Potential of Environmental Services in the Common Property in México

POTENTIAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES IN THE COMMON
PROPERTY IN MEXICO

5
Credits
Authors:
Juan Antonio Reyes González
José Pablo Gómez Barrón
Rene Osaland Muis
Rafael Zavala Gómez del Campo
Collaborators:
Santiago Ruy Sánchez de Orellana
María José Sarmiento Aguirre
José Javier Ochoa Covarrubias
Liliana Mena Alonso
Design:
Andrea González Espinosa
Ignacio Carlos Álvarez Orozco
Photographs:
RAN-IICA Project
Ancuta Caracuda
Summary for the English version:
Iris Jimenez
Translation:
Keith MacMillan
Rene Osaland Muis
Citation format:
Reyes, J.A., J.P. Gómez, R.O. Muis. and R. Zavala 2012. Potential of
Environmental Services in the Social Property of Mexico. (English summary).
National Agrarian Registry (RAN) – Inter-American Institute of Cooperation on
Agriculture (IICA) Project. Mexico, D.F.
Mexico 2012

7
Index
Acronyms 9
Message from the Director in Chief of the National Agrarian Registry 10
Message from the Chief Representative of the Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture in Mexico
11
Presentation 12
Summary 13
I. Context 16
Common property in Mexico 17
Environmental services 20
II. Importance of common property in the aspect of environmental services 22
Carbon content in natural vegetation 24
Biodiversity conservation 29
Water reserves 34
III.EnvironmentalserviceswithemphasisonReducingEmissionsfromDeforestation
and Forest Degradation (REDD)
37
Multicriteria evaluation 38
Funding for REDD in Mexico 50
General project model 56
IV. Conclusions 60
References 64
Annexes 66
Annex 1. Ecosystems and vegetation types 67
Annex 2. Allocation of scores to the criteria with categories 69

8
Directory
SECRETARIA DE LA REFORMA AGRARIA (SRA)
Agr. Abelardo Escobar Prieto
Secretario de la Reforma Agraria
Av. H. Escuela Naval Militar # 669, Col. Presidentes Ejidales, 2a Sección.
Del. Coyoacán, C.P. 04470, México D.F. Tel. 5624-0000
REGISTRO AGRARIO NACIONAL (RAN)
Ing. Juan Manuel Emilio Cedrún Vázquez
Director en Jefe del Registro Agrario Nacional
Dirección General de Registro
Lic. Sofía Imelda Sosa Casas
Dirección General de Catastro Rural
Ing. Eusebio Arnaldo Arreola Semadeni
Coordinación Interinstitucional
Lic. Francisco Barrera Mendoza
Av. 20 de Noviembre # 195, Col. Centro.
Del. Cuauhtémoc, C.P. 06080, México D.F. Tel. 5062-1400
INSTITUTO INTERAMERICANO DE COOPERACIÓN PARA LA AGRICULTURA (IICA)
Dr. Víctor Villalobos Arámbula
Director General
600 m Norte del Cruce Ipís-Coronado Apartado 55-2200 San Isidro de
Coronado
San José, Costa Rica. Tel: (506) 2216-0222
IICA México
Ing. Gino Buzzetti Irribarra
Representante
Dr. Rafael Zavala Gómez del Campo
Coordinador General del Proyecto IICA-RAN
San Francisco No 1514, Col. Tlacoquemécatl del Valle
Del. Benito Juárez, C.P. 03200, México, D.F.

9
Acronyms
CONABIO
Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (National Commission for
the Knowledge and Use of the Biodiversity)
CONAFOR Comisión Nacional Forestal (National Forestry Commission)
CONAGUA Comisión Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission)
ENAREDD
Estrategia Nacional de Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación (National
REDD strategy)
FANAR
Fondo de Apoyo para Núcleos Agrarios sin Regularizar (Supporting Fund For Non-Regularized
Agrarian Nucleuses)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FIFONAFE
Fideicomiso Fondo Nacional de Fomento Ejidal (National Trust Fund for Communal Lands
Encouragement)
FIRA Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación con la Agricultura (Trust Fund for Rural Development)
GHG Green House Gases
IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
INE Instituto Nacional de Ecología (National Institute of Ecology)
INEGI
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (National Institute for Statistics and Geographic
Information)
MRV Monitoring, Reporting y Verification
NA Núcleo Agrario (Agrarian Nuclei)
PA Procuraduría Agraria (Agrarian Attorney’s Office)
PES Payment for Environmental Services
PHINA Padrón e Historial de Núcleos Agrarios (Historical Census of Agrarian Nuclei)
PROCEDE
Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares Urbanos (Program for
the Certification of Ejido Land Rights and the Titling of Urban House Plots)
RAN Registro Agrario Nacional (National Agrarian Registry)
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SAGARPA
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food)
SEMARNAT
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (The Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources)
SRA Secretaría de la Reforma Agraria (Agrarian Reform Secretariat)

10
Message from the Director in Chief of the
National Agrarian Registry
Message from the Director in Chief of the National Agrarian
Registry
Ejidos1
and communities occupy 53% of the national
territory. The common property in Mexico is formed by more
than 31,700 agrarian nucleuses , these are territorial units
with specific environmental, social, economic and politic
attributes, therefore each ejido and community has different
needs.
In this context, a fundamental part of the work undertaken
by the Agrarian Reform Secretariat is to identify economic
opportunities and fortify the development of the rural sector.
The Support Fund for Agrarian Nuclei without Regularization
(FANAR, by its Spanish acronym) aims to facilitate this task,
and in 2011 the National Agrarian Registry (RAN, by its Spanish
acronym) signed a technical cooperation agreement with
the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
(IICA).
A significant part of this agreement is the implementation of
programs and projects in agrarian nucleuses regularized and
certified by FANAR, it also offers an opportunity to propose
different options of development for each regularized ejido
or community, depending on its specific characteristics.
One of the lines of work included in the agreement is
the formulation of a strategy aimed to enhance the
participation of regularized agrarian nucleuses in payment
for environmental services schemes. This is an innovation in
four ways:
(i) It includes other activities, a part from the traditional
agriculture and livestock, giving new economic options for
the rural population;
(ii) It focuses on the dominant property regime in the country,
involving stakeholders in a national environmental service initiative;
(iii) The conservation and improvement of environmental
services does not only represent a source of income, but also has the
potential of generating direct local benefits; and
(iv) It propitiates an active participation of the common property
in environmental services schemes, which internationally, have been
orientated more and more to maximize the social benefits.
This document presents the findings in the first stage of the Strategy
for Environmental Services and Common Property, which analyzes
the relative importance of the environmental services in the agrarian
nucleuses, such as: forest carbon, biodiversity and hydrological
cycles. An important conclusion of this analysis is that none of the
three themes can be efficiently developed without the integration
of the common property.
As part of the findings, 115 ejidos and communities were identified
with the highest potential to contribute in the provision of the three
environmental services: carbon storage and capture, biodiversity
conservation and maintenance of the hydrological cycle. In the next
stage, these agrarian nucleuses will be analyzed for its feasibility in
order to be included in payment for environmental services schemes.
In this way, the Secretariat gives the agrarian sector a new profile,
contributing to the national development with a territorial focus and
integrating its policies in environmental, social and market orientated
aspects in order to provide different development alternatives for
the rural population.
Director in Chief
Juan Manuel Emilio Cedrún Vázquez

11
Message from the Chief Representative of the
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
in Mexico
In IICAs 2010-2014 Medium-Term Plan, it is outlined that its
main strategic objectives are: enhancing the contribution of
the agriculture in territorial development and rural wellbeing,
improve agricultural adaptation to climate change, and
enhance the efficient use of natural resources, amongst
others.
All these are central elements in this publication, called
“Potential of environmental services in Mexico’s common
property”, one of the products of the collaboration between
IICA and RAN, a decentralized agency of the Agrarian
Reform Secretariat, and which is inserted in the framework
of the technical Convention signed in 2011.
For our Institute it is an honor to participate in investigations
that generate knowledge about the socio-economic
realities of the Mexican farmers, and that specifically involves
sustainable development on one hand, and improves
livelihoods, on the other.
The shared vision of a territorial development involves a
multi-sectorial approach; in this case it involves the agrarian
and environmental sectors. We are convinced that the
agricultural challenges we see nowadays do not only
depend on one sector and it is necessary to cooperate
between different sectors and disciplines to promote a
territorial vision.
This publication represents the first “priority sites” exercise for
environmental services in common property ever to be published
in Mexico. This property regime, which covers 104 million hectares,
involves more than 32,000 ejidos and communities and represents
53% of the national territory, is of great importance for agriculture,
livestock and forestry activities in the country, but it also has a huge
social relevance for rural development.
Focusing on the environmental potential in Mexico’s common
property is an innovative process, which requires technological
transfers that IICA puts at the disposal of all the Americas, generating
technical hubs that define strategies, increases capacities and
implements territorial projects with high stakeholder´s participation,
not only in the common property, but also in the rest of the agricultural
sector and in different countries on our continent. The challenge for
the technical staff is to generate public policies that have an impact
on the regional development at medium and long term.
We are convinced that this document will be an important
contribution for the development of the agricultural sector in Mexico.
We invite other actors to develop joint strategies, in which IICA is
willing to collaborate.
IICA’s chief representative in Mexico
Gino Buzzetti Irribarra

