evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Altépetl Bienestar — Mexico City's Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Suelo de Conservación

Mexico · Mexico City · See the Mexico profile · See the Mexico City profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Mexico City pays communities in its 87,000+ hectare Suelo de Conservación to protect forests and aquifer recharge. Since 2019, Altépetl Bienestar has reached 36,594 beneficiaries, but academic review found predecessor schemes' environmental outcomes weakly measured.

36,594
Direct beneficiaries (Altépetl Bienestar, first 3 years) (2019–2022)
~5,000
PROFACE annual beneficiaries (2008–2018)
105.9 million pesos
PROFACE annual budget (2008–2018)
5 million+ pesos
2022 payment to five agrarian communities (2022)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Secretaría del Medio Ambiente de la Ciudad de México (SEDEMA)
Period
2008–present
Keywords
payments for ecosystem services, urban conservation land, watershed protection, community forestry

Context

Mexico City's Suelo de Conservación covers more than 87,000 hectares of forest, farmland and wetland that supply much of the Valley of Mexico's aquifer recharge and biodiversity, and since 2008 the city's environment ministry SEDEMA has run payment-for-ecosystem-services schemes for the rural and indigenous communities who own this land.

Objectives

The programmes pay ejidos and comunidades for surveillance, restoration and conservation work on their land, aiming to protect the aquifer recharge zone while supporting community livelihoods.

Activities

Two flagship predecessors, PROFACE (2008–2018, about 105.9 million pesos a year, roughly 5,000 annual beneficiaries) and PRCSA (2010–2018, about 20 million pesos a year across 13,500+ hectares), were succeeded from 2019 by Altépetl Bienestar, which reports 36,594 direct beneficiaries over its first three years, plus a 2022 payment of more than 5 million pesos to five agrarian communities across 4,931 hectares.

Results

The successor programme has reached tens of thousands of beneficiaries and continued multi-million-peso annual payments to conservation communities across the reserve.

Conclusions

A peer-reviewed policy-coherence study in Región y Sociedad found the environmental dimension of the predecessor programmes produced "limited and unclear effects" on land-use change, that beneficiaries became economically dependent on the subsidies without developing sustainable alternatives, and that payments sometimes intensified rather than resolved internal community conflicts.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Roughly 105.9M pesos/year (PROFACE) and 20M pesos/year (PRCSA) in predecessor budgets; current Altépetl Bienestar budget not itemised in sources.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Running continuously since 2008 across successive programme phases.
Staffing & skills
SEDEMA (Mexico City environment ministry) programme staff, Community-level beneficiaries (ejidos and comunidades) performing surveillance, restoration and conservation work

Conditions for success

  • Recognised land tenure of ejidos/comunidades within the Suelo de Conservación
  • Continuous municipal budget allocation across successive programme names (PROFACE, PRCSA, Altépetl Bienestar)

Common failure modes

  • Beneficiaries became economically dependent on subsidies without developing sustainable alternatives (Región y Sociedad study)
  • Payments sometimes intensified rather than resolved internal conflicts within agrarian communities

Where it fits

Governance type
municipal government
Scale
city-wide (87,000+ ha conservation zone)
Income level
upper-middle-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful