Approaches

Participative actions for economic benefits of agave forestry [Mexico]

Recuperación de tierras degradadas por agaveforestería a través de acciones participativas para beneficios económicos (Spanish)

approaches_2436 - Mexico

Completeness: 92%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Martínez Palacios Alejandro

Tel (443) 334-0475, Ext. 119

apalacios56@gmail.com

Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias y Forestales, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo (IIAF-UMSNH)

Morelia-Zinapecuaro, Tarímbaro, Michoacán 58330, México

Mexico

SLM specialist:

Ríos Patrón Eduardo

01 (443) 3226017

eduardo.rios@semarnat.gob.mx

Delegación de SEMARNAT (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente) en Michoacán, Unidad de Planeación y Política Ambienta

Morelia, Michoacán

Mexico

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD) - France
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias y Forestales (IIAF) - Mexico
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
SECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS NATURALES (SECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS NATURALES) - Mexico

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Land reclamation by agave forestry with native species
technologies

Land reclamation by agave forestry with native species [Mexico]

Agave forestry land reclamation system with native agaves, trees, shrubs and grasses planted through participatory action for a sustainable production of mezcal and other products in order to generate high incomes for farmers.

  • Compiler: Christian Prat

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Land reclamation with local agave (to produce Mezcal) associated with trees, shrubs and grasses planted through participative actions for economic benefit.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Rehabilitation of degraded land is achieved by using native agave (Agave inaequidens) and trees, shrubs and grasses which creates, over the medium-term (7-10 year), a sustainable production of an alcoholic drink (mezcal) and/or pharmaceutical products and/or fodder for cattle and/or wood. Further objectives are water conservation, biodiversity, generation of permanent employment (plant reproduction, planting, alcoholic drink/ pharmaceutical production), carbon sequestration, generation of higher family incomes and a reduction in the amount of livestock and number of animals and uncontrolled grazing (the main cause of soil erosion). These positive impacts of the approach contribute to preventing the rural population from emigrating to the cities or abroad.

Methods: Coordination, cooperation and systematic participatory process among stakeholders are the basis of the approach. Promoting participatory processes occurs through workshops, interviews with community leaders, field visits conducted with owners of the land to recognize the problems and identify areas of opportunity, training courses, exchange of experiences with other people who are developing similar projects at different stages. Technical advice and the links with scientists, technicians and public officials in charge of project beneficiaries is given under a two-way process of mutual learning and seeking to strengthen self-management capabilities that inspires innovation at the different stages. The key to success of a participatory approach lies in liberating and developing community leadership and self-organization processes.

Stages of implementation: The project is part of a regional planning context and a basin scale approach of intervention. The watershed of the site project is included in a special programme of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico which gives the opportunity of developing and financing a medium- to long-term project. The participatory process is delivered from planning, organizing, programming and implementing to financing, training, monitoring and disseminating the results. The strategic perspective of the project includes capacity-building of land owners for greenhouse and nursery management, the technical assessment for the improvement of the agave forestry system, guidance with quality production of mezcal and marketing support to diversify products and sell them in order to make the project financially self-sustaining and profitable. All these stages range from short- to medium- and long-term.

Role of stakeholders: The government finances the project through grant resources, promotes the participation of beneficiaries and monitors it, seeking the management of resources and intersectoral participation. Scientists and academics share their knowledge, techniques and methodologies for implementation, improvement, evaluation and monitoring of each stage, and they support capacity-building of the community. The owners of the land and the community implement and develop each of the activities from building and maintaining the greenhouse and nursery, planting agaves, trees and shrubs, to the use and production of mezcal and other commercial products.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Mexico

Region/ State/ Province:

Mexico/Michoacán state

Further specification of location:

Morelia

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2009

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2012

2.7 Type of Approach

  • Traditional, innovative and project based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (registered alcohol production, cattle fodder, medicine uses, biodiversity conservation, wood)

Rehabilitation of degraded land is done using native agave (Agave inaequidens), trees, shrubs and grasses which creates, over the medium-term (7-10 years) sustainable production of an alcoholic drink (mezcal) and/or pharmaceutical products and/or fodder for cattle and/or wood.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Social and economic problems: Agriculture and livestock in the region are primarily for subsistence. The level of poverty and marginalization of the people of the project site is medium to high with low education levels. People need to migrate to the cities or outside the country to supplement the family budget. Prices of farmer productions are too low and do not allow economic survival. Therefore, only 10 to 20% of the total incomes are derived from agricultural products! This explains why the children of farmers do not want to become farmers and lands are less and less cultivated. In correlation, as the livestock price is good and animals can be raised with little input of time. Thus the number of animals is increasing and as they are grazing everywhere, they have a strong soil erosion impact.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

The social arrangement of the “ejido” requires all people to agree on moving forward with different activities. The level of education and migration.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Systematic and constant promotion of the participatory process through community assembly meetings, workshops, community exchange travel, experiences and training. Promote complementarity and targeting of resources from other sectors.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Potential constraints in the final stages of the project when receiving revenue from the sale of mezcal and other products.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Strengthening capacities of organization and administration, promoting transparency and accountability in the community. Development and consolidation of the formation of cooperatives as an alternative to social enterprise.