12
Presentation
This document is one of the results of a collaboration
agreement between the National Agrarian Registry (RAN,
by its Spanish acronym) —a decentralized agency of the
Secretariat of Agrarian Reform— and the Inter-American
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) —a specialized
agency of the Organization of American States promoting
agricultural and rural well-being in the Americas. The IICA’s
purpose is to provide assistance to the Mexican government
in areas such as capacity building, agricultural planning and
development in ejidos and communities throughout the
country.
As part of the agreement, the IICA analyzed the possibilities
of implementing environmental services strategies in the
common property, within the ejidos and communities (both
called agrarian nucleuses in English). This analysis is important,
due to the fact that environmental services are increasingly
recognized worldwide, and they can offer dual benefits to
the agrarian nuclei (AN): it promotes the conservation of
natural resources, while it generates financial income for the
inhabitants, whom often are living in poor rural areas.
In addition, it is difficult to think of environmental services
schemes in Mexico without taking the common property
(which represents more than half of the national territory)
into account. However, regulation of these AN is necessary in
order to facilitate their access to payment for environmental
services schemes.
Aninnovativeevaluationispresentedinthisdocument,which
integrates geospatial information from different sources,
and generates a database that combines agrarian and
environmental information, making it useful for a variety of
purposes. Through processing and analyzing this database,
a prioritization of environmental services was determined
for each of the more than 30,000 AN in Mexico. This analysis
sets a precedent; it is the first exercise of prioritization for
environmental services with the focus on AN on a national
and regional level to be published in Mexico.
The full document (which can be downloaded from the IICA’s
website: www.iica.org.mx) is composed of three chapters. The first
presents the main characteristics of the common property in Mexico
and provides a definition of environmental services. The second
chapter describes the analyses conducted in order to estimate the
potential of each AN to provide environmental services. Finally, a
prioritization exercise of the AN with potential for development of
environmental service projects is presented, with an emphasis
on REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and forest
Degradation) and recommendations are made in terms of funding
and project formulation.

13
Summary
In order to identify environmental services potential as an economic
alternative for ejido and community development, a team of
specialists from the RAN-IICA Technical Cooperation Project carried
out a prioritization analysis based on numerous variables. Through
this analysis, considering almost 30,000 ejidos and communities in
Mexico, the AN with the greatest potential for being incorporated
into environmental services schemes were identified.
The environmental services analyzed were related to vegetation type,
species richness and the hydrological attributes of the AN: (i) carbon
capture and storage (vegetation carbon content calculated with
data from CONAFOR); (ii) biodiversity conservation (Priority regions,
CONABIO); and (iii) maintenance of the hydrological cycle (Water
reserves, CONAGUA).
First, the relative importance of common property in relation to
environmentalserviceswascalculated.Carbondensity(tonnes/
ha) was used for 47 different vegetation types —grouped
into temperate forests, tropical forests and scrublands— as
well as the total carbon per AN. The analyzed AN contained
1,434 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon, equivalent to seven times
Mexico’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Of all the analyzed
AN, twelve were classified as very high concentration (4.3 - 19.2
Mt of carbon) and 115 as high (1.2 – 4.2 Mt). It should be noted
that these carbon values represent an estimated minimum,
since neither the content of carbon in soil, nor the carbon in
other vegetation types are included.
Regarding the importance of biodiversity conservation: 6,592
AN have part or all of their territory within one or more terrestrial
priority regions (TPR) proposed by CONABIO and they are
present in all of the 152 TRP, representing 50% of their surface.
Also all of the hydrological priority regions (HPR) have a certain
amount of their surface within 12,717 ejidos or communities
(38.7 million hectares, equivalent to 48% of the total surface of
HPR).
Finally, the hydrological services: 99% of the 189 potential
water reserves (PWR) proposed by CONAGUA have part of
their surface within common property. This involves 7,452 AN
representing 23.4 million hectares, equivalent to 52% of the
PWR surface.
According to those figures, the common property accounts
for half of the environmental services “provision” in Mexico,
this clearly means that no national strategy can be successful
without the active participation of the inhabitants of ejidos and
communities. In the following table, the importance of common
property regarding biodiversity conservation and hydrological
services is highlighted.

14
*Priority sites featuring some area within Social Propety
**Area within Social Property
Importance of Social Property in national strategies of
environmental services
Environmental Service
Biodiversity
Terrestrial Aquatic Hydrological
Priority units
Spatial coincidence*
Agrarian nuclei (No.)
Relative importance**
Area (Mha)
152 TPR
100%
6,592
50%
25.7
110 HPR
100%
12,717
48%
38.7
189 PWR
99%
7,452
52%
23.4
The above information, along with other variables, was utilized in a prioritization exercise
that comprised two elements: (i) Potential for environmental services (Risk, Recorded forest
loss, Carbon content, Biodiversity and Hydrology); and (ii) Feasibility of implementation of
environmental services projects (Organization of the ejidatarios or comuneros: Certification of
the property, Area status, Internal regulation and Elected representatives).

15
The prior information, along with other variables, was used
in a prioritization exercise that comprised two elements: (i)
Potential of environmental services, including information about:
risk, calculated forest loss, carbon content, and biodiversity
and hydrology relevance; (ii) Implementation feasibility of
environmental services projects, which analyzes the organization
of the AN, such as: land property certification, internal regulation,
etc.
To identify those ejidos and communities with the highest potential
for incorporation into environmental services schemes, a multi
criteria evaluation (MCE) methodology was applied. Scores and
scales were assigned to generate an index, which, incorporated
into a geographical information system, permitted an initial
identification of the potential candidates.
Using the MCE methodology, 115 AN of Very High priority were
identified (Brown color in the map); these were distributed
throughout 17 States, with most presence in Quintana Roo (38
AN and 1,066,172 ha), followed by Chiapas (10 AN and 553,247
ha), Oaxaca (9 AN and 199,310 ha) and Campeche (8 AN and
244,982 ha). Although all of these are southern states, there were
also representatives from the north, such as: Chihuahua, Durango,
Sinaloa and Nayarit.
This prioritization exercise can be distinguished from others in two
aspects: (i) it focuses on the ejidos and communities; (ii) scrublands
are included in the analysis (usually only temperate and tropical
forests are analyzed).
At the moment we are elaborating the institucionality index, that
includes aspects such as existence, knowledge and application
of internal regulation; active participation (in assemblies and
external committees); transparency and accountability, as well
as the mechanisms of dialogue and decision making within each
AN, among others. Together with the criteria analyzed in the
first stage, this will define the feasibility of implementation of an
environmental service scheme.

18
I. Context
Common property in Mexico
The Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico recognizes
three types of property regimes: Public, Private and Common. The
common property is divided into: Ejidos, Communities and others.
Mexico has a surface of 196.7 Mha, of which common property
represents 103.98 Mha (53%). The ejidos accounts for 82% of the
common property, equivalent to 43% of the total national surface.
The common property is divided between 31,634 AN, of which 92%
are ejidos and 8% are communities (Box I).
While environmental services can be obtained from small
properties (less than 100 ha), the relationship between these
services and ecological processes requires large areas (ranging
from hundreds to thousands of hectares) or locations within priority
sites. In addition, the requirements of participation in government
programs dictate specific property conditions.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the size of the AN: 13% are less
than 200 ha (the three first groups), followed by 18% between
201 and 500 ha, and 19% between 501 and 1,000 hectares. For
AN larger than 1,000 ha, the frequencies are below 2%, with the
exception of the 5,001 to 6,000 ha (2.4%) and the 10,001 to 20,000
ha (3.7%). A small group of about 200 AN (0.7% of the total) has
polygons that are larger than 40,000 ha.
Box I. Definitions of social property in Mexico
Ejido: Is constituted as part of an agrarian action of land
distribution, enlargement and creation of new population
centers. It functions as an owner society with different
comities for decision-making (Asamblea), representation
(Comisariado) and control (Consejo de vigilancia). Those
in possession of tenure rights within the ejido are known as
ejidatarios.
Community: Created as part of an agrarian action of
recognition and entitlement to common goods or land
restitution,baseduponcolonialtitlesorancestralpossession.
It also has an Asamblea, representatives and an órgano
de vigilancia. Its members are known as comuneros.
Source: SRA (2007)

19
(data from RAN, 2011)
Common property presents both advantages and challenges in
regard to environmental services, since it differs from other types of
properties in various aspects. The AN is simultaneously a territory, a
collective of agrarian subjects with a specific internal organization
(Asamblea, Comisariado and Consejo de vigilancia).
The relationships that the AN establishes with other entities is
constituted by different comities –such as the Asamblea— where it
is important to establish effective mechanisms of transparent ruling
and decision-making.
Fortunately, in many ejidos and communities there is already
experience of collective projects and the sustainable
managementofecosystemsandnaturalresources.Thisconstitutes
a social capital that is very valuable, facilitating the participation
and implementation of environmental services projects.
Figure 2. Size of Agrarian Nuclei per group.

