Social Safeguards for REDD+ in Mexico’s Watershed Management Program

Abstract: Case studies on environmental governance are essential to improve comprehension on howto implement international agreements. This study focuses on seven social safeguards relevant toREDD+. The existence of these social safeguards is examined in Mexico’s watershed managementprogram in La Sierra Madre and La Costa of Chiapas. The watershed management program is anotherPayment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme similar to REDD+. Questionnaires and interviews wereused to conduct primary research with participants of the water management program. Upon theexamination of the collected data the safeguards were analysed on their sufficiency for REDD+.REDD+ itself could not be examined as it is still in the stage of preparation at the time of the research.Results varied between each safeguards. A complaint mechanism does exist but is underutilized andgenerally dysfunctional. Local knowledge is considered and used as the watershed managementprogram has a flat hierarchy of decision-making. However this is only the case at the lowestinstitutional level of the Comités de Cuenca. The higher the level the less likely it is that localknowledge will be considered. This is reflected in the social safeguard of full and effectiveparticipation, which is only fulfilled at the lowest level. There are no barriers to participation when itcomes to implementing and evaluating the mechanism on a local scale. However the design of it isdone on institutional levels beyond the reach of locals. The application of free, prior and informedconsent is upheld within the mechanism, as everyone participates by his or her own free choice.Marginalized stakeholders such as women, indigenous people and youth are also free to participate;unfortunately, little is done to encourage them to do so. As a result few to none are present, turning theComités de Cuenca into decision-making bodies for comparably wealthy and influential citizens at thelocal scale. The benefits acquired from the mechanism mostly go to e.g. work-committees where muchof the funds are distributed as income to temporary workers from the local community. According toparticipants of the Comités and managers alike, the decision-making process is equal to the waydecisions were made before the arrival of the mechanism.It could be observed that some social safeguards are in place, however, none of them sufficiently forREDD+. In regards to implementation of REDD+ the most challenging social safeguard will be theconcept of “free, prior and informed consent”. This holds true as long as REDD+ will be implementednationally. If that will be the case the government would have to convince locals across the country toparticipate in REDD+, including those that already announced their opposition in the Declaration ofPatihuitz (Declaration of Patihuitz 2011). Without legitimization there will be little participation andcommitment on the side of local people, which is crucial to make REDD+ work. Hence it isrecommended that the mechanism takes a process-oriented focus in order to legitimize the mechanism.