65877 CaRbon RIghts In MEXICo a Case study by Francesca Felicani Robles and Leo Peskett Carbon Rights in Mexico I Key Points • Mexico’s laws do not specify ownership of sequestered carbon. Ownership, or substantive use rights of forests, should be the first step for determining the entity most likely to have rights to carbon sequestered by forests. We might presume that forest owners and right holders will be the direct beneficiaries of carbon sequestration rights in Mexico. • Because of the way land certification processes are regulated, it is likely that communities will have greater difficulties than the ejidos in receiving incentives from forestry programmes, such as payments for environmental services (PES). • PES schemes already implemented through the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) can be considered as a reference to develop PES linked to forest carbon sequestration activities. • Overlapping laws may make it difficult for communities to access REDD+ benefits. • Definition of the beneficiaries and modes of payment distribution are essential before rewarding performance in reducing emissions. • Smaller forest owners, indigenous peoples and the ejidatarios need to be provided with adequate and impartial advice about the costs and opportunities of REDD+. • Existing forest governance mechanisms can assist in covering gaps in communication between the national, sub-national and local level, thus facilitating the understanding of forest carbon rights and their implications at the community level. • Collective agreements could be used to reduce transaction costs in REDD+, and could build on existing institutions. However, efforts will be needed to ensure that all community members are properly represented in decision making and are able to access benefits. THE WORLD BANK II Carbon Rights in Mexico The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders. Supporting research for this document was carried out from July to October 2010. Cover photo by Curt Carnemark In light of recent international developments the remaining uncertainties in defining and underlining the key role of forest ecosystems allocating carbon rights. Furthermore, issues in climate change mitigation and adaptation, related to benefit-sharing and participation national governments are increasingly adopting of indigenous peoples and ejidos1 in REDD+ legislation aimed at regulating forest carbon programmes are addressed, highlighting the rights. implications for indigenous peoples and forest In Mexico, a draft law on climate change is communities in terms of potential economic currently under discussion at Parliamentary benefits, risks, and liabilities. level. The draft law would link adaptation and mitigation measures to sustainable development, taking into account the need to Forest and land tenure rights in create a “green fund�, a national register of Mexico: the key role of the carbon emissions, as well as a national “carbon communities and the ejidos market�. Currently, the national legal framework Forest resources does not specifically consider forest carbon rights. In Mexico, the land area covered by vegetation Consequently, owning an intangible resource, is 139 million hectares, equivalent to 73% such as actual or potentially sequestered carbon, of the total national area. In 2009, the forest area poses some challenges to the Mexican property was estimated at 65.5 million hectares. 80% law system. of forest lands are owned by 8,928 ejidos and In Mexico, the clarification of land tenure communities, representing between rights will be a crucial component of forest- thirteen and fifteen million inhabitants. based approaches to combat climate change and Box 1 define related carbon rights, especially as most an estimation of the forest property regime in Mexico of the forest land (70% of forest covered lands) is communal. Customary law, indigenous rights • After the 1992 agrarian reform, 70-80% of forest land is classified as social property ‘propiedad social’, owned by ejidos and communities. and cultural practices are also instrumental to • The major difference between an ejido and a community is that an ejido understanding the issues related to land tenure includes individual property rights for each ejidatario who have land user rights and community forestry practices. rights to their own parcel, whereas.in a community, communal lands This paper analyses the current legal follow the communitarian property scheme defined by each assembly. framework in a comprehensive way, outlining • 15% of forest lands are owned by private entities. relevant aspects of ownership rights on forest • 5% of forest lands belong to the Nation. lands as established by the Constitution (1917, Source: National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, 2007 last reformed in 2009), the Agrarian Law (1992) and the Forest Sustainable Development Law 1 The ejido system is a process whereby the government promotes the use of communal land shared by the people of (2003). This provides insights into who is likely the community. The land is divided in communal land and to hold forest carbon rights in Mexico and “parcelled land� owned by the ejidatarios. Carbon Rights in Mexico 1 Most of those communities are indigenous, ownership rights of the ejidos and communities and as such are considered marginal groups over their lands and regulates associative (National Institute of Statistics, Geography and agreements related to land use between the Informatics, 2007). ejidos, communities, the State, and third parties. The Constitution of the The Agrarian Law (1992) United States of Mexico According to the Constitution amended in In the mid-1980s, in response to communities’ 1992, the Agrarian Law (1992) regulates land requests, the Mexican government started ownership and user rights. The reform was reforming legislation in order to guarantee that quite controversial, allowing for the first time local communities and ejidos could benefit ever transactions and privatization of ejidal from social and economic returns generated by lands, if agreed by the assembly of ejidos.2 land and forests. Specifically, Article 2 of the A direct implication of this is that a private Constitution recognizes the right of indigenous owner could acquire land user rights from communities to access and use the natural different ejidos through a 99-year lease. This resources of their native lands. would enable him/her to become the right In relation to land tenure rights, Article holder of an extended land area from which 27 of the Constitution states that the Nation they could derive related benefits from land is the owner of the land and all the natural management to sequester carbon. resources of the territory. The Nation also has The law also consolidates the status quo the right to transfer the land property to private in relation to land distribution, banning the owners, which then can only be expropriated creation of additional ejidos or communities for public utility and after compensation. and the enlargement of the nucleos agrarios,3 Certain restrictions can be introduced in order thus limiting the ability of communities and to guarantee social benefits, the conservation ejidos to expand their areas in order to increase of natural resources, and equitable distribution the incentives received for forest management. of public incomes to rural populations. Only The Agrarian Law establishes three land Mexican citizens can own the land, yet under property regimes. Fifty percent of the land specific conditions, foreigners might be allowed surface is considered private property and to acquire property rights on land too. should be registered in the private property The law protects the integrity of indigenous register. The remaining 50% is called social lands, recognizing that indigenous peoples 2The assembly is the decision-body of the ejido composed are the owners of their lands. In respect of the by right holders (ejidatarios) who are members of the ejidos and communities’ traditions, the law community. regulates community land rights, establishing 3 A nucleo agrario is essentially a rural community that can mechanisms for sustainable land use. Finally, take one of two forms: Comunidad or ejido. The nucleos agrarios represent what is known in Mexico as the social Article 27 of the Constitution also guarantees land––or the non-private land. 2 Carbon Rights in Mexico … “ in response to communities’ requests, the Mexican government started reforming legislation in order to guarantee property (reformada) and belongs to the ejidos that local communities and (ejidal regime) and communities (communal ejidos could benefit from regime). This social property should be registered in the national agrarian register.4 social and economic returns To implement the 1992 reform, the generated by land and forests.� national land certification program, called Program for Certification of Rights to Ejido Lands (PROCEDE),5 was established to certify ejidatarian and communal land property rights, thus improving transparency on land tenure. This has three objectives: 1. Surveying and certifying land parcels; 2. Certifying rights to common use lands; and such as payment for environmental services. It is likely that the value of uncertified lands will 3. Titling urban plots for individuals. decrease in relation to forest lands certified by In relation to forests, the reform specifies that PROCEDE and designated for REDD+ schemes. forest lands can be sold only to the ejidatarios This could eventually generate tensions from the same ejido, unless the assembly between communities that do or don’t belong unanimously agrees to adopt the private to REDD+ selected areas, as well as emphasize property regime. Transactions of indigenous cross-boundary conflicts between neighboring communal lands cannot take place without a communities. decision by the assembly to adopt the regime Article 11 states that the assembly of of the ejidos. 