21
Environmental services can be defined as benefits obtained by
humans from ecosystems, whether in a natural form or through
sustainable management (Balvera and Cotler, 2009).
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), there are
four types of environmental service:
• Provision. Tangible goods: food, wood, fibers etc.
• Regulation. Processes: climatic regulation, erosion control etc.
• Cultural. Intangible goods: associated with aesthetic or religious
values.
• Support. Based on the above: Primary productivity and
biodiversity conservation.
Environmental services can be defined as benefits obtained by
humans from ecosystems, whether in a natural form or through
sustainable management (Balvera and Cotler, 2009).
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), there are
four types of environmental service:
• Provision. Tangible goods: food, wood, fibers etc.
• Regulation. Processes: climatic regulation, erosion control etc.
• Cultural. Intangible goods: associated with aesthetic or religious
values.
• Support. Based on the above: Primary productivity and
biodiversity conservation.
Environmental services
This definition and classification is incorporated into
Mexican law, through the General Law of Sustainable
Forest Development (Gobierno de México, 2008). In this
way, concepts such as the preservation or enhancement
of environmental services have been explicitly included
in the development plans, policies and instruments of the
government, and are established as a key condition for
sustainable development.
In this section, we analyze the importance of common
property related to carbon in vegetation, biodiversity
conservation and hydrological services. The analysis establish
the “minimum value” of the environmental services found in
common property, as it does not include the other services
such as those of provision and culture1
. It is an attempt to
establish new frameworks for land use negotiation and
to promote the capacities of local stakeholders in order
to improve their living conditions through the sustainable
management of their natural resources.
Payment for environmental services can represent an
alternative for the ejidos and communities by allowing:
• The establishment of an economic activity that is
complementary to other sources of income.
• The incorporation of the areas of common use.
• The generation of long term internal agreements
regarding decisions over the use of land within the AN.
• Channeling of the legal attributes of the ejido or
community in relation to activities that generate social
benefits (internal and external).
1 Different local stakeholders utilize products obtained from ecosystems
to cover different needs such as nutrition, construction, medicine etc.
In addition, some groups attribute religious values and meaning to sites
that depend on specific environmental conditions. While the former
example would be a service of provision, the latter is a cultural one.
Both have points of interest that must be explored.

Importance of common property in
the aspect of environmental services
II.

23
II. Importance of common property in the aspect of environmental
services
Table I. Environmental services considered in the analysis
With more than 30,000 ejidos and communities and the need to
implement environmental services schemes at a national level, a
prioritization analysis was carried out in two stages: (i) importance
of common property analysis in the environmental services context,
and (ii) selection of ejidos and communities to initiate a second
phase of feasibility assessment.
While the analysis presented here is based upon these three environmental services, it is recognized that ecosystems (natural or
sustainably managed) generate other services.
In accordance with this, the following findings can be considered an approximation of the “minimum value” the environmental
services in common property in Mexico.
For the first stage of the prioritization analysis, the relative
importance of common property was analyzed in terms of
three aspects that have been indicated as being of greatest
importance in relation to environmental services (Pagiola et
al. 2002): potential to capture and store carbon, biodiversity
conservation and regulation of the hydrological cycle.
The following table relates each one of these themes to a
specific environmental service.
Theme Environmental service Type of service
National strategy to which
the service relates
Source of information
Forest carbon Potential capture and storage
of carbon on temperate forests,
tropical forests and scrublands
Regulation Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD)
Produced with data from
CONAFOR and INEGI
Biodiversity Biodiversity conservation Support Priority regions for conservation CONABIO
Hydrology Regulation of the hydrological
cycle
Regulation Water reserves CONAGUA

Carbon content in
natural vegetation

25
Carbon content in natural vegetation
An index of carbon content in agrarian nucleuses (CCAN) was
generated to calculate the relative importance of the capture
and storage of carbon in common property, through the following
process:
Data from different governmental institutions was integrated with a
geographical information system (GIS):
• The National Rural Land Registry of Common Property in Mexico,
with information generated by PROCEDE, FANAR and PHINA.
• The land registry of the General Direction of Rural Land Registry
(RAN) with input from PROCEDE and INEGI.
• The Land Use and Vegetation Map, Series IV of INEGI (1:250,000
Scale).
Processing and combination of this data generated
more than 200,000 registries, each one associated to a
polygon with a particular vegetation type (following the
INEGI nomenclature) in a specific ejido or community.
This corresponds to the information of 29,011 AN (99.8% of
the certified AN), comprising a total area of 89.84 Mha,
equivalent to 46% of the national surface.
Carbon content (t/ha) per vegetation type was obtained
from a report produced by CONAFOR, following the FAO
methodology in the “State of the World´s Forests 2011” (FAO,
2010 report). The values used for each vegetation type in
the present document included above- and belowground
biomass; i.e. the tree and its roots. For the vegetation types
where carbon content was not reported, the average value
of the ecosystem to which the vegetation type corresponded
was assigned (following the classification of Annex 1).
Figure 1. Carbon density per vegetation type, grouped into three ecosystems
(Produced with data from FAO, 2010)
Temperate forests (11 types) Scrublands (16 types) Tropical forests (20 types)
Maximum/minimum
Average
Carboncontent(tonnes/ha)

26
Table III. Categories of values of the index of Carbon Content per Agrarian Nucleus
(CCAN)
*Definition of these four levels was conducted with the “natural breakpoints” statistical
method, which allows formation of groups from the data and not the criteria of the
researcher. Limits are established in order to minimize the intra-group variation while
maximizing the inter-group variation.
Through this process, a carbon density value (t/ha) was ob-
tained for 47 types of vegetation, whom were grouped into
three ecosystems: temperate forests (11 types), scrublands
(16 types) and tropical forests (20 types). The variation of car-
bon content within each specific ecosystem was high: 12 to
106 t/ha in temperate forests, 10 to 57 t/ha in scrublands and
13 to 59 t/ha in tropical forests. Average carbon densities per
ecosystem were 43, 15 and 30 t/ha, respectively (Figure 1).
Map 1 shows the national distribution of the CCAN
categories, a total of 21,966 AN are identified in the four
categories containing 1,434 MtC (Figure 2). To put this figure
into perspective, the quantity of carbon estimated as being
captured and stored in the vegetation of the AN in Mexico is
This information was used to calculate the CCAN index by
taking the sum of the carbon content (t/ha) of each vege-
tation type multiplied by the area covered by each of these
within a particular ejido or community. The CCAN values ob-
tained were grouped into four categories, according to the
following values:
Concentration (tonnes/ha)
Category Minimum Maximum
Agrarian nuclei
(No.)
Volume of carbon
(million tonnes)
Very High
>4,320,211 19,252,982 12 84.0
High
>1,204,093 4,320,211 115 223.5
Medium
>255,150 1,204093 922 440.9
Low 0.0006 255,150 20,917 685.5
Total 21,966 1,433.8
equivalent to seven times the national GHG emissions in 2006
(Ejecutivo Federal, 2009). Put another way, the loss of 14% of
this vegetation would be equal to the annual GHG emissions
of the entire country.

27
Carbon in temperate and tropical forests and scrublands per
agrarian nucleus
Map 1

28
Figure 2. Agrarian Nucleus Carbon Content per category
(Calculated with data from CONAFOR and FAO)
AgrarianNuclei(No.)
Carbon(milliontonnes)
Agrarian Nuclei
Carbon
The results demonstrates that activities which reduce
deforestation, conserve vegetation coverage and
improve the conditions of the temperate, tropical forests
and scrublands (increasing biomass per unit area) in the
common property are of great importance to the national
GHG inventory.
It is worth noting that these carbon calculations do not include
all the types of natural vegetation, nor areas dedicated to
agriculture, livestock production or other productive activities
related to the AN. For example, a study carried out in the
region of Purépecha, Michoacán (Ordoñez et al., 2008)
showed comparable results between the density of carbon
in agricultural areas and others with shrub vegetation, as well
as between avocado plantations and degraded temperate
forests. This suggests that merely measuring the carbon within
the natural vegetation in a AN will only give a minimum
value. Furthermore, due to the lack of a national database2
,
the calculations carried out in this study did not consider soil
carbon content. Depending on the type of vegetation and
conditions, soil can have a carbon density even greater that
of the vegetation (Mckinley et al., 2011).
2 Within the activities related to the National REDD Strategy and other
governmental commitments, CONAFOR, in coordination with other
agencies and with funding from various international sources, is working
to produce carbon inventories and methodologies for monitoring and
evaluation that include the edaphic portion of the national vegetation.
The information regarding carbon densities of different vegetation and
soil types will be available in the near future.

