since 2012 and has forestry certification from the FSC.

3.2. Multilevel Governance

To understand how social arrangements arise and why they are carried out, a qualitative study was conducted combining various methods to analyze the MLG from the perspectives of the different key actors. The main interest was to understand how they influence SFM decision-making and the effects that those decisions are perceived to have on forest ES under management in both ejidos.

First, a documentary analysis of the scientific and gray literature was carried out to study and systematize the content of institutional frameworks at the constitutional level that guide the Mexican forestry policies on harvesting, conservation, and social participation associated with SFM from 2000 to 2018. The regulatory frameworks analyzed were the Forest Development Law of 2003, the National Forest Programs (PNF) from 2000 to 2018, and the NOM Semarnat 152/2006 (which establishes the guidelines, criteria, and specifications for the contents of forest management programs for the use of timber forest resources in areas with forests, rainforests, and arid-zone vegetation). This review enabled us to determine the public problem, the government definition of SFM, and the strategies and lines of action aimed at exploitation, conservation, and social participation in SFM. Then, we contrasted the constitutional norms and operative rules in both ejidos using forest management plans (FMPs) and internal bylaws (IBs), respectively. The rules contained in the IBs were formulated accounting for the uses and customs and the SES local contexts.

This information was complemented with 16 semistructured interviews with three large key actor groups: (1) federal government officials from the delegation of Puebla linked to the management of forest resources—one from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat in Spanish) and four from the National Forestry Commission (Conafor in Spanish); (b) nongovernmental actors—three forest technical services providers (FTSPs), two from LLG and one from LM, and two academics; and (3) on-duty authorities of the ejido commissariat who participate in decision-making—three from LLG and three from LM. The purpose of the interviews was to determine the different perceptions about the operational and constitutional rules (regarding the relevance of the interactions and forms of participation of the interviewees) in forest management and its relationship with ES. To analyze the empirical data on the interviewees’ influence in MLG for sustainable forest management, we classified the actors (individuals, groups, or organizations) following Marc Hufty [47] as follows: (1) central: those with enough power to prevent or disrupt the operation of rules and decision-making processes in objective and subjective dimensions; (2) very important: those who are part of the institutional framework and have the necessary resources to be considered central or strategic but do not use them, although this does not imply that they are dominated by others in decision-making processes; and (3) important: those who do not have enough power to change the rules of the game or who remain passive (See Section 4.3.1).

These data were complemented with a workshop held in each ejido to explore the perceptions of the key actors (ejido commissariat, the ejidatarios, and the residents—known as avecindados) about the importance of ES provided by the forest. In LLG, 12 people participated, and in LM, 8 participated. Each group of attendees was asked to jointly agree, in the order of relevance according to their uses, on the benefits they received from the forest, which were recorded by the working group on different documents. The interviews and workshops were carried out from June to November 2018. All the interviews were conducted in Spanish, were recorded prior to verbal informed consent was obtained from all the interviewees, and were transcribed for systematization and analyses. All conversations were performed in accordance with the values of the Ethics Code of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. In the Results section, we analyze and include information from the interviews, as well as brief opinions and testimonies from the interviewees, whom we cite with initials and the legend personal communication (pers. comm.) to maintain their anonymity. Codes were created to designate the sector to which an interviewee belongs (ej = ejidatarios; FTSP = forest technical services provider).

4. Results

4.1. From Concessioned Forests to Forest Management and Co-Management in Mexico

In Mexico, the forest management in communities and ejidos developed in three stages, according to Bray and Merino [48]. The first initiatives emerged between 1932 and 1970, followed by the great awakening of community forestry between 1971 and 1986 and then uneven policy initiatives and the consolidation of a mature community forestry sector between 1988 and 2000 [48]. In the 1970s, the restoration of local inhabitants’ property rights to forestland in various regions of the country began. Activists, ejidatarios, and comuneros, accompanied by academics and members of civil society organizations, jointly focused their efforts on reversing the 20th century policies that had affected the property rights to, uses of, and usufruct over forest territories [48,49]. On the one hand, federal policies that restricted the use of forest resources were imposed in prohibition decrees and protected natural areas, ignoring the needs and ways of life of local inhabitants. On the other hand, concession permits were granted (for several decades) to parastatal and transnational companies that exploited forests and rainforests without restrictions and without benefiting local populations [2,48,50].

