Abstract
Documenting financial resources in biodiversity conservation is a key aspect worldwide in order to set priorities and use effectively the limited resources available. In Mexico, a megadiverse country, studies on financial resources invested in biodiversity conservation are scarce and do not address funding for conservation comprehensively. Using recent data from several sources and applying criteria based on the national priorities for conservation, we compiled, systematized and analyzed data at a national scale on financing sources, financial resources and conservation organizations and their projects. The information obtained is presented in various ways and part of it (case study) is already an information system that can be continuously up-dated. Some of the results show the following: a steady diversification of mechanisms and methods for raising funds for conservation; an increase in governmental budgets; the acknowledgment by the private sector of the importance of biodiversity conservation; a greater technical capacity in people and organizations working in conservation; a greater accessibility of financial resources to support and maintain conservation projects; yet a short term vision in conservation projects; among other. Although the results obtained through this study are a first approach, they can now be used as a baseline to continue gathering and analyzing information on conservation financing in Mexico.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- BI:
-
Birdlife International
- CI:
-
Conservation International
- CONABIO:
-
National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity
- CONAFOR:
-
National Forestry Commission
- CONANP:
-
National Commission for Natural Protected Areas
- CI:
-
Conservation International
- FANP:
-
Fund for Natural Protected Areas
- FGRA:
-
Gonzalo Rio Arronte Foundation
- FMCN:
-
Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature
- GEF:
-
Global Environment Facility
- GESGIAP:
-
Sierra Gorda Ecological Group
- IMCO:
-
Mexican Institute for Competitiveness
- IADB:
-
Interamerican Development Bank
- IUCN:
-
International Union for Conservation of Nature
- NGOs:
-
Non-governmental organizations
- NPAs:
-
Natural Protected Areas
- PROFEPA:
-
Office of the Attorney General for Protection of the Environment
- SAGARPA:
-
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Rural, Fisheries and FoodDevelopment
- SEDESOL:
-
Ministry of Social Development
- SEMARNAP:
-
Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries
- SEMARNAT:
-
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
- TNC:
-
The Nature Conservancy
- USAID:
-
United States Agency for International Development
- USF&WS:
-
US Fish and Wildlife Service
- WWF:
-
World Wildlife Fund
References
Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S et al (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279(5359):2126–2128
Arroyo-Quiroz I, Perez-Gil R, Leader-Williams N (2005) Developing countries and the implementation of CITES: the Mexican experience. J Int Wildl Law Policy 8(1):13–49. doi:10.1080/13880290590913714
Balmford A, Whitten T (2003) Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met? Oryx 37:238–250. doi:10.1017/S0030605303000413
Balmford A, Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL et al (2000) Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conserv Biol 14(3):597–605. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00000-i2.x
Balmford A et al (2002) Ecology—economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953. doi:10.1126/science.1073947
Balmford A, Gaston KJ, Blyth S et al (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(3):1046–1050. doi:10.1073/pnas.0236945100
Castro G, Locker I Russell et al (2000) Mapping conservation investments. USAID, Biodiversity Support Program, World Bank
CEMEFI (2006) http://www.cemefi.org/index.php?optionfiltered=com content&task=view&id=632&Itemid=19. Cited Aug 2006
CONABIO (1998) La diversidad biológica de México: Estudio de País. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Mexico
CONABIO (2000) Estrategia nacional sobre biodiversidad de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Mexico
Ferrier S (2002) Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst Biol 51(2):331–363. doi:10.1080/10635150252899806
Ferrier S et al (2004) Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment. Bioscience 54(12):1101–1108. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1101:MMOTBF]2.0.CO;2
FGRA (2006) Informe del Programa Agua. Documento Interno. Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte IAP, Mexico (unpublished report)
FMCN (2005) Directorio Mexicano de la Conservación 2005. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Mexico
FONATUR (2006) http://www.fonatur.gob.mx/indexmis.html. Accessed Sep 2006