78.4% of ejidatarian lands and the ejido might decide to adopt collective only 43.8% of communal lands are certified management practices, defining the mechanisms by PROCEDE with uncertified lands having to guarantee an equitable distribution of less clarity of land tenure rights. It is likely the incomes generated by the land to the that lands with greater clarity of tenure will owners (ejidatarios). The assembly approves be preferred for REDD+ projects. Therefore contracts and agreements related to the use given the current levels of certification and of communal lands by third parties,regulates clarity of land tenure, communities would land ownership, and defines land uses and have greater difficulties than the ejidos in territorial delimitations (Article 23). The ejidal receiving incentives from forestry programs, commission is the executive body designated to enforce the law and guarantee the ejidatarios’ 4Edijos and communities are organized in 30, 000 nucleos rights (Article 33). The effectiveness of agrarios and 95% of those communities are indigenous implementation of these procedures is likely people. 5 to change in relation to local context. Women Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares. and young people, considered as avecindados Carbon Rights in Mexico 3 Box 2 Agrarian conflicts are most effectively resolved the role of ejido assemblies in decisions over by the Land Bureau when land rights are benefit sharing from forest property certified by PROCEDE, as this provides clarity During the last decade, Mexican communities have increasingly invested on land tenure. time and resources in structuring the relationship between forest- The national agrarian register provides key dependent communities, their community forest enterprises (Empresas information on land tenure and land rights with Forestales Comunitarias—EFC), and communal forest property. For all the transactions related to land properties, example, the assembly can set up rules recognizing individual benefits land tenure rights, sentences and cases related coming from wood commercialization, or at the opposite end, state that all the benefits generated by wood production can be devolved to the to communal and ejidal lands registered (Article entire community. The assembly of San Juan Nuevo Parangaricutiro for 148). The internal regulations of the ejidos example, has assumed a balanced position, enacting individual parcel should also be registered (Article 10) which rights related to resin extraction, but allowing the establishment of guarantees legal recognition of their duties, EFCs if community management plans are in place. In Tamaulipas, the rights and responsibilities. assembly has established parcel rights as well as community forest rights on the basis of their management plans. The assembly can also define The Forest Sustainable the different uses of the communal land, for example for ecotourism purposes or livestock production. In fact, each assembly, according to Development Law (2003) Articles 24, 28 and 31, can determine the category of land uses, based on This law implements the Constitution (Article the technical norms established by the national agrarian register (Article 27) defining the competencies of the Federation, 56). Besides, for purposes of public ejidiatarian utility, land property can States, Federal District and municipalities be transferred to commercial companies with the participation of the in relation to forest resource management. ejidos (Article 75). The ejidiatarios are also allowed to transfer their parcel rights to other ejidatarios or avecindados from the same community, In particular, Article 1 establishes that following the requirements established by Article 80. community and indigenous property rights on forests are regulated by Article 2 of the Constitution. Article 5 states that the property (neighbors), are often excluded from the of forest resources correspond to the ejidos, decision-making processes. Therefore, the risk communities, indigenous people, physical and of elite capture is present in the distribution of moral entities, the Federation, States, Federal REDD+ incentives within ejidos. District and municipalities according to their Regarding indigenous rights, government respective land ownership. authorities should assure land property rights In this regard, Article 59 of the Agrarian for them, according to the regulation of Article Law states that forest lands cannot be divided 4 and Article 27 VII, par. 2 of the Constitution in parcels, meaning that in the ejidos most (Article 106). forest lands should be for communal uses, The enforcement of the Agrarian Law is particularly in relation to temperate pine undertaken by the Land Bureau, which ensures and oak trees. However, individuals can own that due process is followed in the application small forest properties, equivalent to 800 of the law and fulfils an ombudsman role. hectares (Article 119). For example, coffee 4 Carbon Rights in Mexico Photo by Curt Carnemark Carbon Rights in Mexico 5 “REDD+ is likely to be more successfully implemented where proper federal and state legislation is applied thoroughly and without and environmental laws, communities have experienced difficulties in obtaining forest hindrance. permits. Interpreting forest carbon rights: what are the options? Given the aforementioned implications of the plantations, owned by ejidatarios producers agrarian law, forest management practices or private owners, are considered as important aiming to comply with REDD+ requirements providers of environmental services. In this must be linked to existing regulations and regard, CONAFOR has established a program customary practices of the ejidos and agrarian on environmental services for agroforestry communities, thus taking into account the systems. REDD+ could follow a similar scheme federal legal frameworks. recognizing the ejidatarian parcel rights certified As outlined in the previous section, by PROCEDE and defining the rights linked to to determine ownership rights of carbon forest carbon sequestration. sequestered by forests, national registers provide Regarding participatory processes, Article important data to verify the current state of 155 establishes the creation of a consultative forest tenure property rights, particularly if body, the National Forest Council (CONAF), to certified by PROCEDE. strengthen the participation of forest related However, in the absence of specific REDD+ institutions, non-governmental actors and legislation, forest carbon rights must be local stakeholders in the implementation of determined on a case by case basis, in the light forest policy and forest related instruments. of the existing norms. Presumably, the first step The Regional and State Forest Councils assist should be to define ownership or substantive the CONAF in the States, whereas the entities use rights of forests, in order to identify the called promotorías de desarrollo forestal entities most likely entitled to own carbon promote the implementation of the forest policy rights. This is certainly the case in Mexico, at the district level (Article 23). where 80 % of forests are under a communal The law establishes a national forest register property regime. In particular, according to their (Article 51) which should be linked to the internal rules, ejidos and agrarian communities’ national agriculture register. All transactions assemblies are the principal decision making related to forest land properties, uses, usufruct bodies regarding the apportionment of land rights, forest services, and forest management and forest tenure rights. Appropriate national plans should be included in it (Article 51 par. registers guarantee the legitimacy of these VIII). However due to overlaps between wildlife decisions. 6 Carbon Rights in Mexico REDD+ is likely to be more successfully As an example, CONAFOR is already implemented where proper federal and state promoting payments for hydrological legislation is applied thoroughly and without environmental services provided by local hindrance. In this respect, the technical rules communities and this offers some insights into (Normas Oficiales Mexicanas) are instrumental how such a system might be applied in REDD+ in defining duties and responsibilities of (Box 2). Moreover, in July 2010, CONAFOR forest owners concerning sustainable forest published the new “guidelines to promote local management practices. To undertake forest mechanisms for environmental services through management, forest owners or right holders concurrent funds� in order to encourage and need first of all to obtain permits issued by strengthen the creation of local PES. These the Ministry of Environment and Natural establish eligibility criteria and procedures Resources (SEMARNAT) and to elaborate forest for participation, including a “letter of intent� management programs, with the assistance of CONAFOR. Therefore, the role of SEMARNAT Box 3 and CONAFOR, acting as supervisors in the Payment for Environmental hydrological the establishment of local sustainable forest services Programme in Mexico management practices, will also be fundamental to ensure a correct level of implementation of The Mexican Programme for the Payment for Environmental Hydrological Services defines a system of payments for services, REDD+. They will also fulfill this role if we including the protection, management and restoration of assume that sequestering forest carbon can be watersheds, in non-commercial forestry areas. Payments are considered as an ecosystem service linked to the generated through a trust fund managed by CONAGUA (Water sustainable management of forests. National Commission). To be eligible, forests require more than In this regard, article 7 of the forest 80 per cent density and to be located in overexploited aquifers, development law (2003) considers sequestered with nearby population centres of at least 5,000 inhabitants. carbon as an environmental service. However, Each forest owner cannot register