In both cases, restrictions were imposed on forest use but these restrictions did not prevent ecological or social deterioration in various forest regions [48,50,51,52]. Especially during the period of 1974–1986, the forest policies in Mexico underwent an important change, as the development of the capacities of forest communities for management and silviculture began to be promoted [50].

Meanwhile, in the 1970s, the Mexican government began to promote forest management through regulations based on two main methods, the Method for Silvicultural Development (MSD) and the Mexican Method of Forest Regulation (MMFR), to achieve SES sustainability. The achievement of the last of these objectives ideally entails the equilibrated, mutual interaction of economic, social, and environmental aspects, which has not been possible to realize. The policy of SFM, applied in MLG, materializes locally in the mixed operation of both forestry methods in forest areas and on ejidal lands. For instance, in Puebla, since 2015, both methods have been applied in the same forest; that is, in those areas where it is technically feasible to use MSD or MMFR. The most appropriate management method is determined according to the species, slope, sun exposure, topography, and soil quality (LC, FTSP, pers. comm., 2018). Local communities participate in this directly, carrying out forest management activities in situ with the support and advice of specialized technical personnel certified by the federal government under the supervision of the Semarnat.

In the Chignahuapan region, as in other forestlands in Mexico during the 20th century, the local inhabitants lacked real access to their forests, and their property, uses, and usufruct rights were not recognized. Hence, as Merino [2], Bray and Merino [50], and Sánchez-Vidaña [53] have shown, most forests were concessioned to industrial companies (paper and lumber companies), excluding local communities from harvesting activities and the benefits thereof.

However, in 1975, a decree put an end to forest concessions throughout the country, and the forest and peasant communities gradually began to regain their control and management of forestlands. Through forest management in communities and ejidos, the conservation and exploitation approach has been transformed into technical management. Although this represents a productivist approach, it promotes and favors the development and consolidation of community organizations and forms of governance based on existing community social capital in various communities [2]. Hence, as the informants explained, the forests “had been exploited with other types of techniques, where the best trees were extracted. We found some areas were deteriorated (from the beginning of forest management); we cleaned them up, we removed the dead and infested trees. This will be the 35th year we have had forest sustainability” (LC, FTSP, pers. Comm., 2018; JC, FTSP, pers. Comm., 2018).

Likewise, until the end of the 20th century, the development and consolidation of the internal governance of these communities favored the execution and administration of the productive activities associated with forest exploitation as well as the recognition of the rights of collective property and the management of forests [2]. However, since the constitutional reform to article 27 in 1992, there have been changes to the configuration of landownership in different regions of Mexico associated with the division of land for the common use of forests and rainforests, despite legal prohibitions [50,54]. Nevertheless, other forest communities, including Llano Grande (LLG) and Las Minillas (LM), have cultivated their forests with relative autonomy through co-management [2,55] (JM, FTSP, pers. Comm., 2018; LC, FTSP, pers. Comm., 2018) and have thereby maintained them in a relatively good state of conservation. This has been possible because the management actions of these communities have been accompanied by legal reforms and government programs favoring community appropriation and forest management, in addition to their provision of technical assistance [26,50]. Likewise, the constitutional rules related to the management of their territories and their forest resources have been considered in their IBs.

4.2. Constitutional Rules for Forest Management in Ejidos

From 2000–2018, various forest public policy instruments established general guidelines and regulations for SFM; in particular, the National Forest Plans (NFP), the General Law of Sustainable Forest Development, and the Mexican Official Norm 152/2006, providing continuity to policies linked to use, social participation, and conservation. The major trends indicate that exploitation has focused on productivity; it has been sought with the aim of increasing production, productivity, and competitiveness. Similarly, SFM is intended to promote the development of forest communities and ejidos to render forests a permanent source of income and improve the living conditions of the forest owners and possessors who carry out forestry activities.

Regarding social participation, the forest policy has promoted the organization and participation of forest communities by strengthening their technical capacities and developing their self-management strategies to consolidate the operations of regional forest councils. In terms of conservation, land use and ecological plans, as well as various programs related to restoration, basin management, environmental service payment, and native plant cultivation, have been generated [55] (

Table 1. Main strategies and actions of the National Forest Programs for Forest Management in Mexico (2000–2018).

