Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T14:19:22.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not the same for everyone: Community views of Mexico's payment for environmental services programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

LUCIA ALMEIDA-LEÑERO ,
DANIEL REVOLLO-FERNÁNDEZ ,
ANGELA CARO-BORRERO ,
ISABEL RUIZ-MALLÉN ,
ESTEVE CORBERA ,
MARISA MAZARI-HIRIART  and
FERNANDA FIGUEROA
LUCIA ALMEIDA-LEÑERO
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias – Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Mexico City, Mexico
DANIEL REVOLLO-FERNÁNDEZ
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Ecología, Mexico City, Mexico CONACYT-Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapotzalco, Mexico City, Mexico
ANGELA CARO-BORRERO
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias – Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Mexico City, Mexico
ISABEL RUIZ-MALLÉN
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
ESTEVE CORBERA
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – Department of Economics and Economic History, Barcelona, Spain
MARISA MAZARI-HIRIART
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Ecología, Mexico City, Mexico
FERNANDA FIGUEROA*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias – Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Mexico City, Mexico
*
*Correspondence: Dr. Fernanda Figueroa e-mail: ffigueroa@ciencias.unam.mx
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Conservation policies have often been designed and implemented assuming that targeted communities are socially and politically homogeneous. Payment for environmental services (PES) programmes have often overlooked intra-community differences, which affect the understanding of implementation requirements and access to benefits, thus underestimating their effects on the programme's legitimacy and impacts. We explore how the views of local communities about the socio-environmental performance and dynamics of Mexico's PES differ within forest communities, considering two groups: local community authorities and the remaining beneficiaries in two different PES programmes. Informed by a nationwide survey, we constructed 35 indicators and found significant differences between these groups for 10 indicators. Local community authorities concentrated knowledge and information, relations with outside actors and control over benefit distribution. We found that community authorities and beneficiaries diverged in their views about the extent to which PES knowledge is shared across community members, how related implementation decisions are pursued and the fairness of benefit distribution, which we argue suggests this is a form of ‘elite capture’ favoured by PES design and implementation. Efforts should be invested in ensuring that PES programme benefits are equitably distributed in order to avoid widening pre-existing social and political asymmetries.

Keywords

elite captureequityforest conservationMexicosocial heterogeneity

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 201 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agrawal, A. (2012) Local institutions and governance of forest commons. In: Comparative Environmental Politics: Theory, Practice, and Prospects, eds. Steinberg, P.F. & VanDeveer, S.D., pp. 313–340. Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C.C. (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27 (4): 629–649.Google Scholar
Alix-García, J., De Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E. & Torres, J.M. (2009) Lessons learned from Mexico's payment for ecosystem services program. In: Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes: Economic Policies and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries, eds. Lipper, L., Sakuyama, T., Stringer, R. & Zilberman, D., pp. 163–188. London, UK: FAO & Springer.Google Scholar
Alix-Garcia, J., Shapiro, E.N. & Sims, K.R.E. (2010) The environmental effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: Preliminary lessons for REDD [www document]. URL http://www.aae.wisc.edu/events/papers/DevEcon/2010/alix-garcia.05.06.pdf Google Scholar
Alix-Garcia, J., Shapiro-Garza, E. & Sims, K. (2012) Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico's National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Economics 88 (4): 613–638.Google Scholar
Asquith, N.M., Vargas, M.T. & Wunder, S. (2008) Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65: 675–684.Google Scholar
Barnaud, C. & Van Paassen, A. (2013) Equity, power games, and legitimacy: Dilemmas of participatory natural resource management. Ecology and Society 18 (2): 21.Google Scholar
Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C. (2002) Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15: 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro-Borrero, A., Corbera, E., Neitzel, K.C. & Almeida, L. (2015) “We are the city lungs”: Payments for ecosystem services in the outskirts of Mexico City. Land Use Policy 43: 138–148.Google Scholar
Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., MacNeil, M.A., Graham, N.A.J., Daw, T.M., Mukminin, A., Feary, D.A., Rabearisoa, A.L., Wamukota, A., Jiddawi, N., Campbell, S.J., Baird, A.H., Januchowski-Hartley, F.A., Hamed, S., Lahari, R., Morove, T. & Kuange, J. (2012) Co-management of coral reef social–ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A 109 (14): 5219–5222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CONAFOR (2015) Programa Anual del Trabajo 2015, Gerencia de Servicios Ambientales del Bosque. Mexico City, Mexico: CONAFOR & SEMARNAT.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N. & Martinez-Tuna, M. (2007) Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protect areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17: 365–380.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., González-Soberanis, C. & Brown, K. (2009) Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68: 743–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (2014) ACUERDO por el que se emiten las Reglas de Operación del Programa Nacional Forestal 2015 [www document]. URL http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5377547&fecha=28/12/2014 Google Scholar
Durand, L., Figueroa, F. & Trench, T. (2014) Inclusion and exclusion in participation strategies in the Montes Azules Biophere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico. Conservation and Society 12 (2): 175–189.Google Scholar
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 64 (4): 663–674.Google Scholar
Figueroa, F. & Durand, L. (2015) Poder, élites locales y gobernanza ambiental. In: Gobernanza Económica y Ambiental: Políticas y Prácticas Socio-territoriales, eds. Rosales-Ortega, R. & Brenner, L., pp: 231–249. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana – Iztapalapa.Google Scholar
Hejnowicz, A.P., Raffaelli, D.G., Rudd, M.A. & White, P.C.L. (2014) Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework Ecosystem Services 9: 83–97.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, C.Y. & Corbera, E. (2015) Participation dynamics and institutional change in the Scolel Té carbon forestry project, Chiapas, Mexico. Geoforum 59: 63–72.Google Scholar
Ishihara, H. & Pascual, U. (2009) Social capital in community level environmental governance: A critique. Ecological Economics 68: 1549–1562.Google Scholar
Kerr, J., Vardhan, M. & Jindal, R. (2012) Prosocial behaviour and incentives: Evidence from field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania. Ecological Economics 73: 220–227.Google Scholar
Klooster, D. (2000) Institutional choice, community, and struggle: A case study of forest co-management in Mexico. World Development 28: 1–20.Google Scholar
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E. & Brown, K. (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: Case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39 (6): 2073–2083.Google Scholar
Li, T.M. (2002) Engaging simplifications: Community-based resource management, market processes and state agendas in upland Southeast Asia. World Development 30 (2): 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Méndez-López, M. E., García-Frapolli, E., Pritchard, D.J., Sánchez-González, M.C., Ruíz-Mallén, I., Porter-Bolland, L. & Reyes-García, V. (2014) Local participation in biodiversity conservation initiatives: A comparative analysis of different models in South East Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management 145: 321–329.Google Scholar
Merino, L. & Martínez, A.E. (2014) A Vuelo de Pájaro. Las Condiciones de las Comunidades con Bosques Templados en México. Mexico City, Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.Google Scholar
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. & May, P.H. (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1202–1208.Google Scholar
Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine de Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gowdy, J., Kosoy, N., Le Coq, J.F., Leroy, P., May, P., Méral, P., Mibielli, P., Norgaard, R., Ozkaynak, B., Pascual, U., Pengue, W., Perez, M., Pesche, D., Pirard, R., Ramos-Martin, J., Rival, L., Saenz, F., Van Hecken, G., Vatn, A., Vira, B. & Urama, K. (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conservation Letters 6 (4): 274–279.Google Scholar
Neitzel, K.C., Caro-Borrero, A.P., Revollo-Fernández, D., Ramos Ramos-Elorduy, A., Aguilar-Ibarra, A. & Almeida-Leñero, L. (2014) Paying for environmental services: Determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context. Forest Policy and Economics 38: 46–55.Google Scholar
Nygren, A. (2005) Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras. World Development 33 (4): 639–655.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65: 712–724.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A. & Platais, G. (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33: 237–253.Google Scholar
Pascual, U., Muradian, R, Rodríguez, L.C. & Duraiappah, A. (2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69: 1237–1244.Google Scholar
Perevochtchikova, M. & Rojo-Negrete, I.A. (2015) The perceptions about payments schemes for ecosystem services: Study case of the San Miguel and Santo Tomás Ajusco community, Mexico. Ecosystem Services 14: 27–36.Google Scholar
Peterson, N.D. (2011) Excluding to include: (Non) participation in Mexican natural resource management. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 99–107.Google Scholar
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S. & Reyes-García, V. (2012) Working forests and protected areas: An assessment of their effect for tropical conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17.Google Scholar
Porter-Bolland, L., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Camacho-Benavides, C. I. & McCandless, S. (2013) Community Action for Conservation: Mexican Experiences. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PUMA (Programa Universitario de Medio Ambiente)-CONAFOR (2012) Evaluación Complementaria del Ejercicio de los Programas Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos S-110 y Pago por Servicios Ambientales derivados de la Biodiversidad S-136. Ejercicio Fiscal 2010. Technical report. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Shapiro, E.N. (2013) Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 46: 5–15.Google Scholar
Singh, N.M. (2015) Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: Sharing the burden and joy of environmental care. Ecological Economics 117: 53–61.Google Scholar
Sloan, S. & Sayer, J.A. (2015). Forest Resources Assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. Forest Ecology and Management 352: 134–145.Google Scholar
Wilshusen, P.R. (2009). Shades of social capital: Elite persistence and the everyday politics of community forestry in southeastern Mexico. Environment and Planning 41: 389.Google Scholar
Wilshusen, P.R. (2010) The receiving end of reform: everyday responses to neoliberalisation in south-eastern Mexico. Antipode 42: 767–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S. (2008) Necessary Conditions for Ecosystem Service Payments, Economics and Conservations in the Tropics: A Strategic Dialogue [www document]. URL http://www.rff.org/Documents/08_Tropics_Conference/Tropics_Conference_Papers/Tropics_Conference_Wunder_PES_markets.pdf Google Scholar
Yamane, T. (1967) Statistics, an Introductory Analysis. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar