Decentralizing Payments for Hydrological Services Programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Challenges and Implications for Long-term Sustainability

Saving the baby while discarding the bathwater: the application of policy coherence for development analysis to payment for watershed services

“…A significant body of literature has been published on this case. Many authors have examined the impacts of PWS programs in the basin through different approaches including technical implementation (Scullion et al, 2011), spatial analyses (Mokondoko et al, 2018), institutional decentralization (Nava-López et al, 2018), social participation (Jones et al, 2019), etc. These works have contributed to significant understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of PWS in the basin.…”

Quiahua, the First Citizen Science Rainfall Monitoring Network in Mexico: Filling Critical Gaps in Rainfall Data for Evaluating a Payment for Hydrologic Services Program

“…The local PHS programs are managed by the Fideicomiso Coatepecano para la Conservación del Bosque y el Agua (FIDECOAGUA) in the Gavilanes watershed and supported by the Senderos y Encuentros para un Desarrollo Autónomo Sustentable (SENDAS) in the Pixquiac watershed (Nava-López et al 2018). We worked with these organizations as well as with the largest water monitoring and citizen science organization in the country, Global Water Watch-Mexico (GWW-Mexico).…”

“…In the past few decades, this area has experienced substantial deforestation of tropical montane cloud forests (TMCF) (Muñoz-Villers and López-Blanco 2008). Low flows in rivers used for local urban water supplies in the 1990s prompted local interest in how land-use change can impact hydrologic cycling, particularly streamflow, as well as the creation of payment for hydrological services (PHS) programs (Nava-López et al 2018).…”

“…The stated purpose of the national PHS program is to support the provision of hydrologic services while promoting poverty alleviation by paying rural landowners to conserve forests within priority watersheds (McAfee and Shapiro 2010). The national PHS program has been gradually replaced by matching funds from programs managed by local water operators, which now provide more than 50% of the funding for program operations (Nava-López et al 2018). Although CONAFOR publishes a detailed explanation of the methodology used to select eligible zones in target watersheds that can receive payments, no guidance is provided to prioritize where the payments should be targeted within these zones.…”

Nature commodification: ‘a necessary evil’? An analysis of the views of environmental professionals on ecosystem services-based approaches

“…On the contrary, our respondents seem to associate it with practical impediments, such as the need for a better understanding and monitoring of the ecosystem services provided and their monetary value as well as the need for clarification over property rights and rights to sell Other PES schemes were also mentioned. The Local Payments for Environmental Service Mechanisms through Matching Funds (Fondos Concurrentes), implemented since 2008, are a local form of PES which matches local funds with national funds to transition from nationally to locally financed programmes (Nava-López et al, 2018). These matching funds are considered to be a wise arrangement by our respondents because they establish a link between users and providers and have enabled communication between different government sectors and investors about the management of the land.…”