Theme Period	2000–2006	2007–2012	2013–2018
Public problem	Deforestation and the deterioration of forests.	Land use change.	Land use change, poverty and marginalization, unsustainable management, and insufficient production.
General objective	Sustainable forestry development policy with a long-term vision that responds to the economic, social, and environmental requirements of the sector and the community, promoting the active participation of society in the application of the forestry policy.	Consolidate sustainable forest development as an alternative that allows improved quality of life among Mexicans while guaranteeing the conservation of and an increase in the country’s forest resources.	Promote the sustainable use of the country’s forest resources, reactivate the economy of the forestry sector, and improve the quality of life of forest area inhabitants; additionally, maintain and increase the provision of environmental goods and services to society and reduce carbon emissions generated by deforestation and forest degradation.
Vision of sustainable forest management	From now on, development must be clean, preserving the environment and reconstructing ecological systems to achieve the harmony of human beings with themselves and with nature. Sustainable forest management means integrating environmental, social, and economic factors that guarantee the conservation of forest ecosystems.	The forestry policy includes a sustainability approach with the main objectives of contributing to the social, economic, and environmental development of the country through the management of forests and the use of resources and protecting, maintaining, and increasing the biodiversity provided by forest resources.	Sustainable forest management is an important means of significantly improving attention to basic needs and generally improving the quality of life of the people who live in forest areas of the country and help maintain the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to provide environmental goods and services for the benefit of society.
Forest Management
Strategies	Ensure that programs of forest management become effective instruments for the planning, control, operation, and monitoring of forest exploitation, protection, and restoration.	Increase timber and nontimber forest production from commercial forest plantations. Increase the competitiveness of the forestry sector as a whole. Support ejidos and forest communities in improving sustainable forest management under community forestry schemes that generate local development processes.	Expand the forest area under sustainable management and improve the productivity of the land. Diversify the productive potential of forest resources. Implement the best forestry and biodiversity conservation practices. Increase and develop the area of commercial forest plantations.
Lines of action	Establish a training and evaluation system for forest technical and professional service providers. Strengthen the supervisory capacity of the competent authorities.	Increase the area effectively incorporated into technical forest management, including activities that do not involve resource extraction. Promote the diversified use of forest resources through activities such as nature tourism and the use of nontimber resources. Encourage forest certification. Promote the development of commercial forest plantations Continue and extend the community care model developed by Procymaf. Facilitate the creation of community forestry enterprises.	Develop technical and technological tools for forest management according to the silvicultural conditions of the ecosystems. Promote the application of forest management systems in accordance with the forestry conditions of the ecosystems. Promote the application of forest improvement and intensive forestry practices.
Social Participation
Strategies	Promote change from the current restrictive policy to one that is proactive toward community forestry.	Consolidate and strengthen participation schemes and the social organization and provision of forestry technical services. (ProÁrbol is created as an instrument that integrates social, environmental, and economic objectives for the forestry sector.)	Strengthen the processes of social participation and the regional management of the organizations of forest producers or foresters. Establish and promote training schemes and human capital formation. Promote high-quality technical assistance to owners, holders, and users of forest resources.
Lines of action	Encourage civil society participation in community forestry. Organize producers with productive criteria and sustainable use.	Promote and consolidate the organization of owners and possessors of forestland. Strengthen the technical and self-management capacities of foresters. Bring institutional offerings and technical assistance mechanisms closer to foresters. Link and strengthen coordination with forestry technical service providers. Consolidate the operation of the regional forestry councils.	Promote the strengthening of managerial, planning, and organizational capacities in ejidos and communities for territorial self-management. Promote and strengthen regional spaces for participation and social consultation for local actors.
Conservation of Forest Resources
Strategies	Establish a comprehensive plan for basin reforestation, prioritizing the upper parts, to guarantee aquifer recharge.	Use payment for environmental services mechanisms to promote forest conservation.	Strengthen the scheme of payment for environmental services, transitioning to an active conservation model. Improve and promote forest and soil restoration and productive reconversion. Promote the conservation of biodiversity in forest ecosystems.
Lines of action	Use native species in conservation and restoration plantations to contribute to the conservation of the biodiversity of forest ecosystems. Design and promote schemes for granting incentives for reforestation. Promote the establishment of agroforestry plantations. Support the consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas. Promote the establishment of biological corridors integrated into the System of Natural Protected Areas. Propose adjustments to forest management regulations to guarantee the conservation of biodiversity in forests and jungles of commercial interest and in other areas.	Consolidate payment for an environmental services scheme that favors the preservation of forest ecosystem services. Promote actions for the conservation of forest genetic resources to fulfill international agreements. Promote the National Program for the Management of Forest Genetic Resources. Reduce the negative impacts of fire on forest ecosystems and forest diseases. Execute training actions and specialized training for preventing and combating forest fires.	Promote the development and application of integrated land management plans for the provision of environmental services in priority areas. Strengthen the payment for environmental services scheme in high-priority areas, articulating best practices for conservation and sustainable use. Promote the articulation of agricultural and forestry incentives to develop PES schemes in shared rural territories. Develop criteria and indicators for monitoring and evaluating the environmental, economic, and social impacts of PES.

