indicators for the instruments of in situ conservation · of the factors that strengthen or block...

95

Scope and vision

Public environmental policies have been evaluated from several perspectives, e.g. academic or governmental, and the methodologies used in each case are very dif-ferent. For example, from an academic perspective, Merino and Segura-Warnholtz (2007) emphasize that public forestry policies must be based on an understanding of the factors that strengthen or block the efforts of communities to confront the dilemmas of the collective management of resources, i.e. that local measures are sufficient for the building of policies that promote sustainability. The methodolo-gies used in this type of study are social research techniques, such as questionnaires or focus groups. In terms of the environmental policy assessments prepared by the government; when Mexico joined the Program of Action for Sustainable Devel-opment, or Agenda 21, signed during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, our country undertook to adopt both national and global measures of sustainability, such as actions aimed at the generation of indicators through which to measure and evaluate the policies, instruments and strategies for sustainable development. However, far from generating committed indicators, Mexican policies regarding measurement and evaluation have adhered to the implementation of the so-called Logical Framework Matrix (LFM), an instrument designed to give some order and permit the monitoring of budgetary policies and public governance. It is therefore increasingly common, among those responsible for planning or managing invest-ment initiatives in the public sector, to speak in terms of the logical framework of a program or project. This is particularly true over the last few years, since the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), has been strongly promoting the use of the LFM in Latin America. The method was developed during the 1960s, basi-cally attempting to circumvent three common problems: the existence of multiple objectives in a project and the inclusion of activities that do not contribute to its fulfillment; executive failures due to the lack of a clear definition of responsibili-ties and methods for appropriate monitoring and control and, finally, the lack of an objective and consensual basis on which to compare the planned results with those actually achieved.

However, the LFM is not self-sufficient, it does not automatically solve man-agement problems, nor does it guarantee project success. For example, the LFM is not able to assess ex-ante the socio-economic suitability or financial viability

Indicators for the instruments of in situ conservationVéronique Sophie Ávila Foucat, Felipe Ramírez Ruiz de Velasco and Ana Ortiz Monasterio

96

of a given project. Neither is it sufficient to guarantee good scheduling for the implementation of the project, or an effective and efficient control of its execu-tion. Moreover, it does not question the objectives and relevance of the program. It is therefore necessary to turn to other complementary instruments and tech-niques to determine if a project is suitable for the country (social evaluation) and for the institution which undertakes its implementation (private evaluation). The LFM does not ensure that the project will have the support of the community and authorities involved, and should therefore be used in conjunction with other methods, techniques and instruments in methodologies to formulate and manage projects. This method has its detractors and has been criticized, mainly regarding the overly rigid application of the method, without adaptation to the individual characteristics of each case. In summary, the LFM is a very useful instrument and can be recommended for the entire term management of projects, but must be used in conjunction with other techniques and methods at different stages of the project life cycle.

However, it is important to note that there have been very few evaluations of in situ conservation instruments; and almost all of these have focused on evaluation of programs or laws.

In response to this deficiency, the present project, entitled “Criteria for the evaluation of the efficacy and capacities of selected instruments of in situ con-servation”, has been formulated, and aims to provide criteria for the evaluation of the following conservation instruments: sustainable forest management (SFM), payment for environmental services (PES) and management units for the con-servation of wildlife (UMAs) (Boxes 1, 2 and 3). These conservation instruments were selected because they have had little revision to date and there are therefore no existing criteria for their evaluation, and also because they are all instruments that are directed to local beneficiaries, i.e. they are comparable in terms of scale. It would be difficult to compare an instrument of planning for the use of natural resources, such as protected natural areas or land-use planning, with the UMAs, which are voluntary instruments aimed at communities. While the UMAs, the SFM and PES share the same scale, they are very different instruments; the latter two are schemes of federal subsidy, while the former is a voluntary scheme that induces the development of emerging markets and self-sufficiency. Sustainable forest management is one of the most evaluated instruments, and some examples can be found in which the logical framework has not been used, and an effort has been made to generate indicators. For example, Morán (2005) developed a standard composed of principles, criteria and indicators for assessing the sustain-ability of community forest management, applied in 16 communities in the state

97

of Guerrero. Also worth mentioning is the work of Luján et al. (2003), in which a system of principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers was designed to assess the progress of sustainable forest development in a forest of Chihuahua, and used to analyze the socio-economic, ecological and cultural situation of the community that managed the forest.