more than 200 hectares, in order to avoid the risk of monopolization of payments. Contracts there is no specific paragraph concerning the provide a tree-harvesting ban in the forest surrounding the ownership of sequestered carbon. We might protected areas, to prevent intra-property losses. In case of therefore presume that forest owners, such as intentional land-use change, the forest owner receives no ejidatarios, communities and private owners, payment. If deforestation occurs for other reasons (e.g., forest will be the direct beneficiaries of incentives fire or timber theft), then the owner is paid only for the part of for carbon sequestration. In this regard, article the forest that was preserved. Monitoring is carried out on the basis of satellite images. Between 2003 and 2005, satellite 32 underlines that forest owners or right images showed that less than 0.01 percent of areas protected by holders should be directly involved in the the programme were deforested, in comparison with a national multiple uses of the goods and environmental average deforestation rate of one percent per year. Forest fires services provided by forests, including carbon and non-intentional land-use changes caused the majority of sequestration. losses. Source: Karousakis (2007); Costenbader (2009) Carbon Rights in Mexico 7 to CONAFOR identifying the parties that are the category of beneficiaries, the payment interested and describing the area that will mechanisms, monitoring and verification benefit from the incentives derived from the systems, sanctions for non compliance, and the environmental services.6 Similar procedures procedural aspects for the submission of the may be expected in a future REDD+ system. In applications. Special safeguards are guaranteed 2009, thirteen agreements had been signed for to ejidos and communities through a set of a total amount of more than 87 million pesos, criteria establishing the order of priority. corresponding to 45 million pesos coming from CONAFOR and 44 million from counterparts How could agreements between (national institutions, private companies, civil buyers and sellers be regulated? society, physical and moral entities). Local PES Private contracts and covenants are the will be established over an area of more than principal instruments to regulate the interests 90,000 hectares and involving 326 beneficiaries of different parties. To stipulate a contract, (ejidos, communities and small owners). the federal civil code requires an agreement Seventeen agreements are currently in force, between the contracting parties and the covering the period 2008-2009. definition of the object. Contracts could be In relation to REDD+, the most relevant stipulated between local land owners and PES scheme is the ‘Pro�rbol‘ program, now buyers of carbon sequestration rights, and implemented in an area of 2.2 million hectares CONAFOR as guarantor for third parties dealing (an increase from 146,000 hectares in 2006). with local communities. Pro�rbol is the major federal forest program To reduce transaction costs, potential aiming to support local forest owners and buyers of carbon rights would presumably be right holders in carrying out activities of encouraged to invest in projects covering an forest protection, conservation, restoration, extended forest area, implying cooperation and sustainable forest management practices. agreements among local land owners. In this The objective in 2011 is to reach 2.6 million case, a contract of sale, as it is defined by the hectares. To that end the SEMARNAT expects Civil Code, could be used to define rights to integrate the funds of REDD+, negotiated and duties of the contracting parties. In this during COP16 in Cancun, into the ‘Proárbol’ regard, the civil code states that the object of scheme. According to the Forest Sustainable the contract must “exist in nature�, therefore Development Law (2003), CONAFOR is the object must be determined and able to be responsible to implement in a transparent and commercialized. Carbon dioxide exists in the efficient way the PES forestry programs. The atmosphere and it can be quantified, while operational rules of ‘Proárbol‘ 2010 define the intention of the parties to conclude the agreement is expressed by the contract itself. 6www.conafor.gob.mx. “Programa de mecanismos locales de pago por servicios ambientales a través de fondos Private contracts have the advantage that any concurrentes�. 