).

Concerning MLG systems, their collective and mainly operational rules are nested with rules at the constitutional level in both ejidos, which have had different results regarding forest use, the social forms of participation at the local level, and the perceptions of conservation, especially in terms of ES, as discussed below.

4.3. Operational Rules for Sustainable Forestal Management in Two Ejidos

In LLG and LM, the efforts to develop SFM according to regional and national sociohistorical contexts have made possible the creation and transformation of a set of constitutional and operational rules that regulate forest management over time. Locally, production and conservation activities are regulated with a combination of instruments and rules that promote interactions of a normative nature, in a differentiated manner, between LLG and LM authorities, community members, and government authorities. External actors who work in federal government organizations, forestry technical providers, and academics have different degrees of involvement and authority in the decision-making for resource management in each case.

Forest management in LLG started in 1981 under MSD management. Since then, the community has been actively involved in these management activities. Initially, local people carried out regeneration, liberation, and thinning activities through natural regeneration, although this strategy did not favor the achievement of the desired silvicultural objectives. In 1991, they began to reforest and allocate exclusive protection areas (particularly a relict oak forest), whereby the community forest nursery began to operate (LC, FTSP, pers. comm., 2018). Gradually, the community has carried out changes in intervention strategies, fostering community participation in forest management. It has also received funding from the federal government through programs offering training in administration and wood production.

In LM, from 1940 to 1970, the land in the ejido was used mainly for seasonal agriculture for self-consumption, and the forest was used only to gather firewood and mushrooms. This ejido began to cultivate its forest only in 1983. In the first 10 years, the community harvested without any technical advice, although in 1993, it began to work with a forestry technical advisor (JM, FTSP, pers. comm., 2018). Gradually, the community organized itself to counteract the free access to its forest resources that had been promoted since its forests were concessioned (JG, ej, pers. comm., 2018; MM, ej, pers. comm., 2018). Today, timber harvesting is one of the most important economic activities. Although agriculture continues to be the main economic and self-consumption alternative, its people place a high value on their forest resources. Indeed, a decision by the General Assembly (GA) has established that “they will always have a tree cover because they will never remove more than 30% of everything there is” (JM, FTSP, pers. comm., 2018). For 36 years, the ejido has cultivated its forest using the MMFR method, whereby both Conafor and the FSC continue to recognize its sustainable cultivation practices.

4.3.1. Local Institutions and MLG for Sustainable Forest Management

The relative institutional coherence has been built, from the constitutional to the local level, to achieve forest management in both ejidos. This process includes the creation of various instruments for land and forest management and the consolidation of deliberative spaces for community participation where decisions are made. Likewise, these processes have required the intervention and interaction of community authorities and external governmental and nongovernmental actors, who jointly have contributed to the MFS processes through multilevel governance. Although these policies have been oriented to the ecosystem service of wood provision, by allowing the consolidation of forestry, an essential activity in the livelihood of the ejidos, diverse conservation strategies for various ecosystem services have been gradually recognized and incorporated.

The institutions developed in LLG and LM to regulate community forest management and the maintenance of ES at the local level are the internal bylaws (IB), the forest management plan (FMP), and the land-use plan (LUP) (

Table 2. Main characteristics of institutions for regulating forest management and ecosystem service maintenance.

Instrument	Llano Grande (LLG)	Las Minillas (LM)
Internal by laws (IB)	These are documents endorsed by the Agrarian Law, which establish the principles, norms, obligations, and sanctions that must be followed by the ejidatarios, the residents (avecindados), and the community in general to favor the citizens’ coexistence and the use of the territory. Objectives: to regulate the organization, participation, and operation of the ejido; to establish the rights and obligations of its members; and to guarantee that productive activities are carried out according to the collective agreements upon by the majority regarding the integral use of natural resources. The restrictions established in these instruments, thus, relate to who can harvest forest products (timber and nontimber) as well as where and in what amounts.
Forest management plan (FMP)	Regulates and plans forest use for 10 years. Defines the volume of wood to be harvested, the stands in which to intervene or in recovery, the plant species to be cultivated, and all activities related to timber harvesting. It must be authorized by the federal environmental authority, represented by the Semarnat, as established by NOM152/2006.
Land-use plan (LUP)	It was approved in 2012. This instrument plans and establishes the activities and delimitations of different collective and individual land uses within the ejido (productive areas, forest management, conservation areas, and urban areas)	A participatory rural evaluation was carried out in 2012 with the support of Conafor but the LUP was still pending.

). The provisions of these three instruments are mandatory; violating them results in sanctions, fines, and ultimately the cancellation of permits for forest use. They establish the formal rules that theoretically govern social behavior at the local level as well as the rules for the use and conservation of resources and restrictions on land use. In all of these cases, these instruments have been generated and built with the participation of local communities as a result of internal governance processes that contribute to operating adequately in the communities and territories of both ejidos.

The internal governance process for forest management resources in both ejidos is carried out through the General Assembly (GA), in which only people with recognized property rights participate. It is the highest legal and socially recognized authority and has the legitimacy to design, establish, implement, and enforce operational and collective action rules for forest management. Likewise, the members of the Ejido Commissariat (EC) are elected by this decision-making body (

Table 3. Internal governance institutions for forest management resources.

General Assembly (GA)
The highest deliberative and collective decision-making body. Composed of people with recognized property rights who have a voice and vote, can be elected, and have the authority to participate in designing operational rules or collective actions. They elect the Ejido Comissariat (EC) who represents the community. Meets once a month or more if needed to deliberate and make decisions, by majority or consensus. Establishes the operational and collective action rules that affect the entire community and everything related to the management of the territory and forest, as well as providing the approval of the Forest Management Plan and Land Use Plan. Makes decisions about uses of land, conservation, allocation, consumption, appropriation, monitoring, and forest production.
Llano Grande (LLG)	Las Minillas (LM)
Relatively democratic and horizontal structure only among those who have recognized property rights. Gradually women and young people have begun to participate.	More hierarchical structure and based on respect for elders. Youth, women, and residents are generally excluded from decision-making.
Ejido Commissariat (EC)
The highest authority that represents the community inside and outside the ejido. The EC comprises the commissioner or president, the secretary, and the administrator or treasurer; they hold these positions for three years.
Llano Grande (LLG)	Las Minillas (LM)
In charge of decisions concerning the operation of the forestry enterprise, the sawmill, and the ejido nursery.	They do not have a forestry enterprise.

).

Regarding the participation of the members of the communities of both ejidos in the GA, there is a marked social stratification, whereby women and young people over 18 years of age are allowed little or no participation. LLG has a relatively more democratic and horizontal structure among those who have recognized property rights in comparison to LM because the groups that traditionally have had little representation in decision-making (residents, youths, and women) have gradually begun to be integrated. Recently, the inclusion of young people over 18 years of age in the management and administration activities of forestry enterprises has also begun to be promoted (LC, FTSP, pers. comm., 2018; JF, ej, pers. comm., 2018), and women have been increasingly participating in productive activities in the craft workshop.

To represent how multilevel governance operates for sustainable forest management in the study regions, we first analyze the importance of interactions between ejido authorities and various governmental and nongovernmental entities, the roles these interactions play both legally and in practice, and their influence on decision-making. The local authorities of LLG and LM interact in order of importance with the forest technician, as well as with officials from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat), the National Forestry Commission (Conafor), and the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Profepa), followed by the academy and the international organization Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (

Table 4. Interactions between ejido authorities and governmental and nongovernmental entities—activities and relevance.

Hierarchy	Activities and Relevance of Interaction in Decision-Making in MLG Context
1. Forest technician	Key for formulating local operating rules and compliance with the constitutional rules associated with the management of forest resources. Has a direct relationship and communication with the Ejido Commissariat and the General Assembly, interacting very frequently. Acts as a link, articulating the needs of the forest communities to the federal authorities for three decades. Elaborates the management plans and apply to obtain government support and technical training for ejidatarios. Provides technical guidance for management activities. Enforces the norms that operate in the SES, which the federal government previously authorized (volumes, times, stands, and species to be cultivated). Participates in or has knowledge of the issues addressed in regional consultative bodies (such as the State Forestry Council (SFC), which is an advisory body for forest issues).
2. Officials from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat)	Grant permits for the use of timber and nontimber products through management plans (define the location, quantity, quality, and times of harvest). The plans are prepared jointly with the forestry technicians according to current legislation and the General Assembly’s approval. Observe the fulfillment of the General Laws of Sustainable Forest Development, General Law of Ecological and Protection of the Environment, and NOM-152-2006 (about the uses and forms of exploitation of forests). Provide technical information on management and promote interinstitutional collaboration. Promote s prescriptive and normative relationship supported by current regulations.
3. Officials from National Forestry Commission (Conafor)	Promote programs in support of forest management and the strengthening of community organization. Provide financial resources and training courses that facilitate compliance with forest management programs. The ejidatarios and the technicians, thus, affirm that management actions are the decisions made in the GA that abide by the General Law of Sustainable Forest Development and the norms established by the Semarnat; with or without the support of Conafor, they must carry out the actions approved in the FMP (CF, ej, pers. Comm., 2018). Do not exert any influence on decision-making within the ejidos.
4. Officials from Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Profepa)	Surveillance institution working in coordination with the Semarnat to annually evaluate compliance with the agreed upon and approved management plans. Do not interfere with the formulation of operating rules or collective action.
5. Academia	Generates useful scientific information for technical decision-making. For LLG, the scientific information has helped to understand the effects of forest management on SES (some examples in [56,57,58,59]). For LM, the interaction with academia has helped to establish experimental plots for biodiversity conservation in which species in the arboreal, shrubby, and herbaceous strata are quantified in detail, and the production of results on the evolution of the detected species is ongoing.
6. Forestewarship Council (FSC)	The certification of forest management is being carried out in compliance with international sustainability standards. This certification is beneficial for the sale of wood in global markets and for improving the working conditions of those who work in forestry activities. The process of certifying forest production in these ejidos was first initiated through programs promoted by Conafor. LLG has been certified since 2012. LM has been certified since 2014.

). Second, we consider the type of interaction established between the actors involved and the frequency (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

4.3.2. Perception of the SFM Contribution to Ecosystem Services at the Local Level

Although the federal government has promoted forest management for productive purposes, achieving sustainable management is an issue that is gaining relevance and has been considered in internal bylaws. The first benefit perceived among the management activities in both LLG and LM is socioeconomic, given that forestry activities have constituted the livelihood of many families by generating jobs for the ejidatarios and local neighbors. Especially in LLG, income from forest management has made it possible to build infrastructure such as roads, schools, community halls, and cabins. These aspects have been key to discouraging the local population from internal migration or immigration to the United States. In LM, although some expect that soon they will be able to build and generate infrastructure and diversify their economic activities, they recognize that this expectation is not yet possible; their uses and customs favor maintaining traditions rather than exploring new approaches. However, they consider forestry activities an important source of family income. Second, they focus on the ecological aspects; for example, in LLG, they believe that the prohibition of hunting and the creation of exclusive conservation areas have led to more birds being observed in the area, and some even consider the current state of the ecosystem as being better than before. In the same sense, the authorities of LM recognize various ecological and legacy values—“The forest gives many benefits, such as springs, rivers, [...] the forest gives us everything, it gives us life [...]”; moreover, the forest is a critical asset that they have received from their ancestors, whereby they feel responsible for preserving it as a legacy for future generations (JJ, ej, pers. comm., 2018; JGR, ej, pers. comm., 2018).

In LLG, the key local actors perceive that the most important ES provided by their forests combine provision, regulation, and support services. For them, the most important service is the regulation of soil, water (although this also functions as a provision service), and clean air, followed by the provision of food (mushrooms and wild fruits), the habitats for species of flora and fauna (animals and medicinal plants), and finally the provision of wood and firewood. The ejidatarios explain how soil and water play a key role in the production of wood and how soil is the most important element because it supports the cultivation of the forest: “We chose the soil as the main service because it is better to keep the soil in good condition to have wood in the future”. Hence, their vision for the future of this resource is based on maintaining soil health, a support for the life of the forest SES (Perception Workshop, November 2018) (

Table 5. Social perceptions of the hierarchy of forest ecosystem services.

	Llano Grande	Las Minillas
1	Soil	Water
2	Water	Clean air
3	Clean air	Animals
4	Food	Medicinal plants
5	Animals	Food
6	Medicinal plants	Soil/land
7	Wood	Wood
8	Firewood	Firewood

Source: Perceptions workshop, November 2018.

).

In LM, the most important ES is water supply, followed by air purification, habitat maintenance, soil, wood, and firewood. The perception that water is the main service provided by forests is based on how essential it is for life: “We could not cut down the forest but if we do not have water, we have no way of living. It is very difficult for us to have other alternatives; that is why we take such great care of our main source that comes from the mountains” (JC, FTSP, pers. Comm., 2018) (Table 5).

Both the LLG and LM authorities have identified the human factor and the potential lack of commitment of new generations to the actions that must be carried out to cultivate the forest as potential future forest-management-related threats to forest resources. In LLG, they have mentioned that their main fear is that the youth in the community who are linked to its forest enterprise and management activities will not comply with the rules and are not committed to the extant practices and actions. The current managers of this ejido agree that the silvicultural and conservation practices that they have applied up to the present day are adequate and that they should continue to be carried out to maintain the benefits they receive from the forest in the future. However, they are open to carrying out complementary actions that improve the ES that they currently receive from the forest: “To stop doing what we have been doing is very difficult because we have seen the changes with the work that has been done. If we could, we would look for work to improve and to move forward because we do see the changes with what we have done until now” (JA, ej, pers. Comm., 2018). Meanwhile, the LM authorities perceive the main threat to be the “commitment of new people in management” and consider the activities that they have carried out to be successful.

Conafor and the FSC have recognized the work through certifications in both ejidos. In summary, the perceptions of the key local actors on the current state of their forests and associated ES suggest that they are adequate but can be improved. The local inhabitants have made efforts to manage the forests according to the institutional frameworks and rules of the constitutional order.

The results obtained in this research cannot necessarily be transferred to other forest regions of Mexico or the world. Perhaps there may be some coincidences in the processes of sustainable forest management and the maintenance of forest ecosystem services, as well as similarities in the organizational forms of local communities; however, it is always relevant to consider the contextual aspects at the social, political, economic, ecological, and historical levels.

5. Discussion

McGinnis and Ostrom [60] have suggested that actors, institutions, instruments, and joint management are elements that affect governance, particularly the achievement of sustainable development goals. As observed in the study sites, the nested nature of the governance structures and processes is the result of a complex sociohistorical and ecological process implemented through public policies that have been transformed over time. Thus, the public policies implemented more than four decades ago served to modify the institutional frameworks, the forms of intervention in the territory, and the interactions of the governmental authorities with the owners of the forestlands. Carlisle and Gruby [61] also mention that the effectiveness of a governance system depends on the relevant objectives and historical and cultural context in which it is inserted, ideas that are applicable in the study region. Although aligning resource management with environmental systems is not simple, Sayles and Baggio [62] argue that mapping, analyses, and collaboration among different actors can provide vital information to overcome imbalances in the local system of resources. The variety of actors and their interactions facilitate not only the ability to produce resources but also (for social reasons) the possibility of articulating objectives, building narratives, and accepting and implementing contributions from institutional structures to achieve their objectives [63]. The case studies show that the implementation of public policies that promote community and forest management occurs thanks to the hierarchical and normative intervention of the state. Across more than three decades, the implementation of public policies has helped local communities develop a self-management model by using sustainable techniques [58]. These appropriation and self-management processes have been supported by institutional frameworks and federal government programs that allow local societies to receive the economic and ecological benefits of cultivating their forest under the technical parameters established by the federal government [64]. This contrasts with previous experiences in the region, where forests were concessioned to external agents without benefiting local communities and affecting the well-being of ecosystems.

In a centralized MLG system, collaboration and cohesion depend on the presence and stability of key social actors [62] who use reciprocity, respect, and communication to favor the construction of common goals for sustainable forest development and use [60,64,65]. Via the establishment of constitutional rules, it was, thus, possible to gradually generate relative stability in the interactions among agents of the federal government, technical advisors, and members of the ejidos, allowing progress toward SFM through institutional regulation and the execution of territorial management instruments (such as FMPs and LUPs), among other strategies.

However, in Mexico and internationally, forest management has been dominated by a paradigm focused on conventional forestry that transforms complex ecosystems into simplified spaces based on legal and technical norms that center on a utilitarian objective with which social actors must basically comply [66]. Some examples include decisions focused on productivity driven by public policies (such as the National Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management to Increase Production and Productivity—Enaipros), which can potentially have ecological impacts through the intensive exploitation of forest ecosystems. The above may have long-term effects, which must be evaluated in the implementation of new forestry and forest management policies because they may affect ecosystems and future forest productivity, even when communities are fully complying with regulatory frameworks, affecting their livelihoods directly. This utilitarian public policy contrasts with the other public policy instruments in force in these territories, which promote the values present among the ejido authorities regarding their forests and the ES they produce; for them, their forest is not reduced to a significant number of cubic meters of wood, translated into money and economic value. Rather, their forest has an important legacy and value; they inherited these territories from their ancestors and in turn have an interest in passing them on to their children’s children. Hence, they are interested in improving processes to achieve future sustainability in forest management from a more comprehensive perspective and on a socioecosystem level.

Accordingly, these ejidos face challenges in achieving sustainability in SFM in economic, ecological, and social terms; as in other forest regions, these communities demonstrate weak organization, insufficient management skills, and limited access to markets, as well as social exclusion from decision-making processes within their resource systems, e.g., of young people, women, and people who do not have recognized property rights [4,6,67,68,69,70,71]. Although the public policy on the rights over forest territories has favored forest management and MLG by applying constitutional rules that have permeated the operational levels, key social and ecological elements have also gradually been integrated; these should have resulted in more sustainability and autonomy of management, although sustainable management has not yet been achieved. For example, the centralization in and control of the federal government over management has prevented local actors (in this case, forest ejidos) from assuming a more active and autonomous role in ongoing forest governance and decision-making [72,73]. It is essential to recognize that resource systems are dynamic and that we should not expect actors to settle for any one policy or approach; in fact, we should expect constant experimentation and improvement and continuous institutional adaptation [64], whereby local communities practice more active participation and obtain technical support.

The abovementioned constitutional and operational rules in relation to forest management have also been transformed over time, consolidating co-management strategies in various cases. However, the state has designed rules that do not necessarily allow local actors to become agents of change capable of contributing solutions through active and autonomous participation in decision-making processes. Rather, a weak rule of law prevails, offering few solutions to user problems and sometimes few incentives to comply with rules imposed from above [2,74,75]. In particular, forest management programs do not lead to the formation of uniform environmental regimes [73], and many management practices that should lead to sustainability are only adopted if there is effective internal governance, backed by financial incentives for the effective implementation of such regulations [76]. Therefore, the existence of internal organization and social cohesion significantly enable better decisions on the sustainable use of forests. Forest resource governance regimes affect ecosystems and the provision of ES, which in turn benefit human well-being [66]. Therefore, SFM processes, in addition to being congruent and coherent via institutional nesting and multilevel governance, require the integration of complex social, ecological, economic, cultural, and political processes, which must be observed in their regional and territorial contexts. The participation and inclusion of users and owners in decision-making as a co-management strategy is a key aspect in achieving forest sustainability and social and economic sustainability. Therefore, it is essential to modify intensive and productive management strategies to maintain the provision and adequate conservation of ES in the future. Achieving the proper management of forest resources also requires the consideration of several interrelated actors. Although decision-making can be seen from a hierarchical or top-down perspective, it is essential to involve local communities and encourage them to have greater autonomy in managing their territory as part of the next stage of SFM policy in communities that have achieved forestry development. Furthermore, interdependent relationships should be established with government orders and sectors that can improve decision-making in the management of forest resources from a more integrated and socioecosystemic perspective. These last subjects are undoubtedly part of the pending tasks for future studies on sustainable forest management from the perspective of multilevel governance, mainly because public policies have been in constant transformation, producing political, economic, social, and ecological changes in the current ways of managing forest territories.

6. Conclusions

Public forestry policies have developed institutions and rules at both the constitutional and operational levels that have allowed local communities with internal organization capacities to take advantage of the devolution of property rights, helping them to exert control over their forest resources, as occurs in LLG and LM.

In the cases studied, co-management strategies are evidenced through the adoption and influence of constitutional rules in community instruments for forest and land management, as well as in the adoption of operational and community rules that combine uses and customs with technical information and constitutional norms, making the precepts of the highest hierarchy compatible with the local uses and practices of the territory and the uses of forests. Co-management has been possible because the federal government recognized the property rights of local communities; however, technical management factors and the conditions for forest use continue to be determined hierarchically. Another effect of co-management strategies in these ejidos has been the consolidation of a forest identity, which is manifested through the interest in continuing to take advantage of forest management according to constitutional rules and public policies on the matter, including those that currently have been outlined mainly to increase productivity and competitiveness, and secondarily to the conservation and maintenance of the various ecosystem services that socioecosystems produce. Future environmental and SFM policies face major challenges in the face of climate change, which will be relevant to study and incorporate into technical and institutional decision-making processes to achieve better results for sustainable socioecosystem management.