The program of PES, despite being a relatively recent instrument, has been the object of discussions that have produced elements to determine criteria for its evaluation (Kosoy et al., 2007). However, the development of systematic assess-ments of this instrument is still required to determine its efficacy as a policy of in situ conservation.

UMAs are productive areas that promote alternative schemes compatible with the protection of the environment through extractive and non-extractive uses of renewable natural resources. They seek to substantially change the practices of undervaluation, abusive exploitation and application of restrictive models which have been used in the country in relation to wildlife. UMAs were derived from the Program of Wildlife Conservation and Productive Diversification in the Rural Sector, 1997-2000 in Mexico, which established the general objective: “To conserve the biodiversity of Mexico and to generate opportunities of socio-economic diversification for the rural sector.” Both the overall purpose and the specific objectives of this program were adopted and developed by the general law covering the subject. Its regulations limit the concept of UMAs to those subject to management in the wild; intensive UMAs directed towards the reproduction of specimens for subsequent return to the wild; and federally owned property. UMAs have been integrated into the System of Management Units for the Conservation of Wildlife (SUMA, by its Spanish acronym), which, through the grouping of these units, seeks to enhance their capacity for conservation. The SUMA has grown year after year, to such an extent that it currently incorporates more than eight thousand units, representing 15.6% of the national territory and covering an area of more than 30 million hectares. Due to their characteristics, UMAs instill in the owners or occupants of the properties a more positive perception regarding wildlife and habitat conservation in the owners or occupants

of the properties through the possibility of utilizing them to obtain benefits. The UMAs are generating alternative sources of employment, income and foreign currency for rural communities (Guajardo and Martínez, 2004), resulting in the maintenance of environmental goods and services. Trade in wildlife generates important economic benefits for communities, and it has been estimated that the economic impact is close to three billion pesos a year (Anta, Carabias et al., 2008). The objectives, legally established by the government, for the coordination and promotion of the SUMA are:

a) Conservation of biodiversity and the natural habitat of wildlife, thereby enabling continuity of evolutionary processes.

b) Formation of biological corridors that interconnect the UMAs among themselves, and with the protected natural areas.

c) Promotion of activities of restoration, recovery, reintroduction and repopulation, with the participation of stakeholders.

d) Application of traditional biological knowledge, promotion and development of wildlife research, and incorporation of these into the conservation of biodiversity.

e) Development of alternative productive activities for rural communities and combat of illegal seizure and trafficking of specimens, parts and derivatives.

f) Support for the accomplishment of activities of conservation and sustainable use in Mexico through linkage and exchange of information between different units and simplification of the management based on the past record of each one

Box 1. Management units for the conservation of wildlife (UMAs)

98

Similarly, some case studies related to UMA have been analyzed (Weber et al., 2006; Ávila-Foucat, 2002; Ávila-Foucat et al., 2007); however, despite the fact that the system in which these units are grouped currently covers more than 15.5% of the country, a systematic effort has not yet been made to evaluate the instrument. Therefore, there is a gap not only in the evaluation of instruments of conservation, but also in criteria and indicators for assessing the instruments of in situ conserva-tion, which is the purpose of this study. It should be emphasized that this study does not seek to make the evaluation of the efficacy and capacities of the instru-ments of in situ conservation listed above, but simply aims to generate the criteria necessary for such an evaluation.

Sustainable forest management was defined in Helsinki in 1994, as the responsible use of forests and forest lands in order to maintain their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to satisfy relevant ecological, economic and social functions at a local and global scale now and in the future, without causing damage to other ecosystems (Morán, 2005). Today, it is proposed that sustainable forest management must manage the forest ecosystem as a whole (Aguirre, 1997; Jardel et al., 1997). In this sense, ecosystem management emphasizes the condition or state of the forest, evaluating also, or in more detail, parameters such as: biodiversity, landscape type, soil productivity, age, structure, vigor, floral composition, fauna, timber residues, etc. (Aguirre, 1997).However, conventional forest management has focused principally on resource density and yield. Under this approach, some of the parameters used are timber volume, forest density and infrastructure. Therefore, forest management now faces the challenge of generating schemes that ensure the maintenance of biological diversity, soil fertility, conservation and dispersal of genetic variability as well as all the ecological functions of the areas under management (Aguirre, 1997). For its part, the General Law for Sustainable Forest Development in Mexico (LGDFS, 2003) defines forest management as “the process that includes the conjunction of actions and procedures that are aimed at the

arrangement, cultivation, protection, conservation, restoration and use of forest resources in a forest ecosystem, considering ecological principles, respecting the functional integrity and interdependence of resources and without reducing the productive capacity of existing resources and ecosystems.” Likewise, the concept of SFM established in the Strategic Forestry Plan for Mexico, 2025, is the institutional framework for integrating environmental, social and economic aspects into forestry. It aims to ensure that the capacity of forest resources is maintained or increased in the long term. The SFM is proposed in this document to be an engine in the fight against poverty, and for private investment and generation of sustainable use and efficient markets.While it is true that SFM and community forest management (CFM) are not true policy instruments as such, many rural communities have practiced these for many years on their own initiative or with the support of civil society organizations, and they are achieved under different schemes, such as participatory community ecological planning (PCEP), community reserves, communal or ejido forestry companies and community forestry, among others. It is important to note that in many of the properties managed under different schemes of CFM, criteria are applied beyond even the established institutional or existing regulations in order to achieve sustainability of use.

Box 2. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)

99

Conceptual framework and synopsis of the workshops

Conceptual framework of the project

The project sought to generate criteria and indicators to measure the efficacy and capacities of the instruments of in situ conservation described earlier. Efficacy of these instruments is understood as the success of the results obtained from their design and implementation, while the capacity of the instruments refers to the institutional potential for their implementation and the possibilities of their ap-plication, from a socioeconomic and environmental perspective.

Criteria for evaluation of the three instruments of public policy typically in-clude analysis of the design, implementation and results (Cohen and Franco, 2006, Wayne, 2007). Therefore, criteria were developed to conduct an ex-post analysis, whether for instruments that have been in operation for several years, or for those with a much shorter time in application but that are required to satisfy certain criteria in the future. In addition to this, this study focuses on environmental, socioeconomic and institutional aspects in order to conduct a comprehensive as-sessment of current public policies.

Environmentally, the criteria are aimed at the conservation of populations and ecosystems whereas, in the social field, they are focused on consolidating social capital, since various aspects of organization and cohesion are critical to ensuring

Environmental services are those ecosystem functions that directly or indirectly benefit human welfare. This topic and its associated compensation schemes have generated important literature within the areas of policy and environmental economics (Pagiola et al., 2003; Alix-García et al., 2005, Swallow et al., 2005), as well as within areas of forestry, hydrological and ecological research (Mayrand and Pakin, 2004, Merino et al., w/d; Torres and Guevara, 2002). Four general categories of environmental services are recognized that can be valid for different types of ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

a) Procurement services: These are products derived from nature, mainly foods, fibers, fuels, genetic resources, biochemical products, natural medicines and pharmaceutical products, ornamental resources and water.

b) Regulating services: These are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, among which

are maintenance of air quality, regulation of climate and hydrological cycle, erosion control, purification of water and waste management, regulation of human diseases, biological control, pollination and protection from hydrometeorological phenomena.

c) Cultural services: these are considered to be non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems through reflection, knowledge development, recreation and aesthetic experiences. They include cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, cultural and historical values as well as recreation and ecotourism, among others.

d) Support services: these are the services that are necessary for the production and maintenance of other services; they differ from the others in that their impacts are felt over longer time periods (e.g. formation of soils and provision of oxygen).

Box 3. Payment for Environmental Services (PES)

100

that community projects function in the long term and therefore for the benefit of conservation of the ecosystems involved (Durán-Medina et al., 2007). In the field of economics, the criteria are focused on product diversification and the economic benefits for communities related to the implementation of the instrument. At institutional level, the criteria and indicators are directed towards the existence of capacities, conviction and commitment to optimally administrate and promote the instruments.

The criteria and indicators derived from this work, as stated in the Meeting of Experts on the Harmonization of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (FAO, 1995), seek to comply with the following attributes:

• Clarity: theycanbeeasilyunderstoodatdifferentgovernment,politicalandtechnical levels.

• Scientificsoundness:theyarebasedonresearchandscientificexpertise,andaretherefore objective.

• Applicability:theycanbeusedandeasilymeasuredusingavailabletechnology,and therefore their achievement does not require hard work or high costs.

• Flexibility:theymaybeappliedinecosystemsatdifferentlevels,i.e. from each individual country to that of the whole Central American region.

• Relevance:theymustberelevanttoeachinstrument.• Consistency:theymustbeconsistentwiththeestablishedgoalsandcriteria.• Reliability:theymustbebothmeasurableandrepresentativeofreality.• Theymustbeatanappropriatespatialandtemporalscale.

In this sense, criteria and indicators were developed to satisfy the features pro-posed in the logical framework methodology: to be objective, measurable, rel-evant, specific, practical and economical (Ortegón et al., 2005).

Synopsis of the workshops

The sequence of work was similar to that followed by Herrera and Corrales (2004) to build forestry criteria and indicators, through the development of a proposal of revised and evaluated indicators in workshops with experts whose reports are included in Appendix 3.1 to 3.4.

Synopsis of Workshop 1On June 17th, 2008, in Mexico City, a first workshop was held with the aim of establishing the evaluation criteria of SFM, UMAs and PES, and to identify case studies for a subsequent pilot assessment.

101

In organizing this workshop, potential participants were identified using the following criteria:

• Theirnationalvisionforthethreeevaluatedinstrumentsofin situ conservation, in order to consider aspects related to the different regions of the country.

• Theirknowledgeofkeyaspectssuchasadministrativemanagement,marketingofspecimens, parts and derivatives, product certification, funding and the social as-pects of all three instruments.

• Theexperienceoftheparticipantsinvarioussectorsorthemes.

Each participant received a working document before the workshop that in-cluded an initial proposal of criteria and indicators generated based on the con-ceptual framework and presented in Appendix 3.1. Following the contact of dif-ferent stakeholders based on the above criteria, the workshop was attended by 46 participants: 13 government officials, 16 academics, 9 representatives of civil organizations and 8 beneficiaries of the various instruments. Before the workshop began, a document was sent to all participants containing the necessary inputs and the process to be followed.

The workshop was conducted in three sessions (Appendix 1):

a) Introductory session. Presentation of the overall project, comprising a profile of the conservation instruments under examination and details of the dynamics of the workshop.

b) Session 1 (for evaluation of the indicators of design and implementation). Par-ticipants evaluated the proposed general criteria and indicators in a process that lasted two hours, during which the criteria of evaluation were screened in the form of questions, and each participant filled out a form indicating whether the question was relevant, clear and sufficiently precise. Participants were subse-quently asked whether it was necessary to incorporate other criteria and indica-tors, or to reconsider any questions.

c) Session 2 (for the review of environmental and socioeconomic indicators). Par-ticipants assessed the specific criteria and indicators for each instrument, in a roundtable discussion devoted to the UMAs, and another for SFM and PES. Indicators were validated by consensus and, when necessary, relevant changes were made. Participants were also asked to propose or indicate possible case studies to which selected indicators could be subsequently applied. Each dis-cussion had a chairperson and two reporters.

102

Synopsis of workshop 2 The second workshop, again in Mexico City, was held on August 11th, 2008, in order to validate the most important criteria and indicators that emerged from the first workshop through the implementation of a pilot test which involved techni-cians, beneficiaries, decision makers and several organizations, related to the three instruments of in situ conservation under assessment.

The workshop undertook to incorporate the northern, central and southern regions of the country through selected case studies.

The focus group methodology has the advantage of recovering many qualita-tive aspects, as well as having a more equitable participation of all participants. This technique brings together small to medium sized groups (preferably between 3 and 10 members) in order to work with these concepts, experiences, emotions, categories, events or topics of interest for the purposes of the study. In this sense, it seeks to determine how people form an outline or perspective of a problem (Hernández, 2006) (Appendix 3.3).

In terms of methodology, the application of evaluation criteria was designed to be used at a national scale and thus each instrument was represented in a pilot test, utilizing case studies from different regions of the country —both successful and unsuccessful in their implementation— to validate the criteria. As stated above, experts, beneficiaries and decision makers from the three instruments participat-ed, in line with the recommendations proposed by the participants of workshop 1, as well as NGOs and academic organizations.

The analyzed indicators were grouped according to the following criteria:

• Planningoftheinstrument.• Adequateandefficientimplementationoftheinstrument.• Sustainablemanagementpractices.• Conservationofnaturalvegetation.• Conservationofbiodiversity.• Landusechange.• Regionalimportance.• Economicbenefits.• Marketandproductivechains.• Socialorganizationofthebeneficiary.• Socialcohesion.• Environmentalcultureandawareness.