30
Biodiversity conservation
Efforts to conserve the biodiversity in Mexico have been increasing
the last two decades; with the creation of instruments such
as Natural Protected Areas (NPA), Management Units for the
Protection of Wildlife (UMA, by its Spanish acronym) and Payments
for Environmental Services (PES). The promotion of these and other
instruments designed for biodiversity conservation require the
identification of priority zones.
Different prioritization exercises have already been carried out
in Mexico (Ceballos et al., 2009); the most important exercise
(coordinated by CONABIO) is used to identify new NPA and other
conservation areas, such as the Terrestrial Priority Regions (TPR) and
Hydrological Priority Regions (HPR).

31
Priority conservation regions are defined by a high value of biodiversity
(terrestrial, freshwater or marine) that dictates the conservation
strategy in Mexico. The HPR are areas of high biodiversity value in
freshwater environments, identified through criteria that estimate the
environmental value of biotic and abiotic resources, the economic
value, the risks and the threats to which these areas are exposed
(Arriaga et al., 2009).
The information regarding the AN polygons of the entire country is
combined with those of the TPR and HPR, generating two maps that
show the coincidence of common property with the priorities regions
of conservation. The results showed that all of the 152 TPR have areas
within ejidos and communities: 6,592 AN with 25.7 Mha, equivalent
to 50% of the total area of TPR (Map 2). Furthermore, all of the 110
HPR have areas within common property: 12,717 AN with 38.7 Mha,
equivalent to 48% of the total area of HPR (Map 3).
Looking at these results, we can say that common property comprises
half of the “provision” of biodiversity conservation, which makes it
clear that any conservation strategy which does not take the ejidos
and communities into consideration will not be successful in Mexico.
Priority regions
for conservation

32
Social Property and terrestrial biodiversity
Map 2

33
MAPA 3
Social Property and freshwater biodiversity
Map 3

35
Water reserves
Many international experts agree that the hydrological cycle will
be drastically affected by climate change (Dooge et al., 2011);
in some countries these effects are already a reality (CONAGUA,
2010). Facing this scenario, strategies and instruments that allow the
adaptation of water management to new hydrological patterns
are required (Matthews and Le Quesne, 2009). One such instrument
of management is used in Mexico, and it is called potential water
reserves (PWR).
According to Article 3 LXIV of the National Water Law, the areas
defined as Water Reserves are: “Those specific areas of aquifers,
hydrological basins or hydrological regions, where limitations are
established in terms of the exploitation or use of all or some of the
available water in order to provide a public service, implement a
program of restoration, conservation or reservation, or when the State
decides to exploit the water resources for public utility” (Gobierno de
Mexico, 2011).
Thus, PWR are defined quantities of water in order to guarantee
the flow of ecological protection and the maintenance of the
environmental services up on which we all depend.
In 2011, CONAGUA and the World Wildlife Fund, identified
zones with available water resources, of biological and
ecological importance and low demand for water, in order to
define a national network of PWR. This network, which consists
of 189 management units, can be considered a measure
of adaptation to climate change, since it guarantees the
functionality of the hydrological cycle as a source of water
and support for ecological processes (CONAGUA, 2011).
The available information of the 189 water management units
was integrated into a GIS (CONAGUA, 2011) and categorized
by decree as PWR into three feasibility levels: Very high (19),
High (54) and Medium (116). This information was combined
with the data of the AN polygons in order to calculate the
geospatial coincidence of the two components.
According to this calculation, 99% of the PWR coincide
with one or more AN. This includes 7,452 AN with 23.4 million
hectares,meaningthat52%ofthetotalPWRsurfaceislocated
in common property. Map 4 shows the relative importance
of the ejidos and communities in the PWR network.

36
MAPA 3
Social Property and potential water reserves
Map 4

Environmental services with emphasis on
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation (REDD)
III.

38
III. Environmental services with emphasis on Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD)
Multicriteria evaluation
REDD+ stands for countries efforts to Reduce Emissions
from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and foster
conservation, sustainable management of forests, and
enhancementofforestcarbonstocks.Theimplementation
of REDD activities is supposed to lead to a substantial
reduction of GHG emissions.
In Mexico, the GHG emission reduction targets of the
Special Programme on Climate Change (SPCC) consider
REDD an important alternative. By 2012 it is estimated
that 21% of the reductions associated with improvements
in activities that affect soil and vegetation, will be
attributable to REDD projects (Ejecutivo Federal, 2009).
To orientate national action relating to REDD, the
Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT, by its Spanish acronym), through CONAFOR,
has coordinated the development of the National REDD
Strategy (ENAREDD, by its Spanish acronym). An initial
document, “Mexico´s Vision on REDD”, was produced
with the collaboration of civil organizations, various
stakeholders and different governmental institutions
(CONAFOR, 2010). The document was presented at the
Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change in 2010 (COP16).
The “Mexico´s Vision on REDD” is an innovative
document that define four key aspects: (i) International
co-responsibility (ii) Preservation of environmental services
and risk reduction, (iii) Quality of life and sustainability, and
(iv) Guiding principles. These principles, which shaped the
development of ENAREDD, are:
• Inclusion and equality (territorial, cultural, social and
gender).
• Plurality and citizen participation.
• Transparency and legality.
• Transversality, integration, coordination and
complementarity (both sectorial and between orders
of government).
• Equitable distribution of benefits.
• Obligation towards, and respect for, the right of
ownership for the inhabitants and landowners, and
the sustainable use of natural resources.
• Free and informed consent of the communities.
• Promotion of competitivity in the rural economies
associated with the forest, including community
forestry enterprises.
With these key aspects the ENAREDD strategy is supposed
to be an instrument of development, derived from
an environmental service but strongly related to the
generation of positive impacts on biodiversity and social
benefits, especially for the participating rural areas. The
strategy goes beyond the conservation and sustainable
management of temperate forests, achieving the
definition of strategic actions with a territorial focus.

39
This document therefore analyses the potential of ejidos and
communities to participate in ENAREDD, on the following basis:
A multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) was conducted in order to generate
a prioritization based on common property. This methodology is
utilized in order to incorporate various criteria in the discussion and to
generate a hierarchical arrangement of alternatives that help solve
problems related to territorial development (Aceves et al., 2006).
In this case, the MCE was used to identify the AN with the greatest
potential for participation in REDD activities, as this is an environmental
service conservation programme undergoing rapid development.
The MCE used in this study was based on five principles:
• Integration of environmental, economic and social themes.
• Distinction between Potential (interest or relative importance
from the environmental services perspective) and Feasibility
(related to the social characteristics of each ejido or community).
• Inclusion of criteria derived from accessible information or which
can be produced in a simple manner.
• Allocation of values to each criterion that can be expressed for
each territorial unit, in this case ejidos or communities.
• Flexibility in the early stages, a criterion can be included or
eliminated and values modified.
With these principles, an index of prioritization with a maximum of
100 points was created and divided into two components: Potential
(60 points) and Feasibility (40 points). These components integrate
three criteria that are vital for environmental services with an
emphasis on REDD: Deforestation and Environmental services in the
Potential component, and Social aspects of the AN in the Feasibility
component (Figure 3).

40
Figure 3. Structure of the components and criteria for the Prioritization Index
Figure 4. Criteria and scores for the the Potential component.
Social aspects
of the agrarian
nucleus
Criteria
Environmental services
(Carbon, Hydrology
and Biodiversity)
Deforestation
II. Feasibility
(40)
I. Potential
(60)
Priority index 100 points
Each of the three criteria was divided into sub-criterion to which points were assigned. Thus, the Potential component has five sub-
criterions: Risk (20 points), Recorded loss of forest (10 points), Carbon (20 points), Biodiversity (5 points) divided into Terrestrial Priority
Regions and Hydrological Priority Regions, and Potential Water Reserves (5 points).
The Feasibility component, which involves the social and organizational aspects of the AN, was divided into two criteria: Fundamental
organizational feasibility and Institutional feasibility.
The first of these two criterion, which is the only one considered at this stage of the analysis, is based on information from desk studies and
has four sub-criterion related to the administrative status: Certification of the property (10 points), Area status (10 points), Reglamento
Interno (document which dictate the internal regulation,10 points) and Elected authorities (10 points).

