Lessons Learned from Mexico's PES Program for National-Level REDD+ Strategies
Abstract
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) strategies are
currently being created in developing countries across the world as a means of mitigating
climate change. REDD+ programs often include Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)
programs, which provide financial incentives for landowners to conserve, as part of
larger policy strategies to slow deforestation. PES programs have a relatively long
history of implementation in countries around the world. Despite the value of considering
experiences from established PES programs, existing literature fails to apply detailed
knowledge on PES program design to a REDD+ framework. This study is based on a detailed
policy analysis of Mexico’s national PES program and interviews conducted with individuals
involved in program design, implementation, operation and evaluation. Results demonstrate
the importance of clearly delineated program objectives, coordination of cooperation
across scales, prioritization of environmental criteria in selecting participants
and differentiated payment schemes adapted to the context of each region. By taking
lessons learned from this well-established PES programs, these unprecedented REDD+
strategies can be more effectively designed in order to facilitate significant emissions
reductions and socioeconomic development.
Type
Master's projectSubject
REDD+Mexico environmental policy
Payment for Ecosystem Services
forest conservation
deforestation
climate policy
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/5350Citation
Castillo, Selene (2012). Lessons Learned from Mexico's PES Program for National-Level REDD+ Strategies. Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/5350.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info