Key messagesThe monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of activities carried out for REDD+ in Mexico can shed some light on the challenges that could be faced when complying with the provisions of the Paris Agreement and the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) it establishes. Addressing the concerns presented by multiple stakeholders on several levels will contribute to highlighting transparency, in accordance with the ETF.National and subnational stakeholders should make an effort to officially clarify the objectives and scope of the National Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System (SNMRV); and of subnational stakeholder participation (institutional arrangements, times, inputs, outputs, roles, and responsibilities); and how to establish complementariness with other national and subnational monitoring initiatives.The experience and knowledge of subnational stakeholders can improve and enrich MRV in Mexico, since its efforts, interests and needs go beyond the simple monitoring of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that the SNMRV has performed so far.Long-term institutionalization should be ensured for REDD+ and the MRV system at the different government levels to overcome changes associated with political cycles and ensure the continuity of financial, technical and administrative efforts. Given that budget cuts have affected public administration in Mexico, more stakeholders and funding sources (private sector, academia, civil society, foundations) should support technical requirements for MRV and other monitoring initiatives.Interviewed national and subnational stakeholders valued the implementation of the national initiative for the reduction of forest emissions (IRE) through the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the mechanisms to strengthen subnational stakeholders (such as the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force, GCF), as well as opportunities to clarify questions on MRV procedures and empower the states for decision-making.
[1]
A. Larson,et al.
The politics of REDD+ MRV in Mexico: The interplay of the national and subnational levels
,
2017
.
[2]
Tim Trench,et al.
Bosques y suelos en el contexto de REDD+: Entre gobierno y gobernanza en México
,
2016
.
[3]
A. Duchelle,et al.
Multilevel governance challenges in transitioning towards a national approach for REDD+: evidence from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives
,
2015
.
[4]
M. Brockhaus,et al.
Multiple levels and multiple challenges for measurement, reporting and verification of REDD+
,
2013
.
[5]
A. Larson,et al.
Más allá del enfoque técnico El proceso político en el desarrollo de un sistema de MRV en Perú
,
2016
.
[6]
Stephen Pax Leonard,et al.
Enhancing transparency in the land-use sector: Exploring the role of independent monitoring approaches
,
2016
.
[7]
M. J. Vijge.
Carbonizing forest governance: analyzing the consequences of REDD+ for multilevel forest governance
,
2016
.
[8]
Amy E. Duchelle,et al.
Multiple levels and multiple challenges for REDD+: Lessons from the field [Japanese]
,
2012
.