41
Each one of the AN analyzed was assigned scores according to
the characteristics of each criterion and the available information,
as follows:
For the risk of deforestation, recorded forest loss, carbon and
potential water reserves criteria, there were categorical scales
from “Very High” to “Nil” and divided into six, five, five and
three categories, respectively (Table V). These categories were
translated into numerical scales based on the maximum scores
assigned to each criterion. For example, an area with a “Very
High” risk of deforestation was assigned 20 points; while “Low”
carbon corresponded to five points (full details of the allocation
of points to each of the different criteria can be found in Annex 2).
Different levels of risk of deforestation and recorded forest loss
can be found within one AN. For this reason, in each of these
two criteria, the points were weighted according to the area
Figure 5. Criteria and points values for the the Administrative Feasibility component
Component II. Feasibility (40 points)
— expressed as a percentage— occupied within the AN by
each category. For example, a criteria in which the AN had
70% of its area with a score of 20 (0.7 x 20 = 14) and 30% with
a score of 12 (0.3 x 12 = 3.6), the AN would have a weighted
value of 17.6 (14 + 3.6).
The two biodiversity criteria (TPR and HPR) and the four
Feasibility criteria (Certification, Area status, Internal regulation
and Current representatives) were treated in a binary fashion;
that is, only presence/absence within an AN was considered.
Table II summarizes the number and scores for each criterion
in the different categories, and each relevant source of
information.
Institutional Feasibility will be analyzed in a second stage, and will include aspects such as: Asamblea, Reglamento Interno (quality,
knowledge and application) and Participation (transparency, gender equality and decision making, Figure 5). In the following stage, a
cluster of the highest priority AN will be visited in order to obtain information relevant to the Institutional Feasibility component.

42
Table II. Criterias and scores assigned for the Multicriteria Evaluation of the Pri-
ority Index (details of score allocation available in Annex 3)
Evaluation of the Priority Index (details of score allocation available in Annex 3)
Component Criterion Points Levels (score) Source
Potential
Deforestation
Risk 20 6 (20, 16, 12, 8, 4, 0) INE (2011)
Recorded loss 10 5 (10, 5, 3, 1, 0)
RAN-IICA (elaborado con datos de
INEGI)
Environmental
services
Carbon 10 5 (20, 15, 10, 5, 0)
RAN-IICA (elaborado con datos
de FAO)
Biodiversity
Terrestrial
Aquatic
3
2
2 (3, 0)
2 (2, 0)
CONABIO (2004)
Arriaga et al. (2002)
Hydrology
(Water reserves)
5 4 (5, 3, 1, 0) CONAGUA (2011)
Subtotal (points) 60
Feasibility
Fundamental
organizational
Certification 10 2 (10, 0) RAN-IICA
Area status 10 2 (10, 0) RAN-IICA
Presence of internal
regulation
10 2 (10, 0) RAN-IICA
Current representatives 10 2 (10, 0) RAN-IICA
Subtotal (points) 40
Institutional
Asembalea, Internal
regulation and
Participation
To be defined in the second stage
Total (Points) 100
The results of the multicriteria evaluation (MCE) applied to prioritization are presented below.

43
Potential
* The minimum area can be a remnant of an AN within urbanized land.
** The largest ejido in Mexico: Reforma Agraria Integral, Ensenada, Baja California
Table III. Prioritization of Potential of environmental services in
Agrarian Nuclei through multicriteria
Category
Agrarian Nuclei
(No.)
Total area
(thousand ha)
Average AN area
(ha)
Minimum area
(ha)
Maximum area
(ha)
Very High 7 994.1 142,114 32,260 498,792
High 2,530 21,930 8,668 15 672,901**
Medium 11,263 43,590 3,870 9 386,731
Low 15,211 29,453 1,936 3 652,569
Table III shows the number of ejidos and communities, with their respective areas (total and average), divided in four categories of
Potential: Very high, High, Medium and Low. The distribution of these properties within the national territory can be seen in map 5.
The location of the seven AN of Very High priority can be observed in five States: Campeche (two), Chiapas (one), Chihuahua (one),
Michoacán (one) and Quintana Roo (two).

44
MAPA 3
Priority of agrarian nuclei in environmental services (Potential)
Map 5

45
Organizational Feasibility
Table IV. Prioritization of Feasibility (Fundamental organizational)
for environmental services in Agrarian Nuclei through multicriteria
evaluation.
Table IV reports the number of AN and the areas (total and average)
for each category of the Feasibility component (Organizational).
In this case, within the Very High priority, there are 8,797 ejidos and
communities, distributed throughout Mexico (Map 6). If the High
priority AN are added (14,495), 80% of the total analyzed AN would
be within these two categories.
This is due to the fact that the Feasibility evaluation is still incomplete:
it is merely a first approximation, derived from desk studies
(Organizational Feasibility). This “filter” will be complemented
with fieldwork, permitting the allocation of values to the criteria of
Institutional Feasibility and adjustment of the prioritization based on
the internal organization of the agrarian nuclei. The intention is to
focus upon a smaller group of ejidos and communities with greater
implementation possibilities of an environmental services project.
Category
Agrarian Nuclei
(No.)
Total area
(thousand ha)
Average AN area
(ha)
Minimum area
(ha)
Maximum area
(ha)
Very High 8,797 44,031 5,005 13 672,901
High 14,495 40,133 2,769 3 652,569
Medium 5,718 11,803 2,064 3 422,156
Low 1 0.858 858 858 858

46
MAPA 3
Priority of agrarian nuclei in environmental services (Feasibility)
Mapa 6

47
Total prioritization
Table V. Prioritization for environmental services in Agrarian
Nuclei through multicriteria evaluation ( Potential + Fundamental
Organizational Feasibility)
Integration of the two components and their weighting (maximum observed value = 1.0) produced the following results:
Category
Agrarian Nuclei
(No.)
Total area
(thousand ha)
Average AN area
(ha)
Minimum area
(ha)
Maximum area
(ha)
Very High 115 4,535 39,438 80 498,792
High 11,847 57,775 4,877 9 672,901
Medium 16,424 32,917 2,004 3 652,569
Low 625 740,677 1,185 5 422,156

48
In this case, the AN of Very High priority totaled 115, distributed throughout 17 States (Map 7), principally Quintana Roo (38 AN and
one million hectares), Chiapas (10 AN and 553,247 ha), Oaxaca (nine AN and 199,310 ha) and Campeche (eight AN and 244,982 ha).
Figure 6 shows the number of Very High priority AN and the total surface per State3
.
Figure 6. Distribution of the Very High priority ejidos and communities (Potential
+ Fundamental Organizational Feasibility) for environmental services
Relationship of ejidos and communities in Annex 4
AgrarianNuclei(No.)
Area(thousandha)
Agrarian nuclei
Area
3 The numbers and location (Municipality and State) of the 85 ejidos (74%) and the 30 communities (26%) of “Very High” priority can be consulted in the Spanish
language version of this document, available at: www.iica.org.mx

49
Priority of agrarian nuclei in environmental services
(Potential + Feasibility)
Mapa 7

51
Funding for REDD in Mexico
Box II. Vision of REDD in Mexico
“Sustainable rural development constitutes the
best approach to consolidate REDD in Mexico,
considering that only from a holistic perspective
will it be possible to remove the pressures of
deforestation and forestry degradation, as well
as promote the management and conservation
of the forests and improve the quality of life in the
communities within these areas”.
Source: CONAFOR (2010)
In this section, we present a summary of the different funding alternatives that
exists for REDD in Mexico. It is a programme that receives international attention,
especially due to its connection to climate change and the commitments of Mexico
and other countries to reduce global GHG emissions.

52
The REDD process and demand for environmental service
In Mexico, the REDD process is divided into three stages:
• Stage 1: Preparation of the national strategy, development and strengthening
of capacities.
• Stage 2: Implementation of the strategy (execution of mitigation policies and
measures) and “Early actions”.
• Stage 3: Payment for results, which must be measured and verified through
a transparent and rigid process. Large-scale funding is expected with the
participation of different stakeholders.
A central principle at each stage is that the financial incentive must increase in
proportion to the permanent and quantifiable emission reductions (Meridian
Institute, 2009).
Currently, Mexico is entering stage 2, while the National Strategy (ENAREDD) is
in preparation and work is progressing on various aspects through “Early actions”
in specific regions of Jalisco (coastal basins), Chiapas (Lacandon tropical forest) and
the Yucatán peninsula within a defined forested zone between the three states of
Yucatán, Quintana Roo and Campeche (FIP, 2011).
It is important to highlight that none of the financial support received by Mexico as
part of bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements is being directed towards
payment for results; this funding is for conducting studies, testing methodologies,
creating capacities and conducting consultations, as well as for certain investments in
the implementation of REDD (Meridian Institute, 2009).
The development of REDD has generally been financed by the public sector, through
bilateral and multilateral funds, with a focus on the creation of capacities for a strategic
development leading to the implementation of specific projects directed towards the
compliancy markets.
Public sector involvement may lead to increased demand for verified emission reductions
(credits) alongside private-sector demand, if and when compliance markets for REDD
emerge (Scneck et al., 2011). According to a Point Carbon study (Reuters, 2011), it is very
likely that an international market for REDD credits will be operational in 2016.