institutional setting
  • hindering

The risk that the six-year change in administration does not follow the care programme in the area.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Strengthening self-management capabilities of the group of beneficiaries of the project. Involving other government levels and sectors funding training and monitoring of subsequent stages.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation

  • hindering

Federal, state and municipal regulations for preventing clearance of woods, biodiversity uses, forest exploitation, water concessions and water quality must be applied. Mexican official standards of mezcal production must be used

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Conduct a thorough review with a focus on prospective different stages of a project and the legal implications and regulations that must be met at these stages. Inform land owners about their rights, obligations and mechanisms of fulfilment.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of validation and technology transfer of agave forestry. Lack of information on the requirements of these species of agave. Potential risk to move from non-intensive system to an intensive one due to economic and market factors.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Development of technological packages for an agave forestry system as a basis for the production of mezcal, considering soil erosion levels and system arrangements. Promote only ecologically diversified, non-intensive systems. Design environmental and ecological monitoring stage.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Traditionally, women have been more responsible for the house and the area close to it. They are less involved in the field activities of the agave forestry project, but are involved in production and commercialization. On the other hand, women are worried about the possible impacts of alcoholic drink on communities, because alcoholism is a social concern. There has been no discrimination inside the communities up to now

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • teachers/ school children/ students
  • private sector
  • local government
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
  • international organization
  • administration and authorities; women
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation self-mobilization Balance alternatives and take decision to test the agave forestry
planning interactive Planning, organizing and programming the project, defining responsibilities, time and initial investment. Identification of agave seeds and a proper place to install the greenhouse and nursery.
implementation self-mobilization Building and maintenance of greenhouse and nursery, selecting the sites for the plantation and planting. Training of land users by other land users to produce mescal according to quality rules for a recognized product.
monitoring/ evaluation self-mobilization In each field: monitoring plant growth, status of the protection against cattle grazing, indications of soil erosion.
Research interactive Monitoring by some land users of some parameters defined by scientists.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Workshop with women from eight rural communities of the Calabozo - Potrerillos watershed. They are defining their problems and proposing solutions. EU-DESIRE project and small catchments SEMARNAT project, San Rafael Coapa community, Morelia municipality, April 2010

Author:

Christian Prat

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Were decisions on the selection of the Technology(ies) made:
  • all of them
Explain:

It is the result of proposals, visits and discussions between all the stakeholders, so it is a joint decision.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by all of them. It is the result of proposals, visits and discussions between all the stakeholders, so it is a joint decision.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Training focused on explaining which plants to select for seeds, how to create and maintain plants in greenhouses, how to transplant them and how to organise their planting in the field depending on the aim (scattered for production or in rows to create a green barrier formed from trees, shrubs, grasses and agaves)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Plant (native agave, trees, shrubs, grasses) production advises; Key elements: Plant selection, Management of plants under greenhouse

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
  • transport

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Biodiversity, water quality, water usage, degradation and soil rehabilitation indicators.

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Participatory collection of data by landowners, public officials and technicians.

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Indicators of improvement of technical capabilities of the nursery operators, capacity building for the production of mezcal and other products and comparative indicators of different arrangements of agrosystems based on other biophysical and economic indicators.

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Migration, poverty, education indicators by surveys and statistical models

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Indicators of profitability, revenue from each stage per person, economic valuation of soil improvement

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

No information exists about the production conditions of this agave species, especially concerning the sugar quantity and quality produced by the plant which will be used for alcoholic drink production (e.g. whether it grows better in the shade or in full sunlight, or more appropriate for mature or young plants).

Research was carried out on station

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (estimated budget by ha, without alcoholic drink production ): 80.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 10.0%; local community / land user(s): 10.0%; other

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools partly financed shovel, hammer, pickaxe
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
plastic bags for plants, soil, compost partly financed
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
stone partly financed
wood partly financed
metal tube, plastic for greenhouse partly financed

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

it is a new and easily-implemented technology with a high economic potential (commercialisation of products of very high value)

it is too early to judge, but it is supposed to improve it

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • payments/ subsidies
  • environmental consciousness
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The project is done in a participative way where different kinds of stakeholders are involved: administrators, politicians, scientists and the public. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of the interaction between stakeholders from the workshops, present results to other authorities and appropriate fora.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Productive project which generates economic benefits over the medium-term (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: as a result of the money earned, it will be possible to extend the area concerned and subsides will not be necessary anymore )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Women particularly, are worried about the possibility of the increase in alcohol consumption since alcoholic drink will be produced in a semi-industrial way for the external market, it is not supposed to be consumed by the communities themselves
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Selling alcoholic drink is not necessarily beneficial from a health and societal point of view maintenance of a campaign to reduce consumption and develop a responsible attitude to alcohol

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

DESIRE project Mexico partner (IRD 22)

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.desire-project.eu/ free

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules