Q&A with Gina and Daniel

Each year, NOSSA, a coalition of five nonpartisan environmental nonprofits, including Wildlands Network, analyzes the federal expenditure budget proposed by the Mexican Chamber of Deputies for the coming year. The goal is to ensure proper funding for Mexico’s Natural Protected Areas (NPAs).  

In October, NOSSA’s annual report described how the proposed 2026 budget for Mexico’s National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) had decreased, a continuation of a troubling trend away from directing funding toward natural areas that threatens to derail Mexico’s conservation goals. The initial budget for 2026 represented a 12% decrease from the total budget allocated for 2025 and the lowest budget for the agency in 21 years. 

But thanks to NOSSA’s strategic awareness-raising efforts via the media and other avenues, the coalition received some encouraging news: Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies voted to increase the budget for CONANP by 50% over the initial proposal for 2026, and 31.7% over last year’s allocation. In this Q&A, WN's Mexico public policy director, Gina Chacón, and WN’s NOSSA Coordinator, Daniel Martin, reflect on the work that led to this significant win, and what’s on the horizon for Mexico’s NPAs. 

The reallocation of 500 million pesos represents a 50% increase over the initial proposal for 2026, and a 31.7% increase over the 2025 fiscal allocation. Put this win in context — is this the first time the Mexican Chamber of Deputies has revised up its CONANP budget? Have there been similar revisions in previous years? 

Gina: This reallocation of public resources for the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) during the budget negotiation period (September-November) in the Chamber of Deputies is unprecedented. Legislators took into account the financial needs for the care of natural protected areas, as presented by civil society and the National Commissioner for Natural Protected Areas. 

Mexico has made commitments through COP30 and the 2030 biodiversity goals. One of Mexico’s goals is preserving 30% of its marine and land areas by 2030. What are some of Mexico’s other key goals, and how does increasing funding for NPAs support reaching them? 

Daniel: NPAs are huge natural carbon sinks. The new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) just submitted by the Mexican government needs nature-based solutions. Effectively managing our NPAs is a key element to fulfill our international commitments regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation, especially given that NDC 3.0 emphasizes the protection of communities against climate impact, something that definitely requires well-funded NPAs.  

At a regional level, Mexico has ratified the Escazú Agreement, which demands that the Mexican government adopt public policies to ensure the right of access to environmental justice following the principles of non-regression, progressive realization, and intergenerational equity. Ensuring that the environmental budget for 2026 is larger than the one assigned for the previous year (31.7% more than 2025) means that implementation of the Escazú Agreement stays on track as well.  

Domestically, the Program for the Environment and Natural Resources 2025-2030 (Promarnat) is the main instrument to determine environmental public policy for the following 5 years. Its first objective is to conserve, protect, and sustainably use ecosystems [...] as a means to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality. Its first strategy to achieve this objective is to increase the extension and management effectiveness of NPAs to safeguard biodiversity and increase the quality of life of local communities. This cannot be done without gradually but consistently increasing the budget for CONANP from this year on to 2030. So there are both international and national goals that must be met with NPAs: increasing carbon capture, reducing climate change impacts to communities, providing access to environmental justice, and improving NPAs management. 

What kinds of activities will this funding potentially enable in Mexico’s NPAs in the coming year?  

Daniel: It is very likely that CONANP will use these resources to cover urgent operational needs, like ensuring tools for managing NPAs or hiring additional personnel to protect the areas.

However, this September, the Mexican government published the Roadmap to meet or overcome Target 3 of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It outlines a whole set of activities for NPAs that could benefit from this additional funding in 2026-2027.  

First and foremost, this means updating the management programs of national and subnational NPAs and developing management programs for areas that don't have one (currently, 92 of the 232 national NPAs lack this crucial instrument). Done properly, this means participatory processes with the local communities and other stakeholders who use the NPAs, and that requires a lot of money. 

Then there is also giving proper legal status to park rangers, and ensuring their equipment and training to adequately face the threats to the territory they’re assigned to. The International Ranger Federation has developed a standard that can be used as a guide to fulfill the main needs of park rangers, both on paper and on the ground.  

Finally, the Roadmap establishes for this period the implementation and publishing of the Third Management Effectiveness Assessment in national NPAs.  

So there it is — CONANP already has a clear conception of its needs and a roadmap to improve NPAs’ effectiveness for 2026 and the following years.  