53
Funding and recommendations
Table VI. Bilateral or multilateral funding of REDD actions worldwide
Fuentes: PwC (2011) y TFG (2010).
Table VI lists the governments that are funding REDD activities or have had environmental projects in Mexico, and thereby
could finance the national REDD strategy.
Government Region of interest
Stage of Redd for
funding
Annual total up to
2012 (Million US
dollars)
Norway Global 1, 2 y 3 500
United States of America Latin America and Asia 1 y 2 333
Australia Asia 1 y 2 208
United Kingdom Global 1 150
Japan Global 1 135
European Union Latin America 1 y 2 127
France Amazon Region 1 110
Germany South America 1 100
Spain Latin America 1 50
Canada Mexico 1 35
Sweden Central America and Asia 1 35
Total 1,783

54
To date, the private sector is the biggest buyer of carbon credits
in the voluntary carbon offset market, and will continue to be
an important source of financing for REDD projects in the future.
According to a study on Corporate Social Responsibility, climate
change and environmental friendly branding has become
important factors for companies worldwide, in the aspect of
funding environmental and social development projects (The
Economist, 2008).
Civil Society Organizations are not funding many REDD activities,
but because of their knowledge and experience, they will play a
central role in the management and development of projects.
It is important to emphasize that the most important factors for a
buyer interested in REDD projects are: (i) the credits must be certified
with a recognized standard, and (ii) the forest carbon project must
deliver co-benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation and the
local community development. Regarding the first factor, different
standards exist, such as: Carbon Fix (Carbon Fix, 2011), Plan
Vivo (Scolel Té, 2011) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS,
2011), among others. The VCS is the most common standard in
the voluntary market, and could serve as a benchmark for REDD
projects in Mexico.
If the project includes a standard that measures the environmental
and social impact, buyers are willing to pay a premium price. The
Climate, Community and Biodiversity standard (CCB, 2011) is one
of the most common in forest carbon projects. Other factors of
great importance to the buyers are: project location, experience
and credibility of the responsible organization and, of course, price
per tonne of carbon (EcoSecurities, 2010).
It is important to find potential investors and financing for the
project; there are four options (Sneck et al., 2011):
• Cooperation funds (bilateral and multilateral). These will be
funding all the stages, although probably the developed
countries will not be able to finance all the REDD activities,
especially in view of the current crisis in Europe and the United
States of America.
• Carbon market. This is the most simple and transparent
option, because the commodity will have a market price. The
challenge will be to minimize the chain of intermediaries in
order for the sellers (forest owners) to keep most of the profits.
• Sale of specific projects. Directed to companies whom are
interested in buying credits in the voluntary market. In this case,
a better price may be obtained, but it is more difficult to find a
buyer and projects would have to be unique.
• National development trusts, such as the Mexican Fideicomisos
Instituidos en Relación con la Agricultura (FIRA), which finances
companies from the agricultural, livestock, forestry and fishery
sectors.
There are different markets for carbon credits, such as the European
Union, New Zealand, the Kyoto Primary CDM Market and the OTC
Voluntary Market, to name a few. However, the only international
market that currently accepts REDD credits is the OTC Voluntary
Market. In 2010, the volume of carbon credits traded was 131 MtC,
at an average price of US $6 per tonne (Forest Trends, 2011).
The California carbon market (as part of The Western Climate
Initiative) will probably be launched in 2013. In this market it will be
possible to trade up to 74.3 MtC of international REDD credits until
2020 (Scneck et al., 2011).
The anticipated price in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) market
(2011) is between 10 and 15 USD per tonne of carbon. However,
another projection of carbon prices, generated by interviewing
projection experts, the majority (60%) estimates that by 2020 the
average global carbon price will be 35 USD per tonne (Reuters, 2011).

55
The potential for REDD in Mexico has the following competitive
advantages (relative to other countries): (i) its biodiversity (number of
species and levels of endemism); (ii) a technological and institutional
capacity that, while it requires strengthening for REDD, is sufficient to
begin with; (iii) the social impact REDD actions could have on the
ejidos and communities —which as we have seen are the owners of
the majority of the national forest; and (iv) the close commercial and
cultural relationship with the United States of America. The State of
California has made important progress in the definition of a carbon
credit marketplace and considers Mexico as a potential partner.
Mexico could request funding from countries that are supporting
stages 2 or 3 (Norway, United States of America and Australia) or from
countries that have supported environmental projects in Mexico,
such as Japan or Germany. Such requests for bilateral funding
should lead to the implementation of projects that demonstrate the
capacity and potential that exists to generate environmental and
social benefits, especially in the common property.
Another way to obtain funding is to negotiate with the national
and international companies that are large emitters of carbon at a
national scale, or are seeking a more environmental friendly image.
Many of these companies are found in the infrastructure, mining and
energy sectors; such as: Carso Infrastructure and Construction (of
the Carso Group), Villacero Group, Met-Mex Peñoles, Lamosa and
Cemex, to name a few.
It is important to choose a site to develop a pilot project that can
be demonstrated to potential buyers and interested collaborators.
The site may be within the regions where the REDD “Early actions”
are in progress, such as in the States of Jalisco, Chiapas, Campeche,
Yucatán and Quintana Roo (CONAFOR, 2011a). Even though
environmental service projects are few, especially those of REDD, it is
important to study projects that have been operational for a while.
Here are four interesting cases in Mexico:
• Servicios ambientales de Oaxaca (SAO, 2011) and AMBIO de
Chiapas (AMBIO, 2011). These initiatives are promoted by civil
organizations that have experience in monitoring, verification
and sale of carbon credits in the voluntary market. They know the
potential, costs and challenges etc. of a carbon forest project.
• Sierra Gorda (Querétaro and San Luis Potosí). This is the only
project in Mexico that is certified under the CCB standards
(verification of social and environmental impacts). Moreover, this
project is directly linked to a Biosphere Reserve (Sierra Gorda,
2011).
• Amigos de Sian Ka’an en la Península de Yucatán (ASK, 2011). This
is an NGO collaborating with companies, scientists, technicians
and members of civil society that are working with a project that
offers a range of environmental services. It seeks diversification of
funding from a variety of sources, such as: donations from hotel
guests and development businesses, concurrent funds from
CONAFOR and State resources.

57
General project model
Figure 7 shows the most important components in the preparation of
an AN for participation in environmental service projects.
In the local context, the potential and need for an environmental
service project linked to the conservation and sustainable
management of the natural resources within the AN is determined.
The potential of each AN will depend on different factors, such as:
area (total, common use and individual parcels), vegetation type,
agricultural activities, biodiversity, basins and forestry activities
(timber and non-timber).
ThisislinkedtothesafeguardsofREDDactivities:aforestcarbonproject
must provide social and environmental safeguards; understood
as mechanisms to secure the rights of the local stakeholders, and
the conservation of forests and biodiversity. Before initiating a
project of this type, it is recommended to elaborate a Strategic
Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) document. The SESA
takes into consideration the main concerns and perceptions of the
stakeholders in terms of the risks they associate with a program of
environmental services, as well as the expected benefits (CONAFOR,
2011b).
In the international context, it is expected that a project orientated
towards REDD will respect and conserve the rights of the community,
culture and local life. For this reason, it is necessary to focus on
obtaining the effective and voluntary participation of the involved
stakeholders.
In addition, there is a need to invest in education and empowerment
of the stakeholders, creating structures of local governability that
ensure: (i) free and informed consent, (ii) compliance with safeguards
(social and biodiversity), (iii) equal distribution of benefits, and (iv)
defining guidelines on how to resolve conflicts. In this aspect the
Asamblea and the Reglamento Interno will play a leading role, since
they define the regulation of resource management in the areas of
common use, as well as the rights and obligations of the members.

