Table 6. Benefit-sharing from use of forest resources


Community Benefits reaching community? Within community: distribution of benefits and decision-making
Mexico
Caobas Profits kept within ejido. Profits from timber are equally distributed among ejidatarios, marginalizing non-ejidatarios (repobladores). Repobladores are not involved in decision making, and do not have the same land and resource rights. Only ejidatarios get a vote in community assembly, and have a say in forestry decision making.
Yaxcabá Profits from masks and charcoal kept within ejidos. There are no community projects, so each ejidatario benefits as much as they put in. Repobladores are not involved in decision making, and do not have the same land and resource rights. Only ejidatarios get a vote in community assembly.
Naranjal Poniente Profits kept within ejido. Profits from timber are equally distributed among ejidatarios, marginalizing repobladores. Repobladores are not involved in decision making, and do not have the same land and resource rights. Only ejidatarios get a vote in community assembly, and have a say in forestry decision making.
Brazil
Mazagão Profits kept within community; directly to smallholder or sawmill owner. No community projects so far. Some smallholders may have more valuable timber on their land than others. Decision making occurs at the household level.
OCT Profits kept within community. 5% profits to community fund, for all to benefit. Artisans retain most of the profits, but anyone can join the group. Community has decision-making power over forest resource, participates in the OCT decision making,
MAFLOPS Company takes a cut of profits by paying the colonist a lower than market price for their timber. Company-colonist relationship criticized for being unequal, commercial contracts were being questioned by social movements as not having many advantages for the colonists. Each colonist has his/her own contract with the company and is paid directly by the company. Some complaints that the initial engagement of the company was a decision of the community leaders alone, others felt they had no choice if they wanted roads built in the settlement (see Hajjar et al. 2011).