You credited NOSSA’s awareness-raising efforts for this win and mentioned providing data and proposals for a chamber budget debate and participating in a forum at the Chamber of Deputies. What was the forum like? How did you share your message? Did people seem receptive to your message in the moment? 

Gina: The reallocation of resources to CONANP is the result of several years of sustained work to which the NOSSA coalition has significantly contributed. NOSSA has focused on analyzing the public budgets allocated to CONANP and their impacts on the conservation of protected areas. These analyses, presented in the report Caring for What Matters, coordinated by WN, have been accompanied by concrete proposals to increase public funding and to strengthen transparency and accountability in the use of these resources. 

This groundwork was reinforced by this year’s efforts, particularly the dialogue session “Protected Areas: An Investment for Mexico’s Environmental, Social, and Economic Well-being” held in the Chamber of Deputies on October 24. In this forum, WN and NOSSA presented concrete proposals to strengthen public financing for protected areas, alongside the National Commissioner for Protected Areas. The participation of legislators from different political parties was especially positive and receptive to the message. 

Together, continued awareness-raising, solid technical analysis, legislative proposals, and strategic media engagement were decisive factors that contributed to this historic decision to reallocate public resources to CONANP. 

Could you tell us more about awareness-raising through media outreach? What kind of engagement and feedback did these efforts generate? 

Gina: A key component has been constant outreach through the media. The continuous dissemination of messages on social media, participation in interviews on programs with large audiences, publication of blogs and newspaper articles in national and even foreign media, and blogs helped to position this issue on the public agenda, alerting people and decision makers to the risks of continuous budget cuts in protected areas. 

During the budget negotiation period from September to November 2025, a total of 50 local and national media outlets picked up NOSSA’s press releases and disseminated coalition-generated data on protected areas. In addition, the coalition secured two live interviews on a national radio program with a large audience, as well as one interview on a local show, further amplifying the reach of our message. 

For many years, NOSSA has successfully highlighted — both in the media and on the public agenda — the fact that only 10 pesos (USD $0.54) are allocated per protected hectare in Mexico. This figure, now commonly cited by legislators and the press, was virtually unknown before the coalition’s reports. By making this information visible, we helped position the lack of resources for protected areas as a public problem and contributed to informed discussions about their budget in the Chamber of Deputies. 

The head of CONANP described the potential for an operational funding gap of $200 million pesos by 2030. How does this reversal address that gap? What effort do you anticipate will be required to bridge that gap by 2030? 

Gina: It is necessary to progressively increase public resources through the Federal Expenditure Budget. Another way to address that gap is through NPA visitor fee revenue. While the revenue generated from visitor fees in protected areas constitutes an additional source of income, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit currently retains part of these funds. Therefore, 100% of this revenue must be returned to CONANP so it can be reinvested in the sustainable management of protected areas as mentioned by the Federal Right’s Law. Additionally, fees collected from concessions for activities within protected areas — such as those paid by tourism service providers — should also be returned to CONANP, as these revenues are currently given to the agency. 

It was often said that attempting to address the declining budget for parks was a lost cause. What made you think otherwise, and how do you keep your hopes up when these wins can take years in the making? 

Gina: I believe that environmental organizations — and particularly NOSSA — have played a decisive role in positioning the lack of public funding for natural protected areas, and the continued budget cuts, as a national public issue. This is the first step in making visible the urgent need to invest in “caring for what matters”: NPAs. 

To advance this framing of the public problem, it is essential to rely on solid evidence: analysis of official data, rigorous budget monitoring, and concrete recommendations to increase the resources needed to meet conservation goals and to strengthen transparency and accountability. 

Our contribution has been precisely this: analyzing and tracking public budgets, defining the public problem that must be addressed, and developing actionable proposals. When these elements converged with the political will of key decision-makers, they created the conditions for change. We were ready with evidence and timely recommendations at the moment when the political context opened the window of opportunity. 

Daniel: I think that the NOSSA coalition members are not giving up the fight because it has never been just about the numbers. For each of us, NPAs are so much more than just names on a spreadsheet or lines on a map; they are the place where humanity and nature meet and coexist. To give up the fight would mean resigning and sending a message to the communities we work with that they don’t matter; it would mean disqualifying years of work on the ground along with relationships and life stories.  

Furthermore, this is a fair demand; it is not a favor we’re asking, but mere compliance with the law. The right to a healthy environment is not negotiable. After six years of working on the issue, we have learned a lot about how the system works, and we managed to convey this message to the right people at the right time.