58
Agrarian
Nucleus
Figure 7. Components for the integration of an environmental services
project.

59
Technical advice and organizational assistance are key factors
for the planning and implementation of a project. It is necessary
to include different stakeholders, such as: government, civil
organizations, private sector and research institutes. Such assistance
should facilitate the process for the community in the identification
of pressure factors on the forest, how to reduce the negative impacts
upon the environmental services etc.
Each project must be planned, developed and implemented
with the active and voluntary participation of the AN. This will be
fundamental to the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV)
activities, which will be impossible without the voluntary participation
of the local stakeholders and the application of remote sensing
technology and statistical analysis.
The AN must be included in the whole process in order to acquire
knowledge and give feedback. MRV is very important, generating
transparency and credibility to projects with complex methodologies
and long-term targets, such as the capture and storage of carbon
in forests. Employment could be generated by MRV activities at the
local scale, thereby reducing these costs (Angelsen, 2009).
The AN must comply with various conditions in order to enter a
payment for environmental services scheme, especially one linked
to the international market. Therefore the internal organization of the
AN must have a high level of participation, equity and cooperation.
The agrarian subjects (common property owners) and inhabitants
that utilize the areas of common use must reach an agreement, in
order for the project to be successful. Land tenure, obligations, rights
and all the factors that form part of the legal framework, must be
well defined.
The participating ejido or community must establish a strong
institutional link with the government, civil society and the companies
interested in environmental services; ensuring cooperation, technical
assistance and governance throughout the process. In these terms,
good governance includes and improves the participation of both
the public and the government in the objective of formulation and
implementation of policies.
The Payments for Environmental Services (PES) component is
defined as the valuation and associated economic compensation
of biodiversity and its environmental services (Álvarez and Muñóz,
2008), considering five elements:
• A voluntary transaction.
• At least one buyer.
• A well-defined environmental service or a land use that could
provide that service.
• At least one provider that effectively controls the provision of
the service.
• Conditionality (the service provider guarantees provision of
the service).
The different types of environmental services (support, provision,
regulationandcultural)arenormallyfundedthroughanagreement
with the government or private company with a presence within
a particular geographical location or that presents a “green”
profile. A typical PES project would include: (i) a sizeable area or
of priority because of certain characteristic (depending on the
scale, context and the objectives of the support initiative), (ii) a
combination of services, and (iii) coverage of various objectives,
such as alleviation of poverty, and rural development, among
others (Wunder, 2005).
Carbon is likely to become the most important and biggest PES
market, but there are also schemes are, such for hydrological
services, biodiversity and landscape (i.e. scenic beauty related
to tourism).
The final component is funding, like any project this includes the
preparation stage (initial investment) and the operating costs. As
mentioned earlier, the funds may be obtained from: governmental
programs, cooperation funds, private sector, civil organizations,
the carbon market or development banks. The funding will also
have to be incorporated into an MRV system, reducing the risk of
corruption and mismanagement of the projects (Angelsen, 2009).
REDD projects incur high costs during the development stage and
they require a lot of upfront funding in order to progress. Moreover,
for projects that depend on the growth of forest biomass —and
of accumulated carbon in soil, (if that is included)—, the financial
breakeven point can extend to more than ten years. It is obvious
that specialized sources of funding are required for projects of this
financial nature.

61
IV. Conclusions
The importance of the ejidos and communities as providers
of environmental services in Mexico is indisputable. The three
environmental services analyzed in this document (carbon capture
and storage, biodiversity conservation and regulation of the
hydrological cycle), shows that approximately half of the surface of
the relevant sites lies within common property and 90% of the priority
regions coincide with one or more AN.
In order to be effective, all strategies of conservation, sustainable
development and adaptation to climate change, require that the
owners and direct users of the common property need to participate
in the implementation.
The prioritization analysis presented in this study differs from other
exercises by focusing on the common property. Another innovation
is that scrubland vegetation is included in the calculation of forest
carbon. This permitted the inclusion of the northern States of Mexico,
and allowed these to “compete” with regions of temperate and
tropical forest located in the mountains and in the southern parts of
the country.
Moreover, the multi-criteria evaluation included environmental and
social variables applied to all the AN in Mexico. This means that sites
—in this case, ejidos and communities— classified as being of Very
High priority could include States in the Yucatán peninsula, southern
Pacific and the north of the country. This approach is not used in
other analyses, which tend to favor the southern region.

62
This suggests that, while national strategies of identification
of environmental services are essential, the promotion and
implementation in ejidos and communities requires a “personalized”
analysis directed towards the local stakeholders. In other words, the
success of such strategies depends more on the strength of social
participation than on the physical and biological elements utilized in
the prioritization exercise.
There are high expectations that REDD will be an innovative
mechanism which will lead to improved management of the rural
territory (mainly temperate forests and agricultural land). This is
reflected in the economic and technical aid that governments
and companies are giving to Mexico in order to design the national
strategy (ENAREDD) and support specific projects.
The results presented here reiterate the fact that implementation of
these strategies will require an intense effort of technology transfer
and management in themes that are new to the agricultural, forestry
or biodiversity conservation sectors. The need to strengthen technical
agencies with the formation of a “New Rural Extensionism” is obvious:
this is the development of strategies and implementation of territorial
projects —with a high participation of common property— rather
than simply the promotion of sectorial actions, as such, it represents
a huge challenge for the development of the national territory.

64
References
Aceves, F. et al. (2006). “Determinación de peligros
volcánicos aplicando técnicas de evaluación
multicriterio y SIG en el área del Nevado de Toluca,
centro de México”, en Revista Mexicana de Ciencias
Geológicas, 23(2), pp. 113-124.
Álvarez, P. y C. Muñoz (2008). “Instrumentos territoriales y
económicos que favorecen la conservación y el uso
sustentable de la biodiversidad”, en Capital natural
de México, vol. III: Políticas públicas y perspectivas de
sustentabilidad, CONABIO, México, pp. 229-258.
AMBIO (2011). (http://www.ambio.org.mx/site/).
Angelsen, A. (2009). Realizing REDD+ National strategy and
policy options (http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_
files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf).
Arriaga,L.,V.AguilaryJ.Alcocer(2002).AguasContinentales
y diversidad biológica de México. Escala 1:4000000,
Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la
Biodiversidad (CONABIO), México.
Arriaga, L. et al. (2009). “Regiones prioritarias y planeación
para la conservación de la biodiversidad”, en Capital
natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de conservación y
tendencias de cambio, CONABIO, México, pp. 433-457.
ASK (2011). Amigos de Sian Ka’an (http://www.
amigosdesiankaan.org/).
Balvera, C. y H. Cotler (2009). “Estado y tendencias de los
servicios ecosistémicos”, en Capital natural de México,
vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio,
CONABIO, México, pp. 185-245.
Carbon Fix (2011) (http://www.carbonfix.info/)
CCB (2011). Climate, Community and Biodiversity (http://
www.climate-standards.org/)
Ceballos, G. et al. (2009). “Zonas críticas y de alto riesgo
para la conservación de la biodiversidad de México”,
en Capital natural de México, vol. II: Estado de
conservación y tendencias de cambio, CONABIO,
México, pp. 575-600.
CONABIO (2004). Regiones Terrestres Prioritarias. Escala
1:1000000, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y
Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), México.
CONAFOR (2010). Visión de México sobre REDD+ Hacia
una Estrategia Nacional, Comisión Nacional Forestal
(CONAFOR), Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales (SEMARNAT), México.
CONAFOR (2011a). La estrategia REDD en México,
Presentación Institucional, Roma, Italia, 15 de marzo
de 2011 (http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/conafor-
presentation-on-redd-in-mexico).
CONAFOR (2011b). Proyecto: bosques y cambio
climático SIL, Informe de evaluación social, México
(http://www.conafor.gob.mx:8080/documentos/
docs/35/2615Informe%20de%20Evaluaci%c3%b3n%20
Social%20M%c3%a9xico.pdf ).
CONAGUA (2010). Diálogos por el agua y el cambio
climático: llamado a la acción, Comisión Nacional del
Agua (CONAGUA), México.
CONAGUA (2011). Identificación de reservas potenciales
de agua para el medio ambiente en México, Comisión
Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), México.
Dooge et al. (2011). Algunos expertos internacionales que
señalanlostemashídricoscomolosmásimportantespara
el cambio climático: James Dooge, University College
Dublin (http://www.iabm.org/climate_change3.htm);
E. Davies y S. Simonovic, University of Western Ontario
(http://publish.uwo.ca/~edavies7/Conferences/
edmonton2005.pdf); NASA (http://earthobservatory.
nasa.gov/Features/Water/page3.php).
EcoSecurities (2010). The Forest Carbon Offsetting Report
2010.
EPA (2011). Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.
gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html.)