8 Carbon Rights in Mexico stakeholder can take part in the agreement, even of reforestation, and forest protection, if they cannot solve the challenge of establishing conservation, plantation, and payments for the necessary methodologies to adequately environmental services. Different annexes measure the stock of carbon sequestered should be included, being part of the agreement, (CEMDA, 2010). in relation to each activity financed by Another solution would be to regulate and CONAFOR.7 This scheme might be a valuable harmonize those aspects through the elaboration option for REDD+ programs, while taking of specific norms according to Article 55 of into account the need to specify the criteria of the Forest Sustainable Development Law eligibility and norms defining the nature and (2003). Particularly, SEMARNAT can define ownership of carbon rights. the conceptual framework for certain aspects of How can the rights of communities and forest carbon rights, adopting a set of technical indigenous peoples be protected under REDD+ norms (normas mexicanas en material forestal), schemes? aiming to characterise what forest carbon The overall trend is that community forestry rights should encompass under a workable in Mexico has been successful to develop multi- forest carbon regime. Those technical norms functional uses of forests at the local level, might also define what the rights, duties, and including carbon sequestration (Kaimowitz, responsibilities of the parties are in terms of 2004). However, the analysis has highlighted risks and liability in relation to carbon sales. a number of legal issues which will need to be This second option could be considered carefully considered in implementing REDD+ in as the regulatory framework in relation to a way which protects the rights of communities contracts dealing with carbon rights. Those and indigenous peoples in Mexico: technical norms could define the duties and responsibilities of the parties while containing Safeguarding communal land safeguard provisions aiming to balance benefits management practices between local communities, outside investors, Unclear land tenure rights may be the major risk and CONAFOR while incorporating guarantees affecting indigenous peoples’ and communities’ that carbon will be stored for the specified participation in REDD+ programs, despite the contract period. fact that some of the greatest opportunities Finally, according to the ‘Proárbol’ technical for sequestering forest carbon may occur on rules, an agreement ‘convenio de adhesión’ their lands. Therefore, safeguarding communal should be subscribed between regional and land management practices will be pivotal subregional entities acting for CONAFOR to effectively implement REDD+ programs. and the beneficiaries of ‘Proárbol’ subsidies Certified rights under the PROCEDE program that are: a) individuals (Mexican citizens), b) will certainly facilitate land users to benefit ejidos and communities, or c) associations/ 7Reglas de operación del programa Proárbol 2010. private companies––to comply with activities www.conafor.gob.mx. Carbon Rights in Mexico 9 T “ he overall trend is that community forestry in Mexico has been successful to develop multi-functional uses of forests at the local Ensuring the clarity of benefit sharing in level, including carbon laws and legal processes sequestration � Clarity in national laws and sub-national programs to implement benefit sharing principles are paramount in defining and allocating benefits among the ejidos and local communities, thus facilitating the permanence of carbon emissions reductions and attracting long-term investments in the country. Legislation on REDD+ should incorporate clear and harmonized legal procedures and from CONAFOR’s PES incentives. However, it rules, allowing for open participation among may be a risk to associate carbon rights solely actors at sub-national and national levels, in with certified land rights under PROCEDE, as order to ensure the successful and equitable most indigenous lands have not been certified distribution of REDD+ benefits. Cross-sectoral under this scheme. initiatives, such as the working group created in December 2009 focused on reducing Reducing overlaps between laws emissions from deforestation and degradation One of the main impediments to sound forest and increasing carbon forest stocks linked management practices is the overlap of laws to sustainable management (GT-REDD+), and regulations mentioned earlier. This are certainly very important instruments to contributes to the generation of local conflicts, harmonize, develop and successfully implement for example surrounding the allocation of forest national public policies related to REDD+.9 management permits, and it also limits the According to those principles, the access to benefits coming from forests.8 This operational rules of ‘Proárbol’ ensure an existing lack of clarity highlights how important equitable and non-discriminatory access for it will be that the formulation of carbon trading women and indigenous people to CONAFOR‘s rules is extremely clear and simple. subsidies (article 32). Presumably, similar Standardized measures such as standardized provisions could be considered to implement carbon emissions reference levels should also REDD+ schemes. be developed and implemented where possible, in order to simplify rule making (UN-REDD Programme, 2008). 9 The general direction on climate change policies of the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources 8The Land Bureau revealed the existence of 1248 agrarian (SEMARNAT) and the International Affairs Unit of conflicts in 2007. CONAFOR are the leaders of the group. 