Halpern B, Pyke CR, Fox HE et al (2006) Gaps and mismatches between global conservation priorities and spending. Conserv Biol 20(1):56–64. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00258.x
Hughey KFD et al (2003) Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management. Conserv Biol 17(1):93–103. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01317.x
Hutton J, Adams WM, Murombedzi JC (2005) Back to the barriers? changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum Dev Stud (2):341–370
IADB (2003a) Annual report for 2003. http://www.iadb.org
IADB (2003b) Annual report for 2004. http://www.iadb.org
IADB (2003c) Annual report for 2005. http://www.iadb.org
IMCO (2006) http://www.imco.org.mx/monitor.php. Accessed Sep 2006
James A, Gaston KJ, Balmford A (1999) Balancing the earth’s accounts. Nature 401:323–324. doi:10.1038/43774
James A, Gaston KJ, Balmford A (2001) Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? Bioscience 51(1):43–52. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0043:CWATCB]2.0.CO;2
Kareiva P, Marvier M (2003) Conserving biodiversity coldspots. Am Sci 91:344–351
Lee TM, Jetz W (2008) Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:1261–1270. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1732
Mace GM (2000) It’s time to work together and stop duplicating conservation efforts. Nature 405:393. doi:10.1038/35013247
Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251
Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham H (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00624.x
NAWCA (2003) Programmatic evaluation of the NAWCA program in México 1991–2001. PG7 Consultores S C. and FAUNAM A.C., Mexico
NPS (2008). News release. http://www.nps.gov./applications/release
O’Connor C, Marvier M, Kareiva P (2003) Biological vs. social, economic and political priority-setting in conservation. Ecol Lett 6:706–711. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00499.x
OECD (2002) Handbook of biodiversity valuation. A guide for policy makers. OECD, Paris, France
Olson D, Dinerstein E (1998) The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol 12:502–515. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003502.x
Pérez-Gil R, Jaramillo F (1999) Evaluación del financiamiento y consecución de apoyos y fondos en Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México: estudio de caso para 31 áreas selectas. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza A.C. (FMCN), Mexico
Putney A, Pérez-Gil R, Ceciliano K et al (2000) Evaluación Independiente del Programa de Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México del GEF. Informe al Banco Mundial, GEF y Consejo Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, May 2000
Saterson KA et al (2004) Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 18(3):597–599. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01831.x
SECTUR (2006) http://www.sectur.gob.mx/wb2/sectur/sect_9_vision_y_mision. http://www.sectur.gob.mx/wb2/sectur/sect_9190_ecoturismo_en_mexico. http://www.sectur.gob.mx/wb2/sectur/sect_9191_turismo_cinegetico. Accessed Sep 2006
SEMARNAP (2000) Estrategia Nacional para la vida silvestre: Logros y Retos para el Desarrollo Sustentable 1995–2000. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca y el Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico. CONABIO (1998) La diversidad biológica de México: Estudio de País. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Mexico
Smith RJ, Muir RDJ, Walpole MJ et al (2003) Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature 426:67–70. doi:10.1038/nature02025
USF&WS (2008) Endangered and threatened species expenditures FY 2003. http://www.usfws.gov/endangered/pubs
WWF (2004) Annual review 2003. World Wide Fund for Nature, Switzerland, 20 pp
WWF (2005) Annual review 2004. World Wide Fund for Nature, Switzerland, 20 pp
WWF (2006) Working together; annual review 2003. World Wide Fund for Nature, Switzerland, 24 pp
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a grant from the Consejo Consultivo de la Iniciativa Ambiental Cuencas (Mexico), constituted by the following organizations: Conservation International (CI), Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN), Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), PRONATURA, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Gratitude is also extended to all staff of institutions and private individuals who were welcoming and supportive to this study. Special thanks to Alejandro Olvera Olivares and Vladimir Cachón Guillén for all their support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salcido, R.P.G., Quiroz, I.A. & Ramírez, R.R. Understanding investment in biodiversity conservation in Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 18, 1421–1434 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9538-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9538-6