65
FAO (2010). Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales
2010. Informe nacional–México, Organización de las
Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación
(FAO), Departamento Forestal, Roma (http://www.fao.org/
docrep/013/i2000s/i2000s00.htm).
FIP (2011). Plan de Inversión Forestal (Forest Investment Plan),
México, CONAFOR.
Forest Trends (2011). Back to the future. State of the Voluntary
Carbon Markets 2011.
Gobierno de México (2008). Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal
Sustentable (última modificación de la Ley publicada en
2003), Diario Oficial de la Federación, 24-11-08.
Gobierno de México (2011). Ley de Aguas Nacionales (última
modificación de la publicada en 1992), Diario Oficial de la
Federación, 20-06-11.
INE (2012). Índice de presión económica (riesgo) de la
deforestación (INE-IRDEF-2.0.1), Instituto Nacional de
Ecología (INE), enero de 2012 (http://www.ine.gob.mx/
irdef).
Matthews, J. y T. Le Quesne (2009). Cómo adaptar la gestión
hídrica. Guía para hacer frente al cambio climático, Serie
Seguridad Hídrica WWF.
McKinley et al. (2011). A synthesis of current knowledge on
forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological
Applications, Vol. 21, núm. 6, pp. 1902-1924.
Meridian Institute (2009). Reducción de Emisiones de la
deforestación y la degradación de bosques. Reporte de
Evaluación de Opciones.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and
human well-being: current state and trends. Washington,
D. C., Island Press (http://www.millenniumassessment.org/
en/index.html).
Ordoñez, A. et al. (2008). “Carbon content in vegetation,
litter, and soil under 10 different land-use and land-cover
classes in the Central Highlands of Michoacan, Mexico”,
en Forest Ecology and Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.
foreco.2007.12.024.
Pagiola, S., J. Bishop y N. Landell-Mills (Eds.) (2002).
“Selling forests environmental services. Market-based
mechanisms for conservation and development”,
Earthscan, Reino Unido, 299 pp.
Poder Ejecutivo Federal (2009). Programa Especial de
Cambio Climático 2009-2012, Comisión Intersecretarial
de Cambio Climático, Diario Oficial de la Federación,
28 de agosto de 2009, México.
Reuters, T. (2011). Point Carbon, Carbon 2011.
SAO (2011). Servicios Ambientales de Oaxaca ( http://www.
sao.org.mx/).
Scneck, J. et al. (2011). Demand for REDD Carbon Credits. A
Primer on Buyers, Markets, and Factors Impacting Prices,
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions,
Working Paper.
Scolel Té (2011). Plan Vivo (Scolel Té) (http://www.planvivo.
org/).
Sierra Gorda (2011) (http://sierragorda.net/).
The Economist (2008). “Just Good Business: A special report
on corporate social responsibility”, enero 2008.
VCS (2011). Voluntary Carbon Stantard (http://www.v-c-s.
org/).
WCI (2011). The Western Climate Initiative (http://www.
westernclimateinitiative.org/).
Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services:
Some nuts and bolts, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42,
Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia.

67
Annex 1. Ecosystems and vegetation types
ECOSYSTEM VEGETATION TYPE
TROPICAL FORESTS
(20 types)
Cultivated forest
Induced forest
Mangrove
Induced palm
Natural palm
Savannah
Sabanoide
High evergreen forest
High subevergreen forest
Low deciduous forest
Low spiny deciduous forest
Low spiny subevergreen forest
Low evergreen forest
Low subdeciduous forest
Tropical gallery forest
Medium deciduous forest
Medium evergreen forest
Medium subdeciduous forest
Medium subevergreen forest
Peten vegetation
Source: Vegetation types from INEGI, and grouping per ecosystem from CONAFOR
(information from the National Forest and Soil Inventory)

68
Source: Vegetation types from INEGI, and grouping per ecosystem from CONAFOR
(information from the National Forest and Soil Inventory)
ECOSYSTEM VEGETATION TYPE
SCRUBLANDS
(16 types)
Mezquite forest
Chaparral
Crasicaule scrub
Microphyllous desert scrub
Rosetophyllous desert scrub
Tamaulipas scrub
Rosetophyllous coastal scrub
Sarcocaule scrub
Sarcocrasicaule scrub
Fog sarcocrasicaule scrub
Submontane scrub
Subtropical scrub
Desert mezquital
Tropical mezquital
Sandy desert vegetation
Gallery vegetation
TEMPERATE FORESTS
(11 types)
Ayarin forest
Cedar forest
Oak forest
Oak-pine forest
Temperate gallery forest
Oyamel forest
Pine forest
Pine-oak forest
Tascate forest
Montane cloud forest
Coniferous scrub

69
Annex 2. Allocation of scores to the criteria with categories
In this criterion, the index of economic pressure (risk)
of deforestation is utilized, developed by the National
Institute of Ecology (INE, 2012). This index is a value that
indicates, through physical, biological and economic
variables, the relative risk of deforestation in each forested
property of the country, in “plots” of 9 ha per pixel.
The database incorporated in the GIS of the present
analysis has each pixel (9 ha) classified into five categories
(level of deforestation risk): Very High, High, Medium, Low
and Very Low. Considering the maximum score for this
criterion to be 20 points, the following scale was utilized:
Risk of deforestation
Table 1. Scores assigned to the categories
of deforestation risk
INE Category (2012) Assigned score
Very high 20
High 16
Medium 12
Low 8
Very low 4
Nil 0

70
Table 2. Scores assigned to the categories of Recorded loss
Table 3. Scores assigned per vegetation type in observed Deforestation
Recorded forest loss
For this criterion, change in area per vegetation type (temperate forests, tropical forests and scrublands) was analyzed
in the land use maps of INEGI, considering a period of 14 years: from 1993 (Series II) to 2007 (Series IV). Categories and a
numerical scale were assigned in accordance with the percentages of vegetation loss in this period (Table 2).
Following this, scores for the criterion Recorded loss were assigned in the following manner:
Category Area lost (1993-2007) Assigned score
Very high > 25% 10
High 10 - 25% 5
Medium 5 – 10% 3
Low <5% 1
Nil
No change, increase and invalid
categories for this analysis
0
Land use and vegetation type (INEGI) Types (No.)
Assigned
score
Medium evergreen tropical forest, gypsophyllous vegetation, savannah, tropical gallery forest and low evergreen tropical
forest.
5 10
Medium deciduous tropical forest, temperate gallery forest, cedar forest, Gallery vegetation, mezquital 1,* gypsophyllous
pasture, low spiny tropical forest, high subevergreen tropical forest and popal vegetation.
9 5
Medium subdeciduous tropical forest, medium subevergreen tropical forest, mezquital 2, mezquital 3, high evergreen tropical
forest, low deciduous tropical forest, halophyllous pasture, coastal dune vegetation, halophyllous vegetation, halophyllous
hydrophyllous vegetation, Tamaulipas scrub, montane cloud forest
12 3
Crasicaule scrub, low subevergreen tropical forest, rosetophyllous coastal scrub, natural pasture, high montane prairie,
temperate pine forest, mangrove, temperate pine-oak forest, water bodies, tropical induced palm, temperate oak forest,
temperate oak-pine forest, Temperate oyamel forest, microphyllous desert scrub, temperate tascate forest, submontane scrub,
fog sarcocrasicaule scrub, sarcocrasicaule scrub, chaparral, subtropical scrub, secondary herbaceous vegetation, sandy
desert vegetation, sarcocaule scrub, temperate ayarin forest, rosetophyllous desert scrub, coniferous scrub.
26 1
Urban zone, peten, tular, no apparent vegetation, low subdeciduous tropical forest, induced pasture, sabanoide vegetation,
agricultural forestry information, induced forest, natural palm, area devoid of vegetation, human settlement and cultivated
forest.
13 0
* INEGI has various types of mezquital registered; here they are identified by number.

71
Carbon content
For the criterion of carbon, first the density of carbon (tonnes/ha) was
calculated for each type of vegetation in temperate and tropical
forests and in scrublands (in total, 47 vegetation types, see Annex 1).
This was carried out using information generated by CONAFOR for
the FAO (2010)4
regarding the condition of the temperate forests in
Mexico. The calculated values were combined with the layer of Land
Use and Vegetation information from INEGI Series IV (2007, 1:250,000
scale), such that each AN had values of carbon density (tonnes/
ha) and area (ha) for each vegetation type. The summation of these
Category
Carbon content within agrarian
nucleus (tonnes)*
Assigned score
Very high >4,320,211 - 19,252,982 20
High >1,204,093 - 4,320,211 10
Medium >255,150 - 1,204093 15
Low 0.0006 - 255,150 5
Nil
Without tropical or temperate forest
or scrubland
0
Table 4 – Scores assigned per carbon content within an agrarian nucleus
*Includes temperate forests, tropical forests and scrublands (see Annex 1).
In this case, the score does not require weighting since the total carbon is calculated through the summation of values within the AN.
It is worth noting that the carbon content values calculated here do not represent the total inventory of carbon per AN, since they do
not include all the land uses and vegetation types that also contain carbon.
4 Evaluation of global forest resources 2010. National Report, Mexico, FAO, Rome, 2010.
values provided the carbon content per AN (tonnes). Applying
the “Natural breakpoints” method allowed the formation —
from a numerical variable— of groups that minimize intragroup
differences while maximizing intergroup differences. Thus we
generated four categories of carbon content per AN (Very
High, High, Medium and Low). Each of these was subsequently
assigned a score based on the weighting of the Carbon
content criterion (Table 4).

Potential of Environmental Services in the Common Property in México

Potential of Environmental Services in the Common Property in México

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Potential of Environmental Services in the Common Property in México

Similar to Potential of Environmental Services in the Common Property in México (20)

More from José Pablo Gómez Barrón S.

More from José Pablo Gómez Barrón S. (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Potential of Environmental Services in the Common Property in México