10 Carbon Rights in Mexico Increasing awareness of the costs and fact, there are unions of ejidos that have the opportunities related to REDD+ juridical status to act for their communities Smaller forest owners, indigenous peoples and in receiving payments from CONAFOR for the ejidatarios should have adequate awareness the environmental services provided by about the costs and opportunities related to communities. A pragmatic solution could be REDD+ programs. Legal provisions should that those existing entities act as parties in clarify the mechanisms of such procedures the contracts while representing the entire as well as how community land rights and community. responsibilities are affected, using the existing However, the low participation of young PES schemes. In this regard, prior informed generations in ejidatarios’ assemblies and consent should be provided, particularly their weak involvement in the decision- to local and indigenous communities.10 making processes could bring into question the Capacities should be developed at the local effectiveness of using existing local structures level to facilitate the understanding of the to implement REDD+ and enhance equity. forest legal framework, thus enabling local Efforts will need to be made to facilitate the users to overcome the lack of clarity of the legal involvement of younger generations in these framework. processes. CONAFOR already plays a key role in To facilitate the ejidal commissions assuring transparency of transactions in implementing land users’ rights, groups of implementing local environmental services technicians called promotores from the national programs related to carbon sequestration. Such forest commission (CONAFOR), could help intermediaries could also play an important formulate the related management plans role in ensuring that the costs and opportunities and provide clarifications related to their of REDD+ are properly understood by implementation. communities at the local level. Reducing transaction costs through collective agreements In order to reduce transaction costs and include communities and ejidatarios’ participation, collective agreements can be used to negotiate carbon contracts with community land owners through the intermediary of CONAFOR. In 10 These provisions are inspired by the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision- making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention), Aarhus, 25 June 1998, Article 4. Carbon Rights in Mexico 11 References Legislation Bray. D., Merino. L, Barry. D., 2007. Los bosques Mexico, Constitution of the United States of Mexico. comunitarios de México. Manejo sustentable de paisajes 1917, last reform 2009. Available at: http://www. forestales. NE- SEMARNAT. diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/cpeum.htm. CEMDA, 2010. Tesis privada sobre contratos privados Mexico, Agrarian Law. 1992. Available at: http://faolex. para la compraventa de CO2. Centro Mexicano de fao.org/faolex_spa/index.htm. Derecho Ambiental. Condesa, México. Mexico, Agrarian Regulation. 1993. Available at: http:// Chapela. F., 2010. Silvicultura comunitaria y cambio faolex.fao.org/faolex_spa/index.htm. climático. Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, A.C. Mexico, Environmental Law 1988, last reform 2010. CONAFOR, 2009. Sistema nacional de información Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/faolex_spa/index.htm. forestal. Indicadores de desempeño ambiental. Mexico, Forest Sustainable Development Law. 2003. CONAPO, 2009. La situación demográfica de México Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/faolex_spa/index.htm. en 2008. CONAPO. Available online at http://www. conapo.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view= Mexico, Forest Sustainable Development Regulation. article&id=269&Itemid=344 2005. Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/faolex_spa/ index.htm. Costenbader. J., 2009. Legal frameworks for REDD. IUCN. Mexico, Wildlife Law. 2000, last reform 2010. Availabe at: http://faolex.fao.org/faolex_spa/index.htm. National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, 2007. (INEGI) Población rural y urbana en México. Kaimowitz. D., 2004. Los bosques comunitarios de México. Logros y desafíos. Center for Internacional Forest Research (CIFOR). Merino Pérez. L. Procesos de uso y gestión de los recursos naturales comunes. Instituto de Investigaciones sociales. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. UN-REDD Programme, 2008. Summary report of the Global Indigenous Peoples Consultation on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Baguio City, Philippines. 12 Carbon Rights in Mexico Carbon Rights in Mexico 13 THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Telephone: (202) 473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/sdcc 14 Carbon Rights in Mexico Email: socialdevelopment@worldbank.org.