103

On reviewing the indicators and criteria of the first workshop to develop the matrices of the second workshop, several of these were identified as variables of others or of themselves. Consequently, a reduced number of indicators was agreed upon for the focus group discussion. Throughout the discussion, the viability and relevance of each indicator and its variables were explored, and substantive com-ments noted on each. Similarly, the need to include new variables was explored.

Main results

Results of the first workshop

The most relevant indicators, and those newly proposed in session 1, are presented in tables 1 and 2.

TaBle 1. Most relevant general indicators (session 1) Indicator

Does the program have incentives that promote its continuation in the long-term?

Is the instrument suitable for all types of ecosystem?

Are the objectives of the instrument being met?

Are the services and administrative infrastructure suitable for the instrument?

Is the target population satisfied with the services they receive?

Are there other institutions that could assist in the implementation of the instrument?

Has there been sufficient dissemination and promotion of the instrument throughout its

implementation?

Is access to the instrument easy?

Are the channels of implementation of the instrument appropriate?

Is there any synergy with other instruments?

Has the instrument been able to reverse or slow changes in land use?

Are some of the recipients of the program receiving more benefits than others?

Do the services provided have beneficial effects on the economy of the population served?

Does the instrument have synergy with other instruments or in situ conservation programs?

104

The main results obtained from this first workshop are as follows (Appendix 3.2):

• 107indicatorswerereviewedcollectively.• 42generalindicatorswereacceptedwithoutsubstantivechanges.• InthediscussionofSFM and PES, changes were often directed towards increas-

ing the precision of the indicators, and some resulted in new indicators and variables.

• InthediscussionofUMAs, the comments were more technical, with an empha-sis placed on the value of each indicator and the feasibility of measurement.

• IntheSFM and PES discussion, the comments were mainly focused on social indicators, highlighting the gender issue. In the discussion of UMAs, economic indicators were among the factors discussed most extensively. This is partly because this instrument does not have any specific support from the federal government.

• GenderandothersocialissueswerenotdeemedrelevanttothediscussionofUMAs, but certification caused discussion and controversy in both groups.

Based on these results, a new proposal of criteria and indicators was developed, as detailed in Appendix 3.2. This proposal was used in the second workshop, de-scribed below.

Results of the second workshop

Participating in the UMA group were representatives of units from Baja California Sur, Morelos and Quintana Roo; while the PES group involved communities from the states of Guerrero, Coahuila, Oaxaca, Veracruz and Chiapas. The SFM group

TaBla 2. Indicators proposed for inclusion (session 1) Indicator to be included

Did the target population participate in the design, implementation and evaluation?

Are there mechanisms for them to participate? (Make this specific to different scales)

Does the instrument propose a plan of co-responsibility?

Were there any obstacles to the implementation of the instrument?

Is the decentralized implementation of the instrument considered, and by which scheme/institutions?

Did the implementation of the instrument lead to unintended consequences?

Do the provided services have unexpected adverse side effects on the population served?

Does the instrument adapt to the traditions and customs of the community?

105

had the participation of communities from Quintana Roo, Durango, Oaxaca and Michoacán. Some of the cases used were the result of recommendations of the first workshop (Appendix 3.4).

In total, this workshop was attended by 37 participants, comprising four focus groups (PES, SFM, UMA and decision makers). These groups included 17 beneficia-ries of the instruments, four representatives of the assisting civil organizations, five technicians, nine government officials and two researchers. The workshop had the support of 16 additional people who served as coordinators, observers, reporters and assistants.

In each of the focus groups, thoughts and concerns became apparent with re-gard to in situ conservation instruments that were of interest because they revealed problems in the design and implementation, even though only a relatively few case studies were available and therefore cannot be taken as statistically significant nor extrapolated as being representative of the national reality. Nevertheless, the participants agree that the concerns identified during the workshop should be brought to the attention of decision makers involved in the design and implemen-tation of these policies (Appendix 3.4).

There was a general consensus on the need for an in depth evaluation of the issue of management and administration, recurrent in all focus groups, so it is essential that there be specific and sufficient indicators in this regard. In general, the indicators and variables related to socioeconomic and environmental aspects were found to be adequate, with some adjustments (Appendix 3.4). This was re-flected in the interest aroused on raising central questions that generated discus-sion about the efficacy and capacities of the instruments, in relation to their de-sign, implementation and results. Similarly, different indicators emerged, or were naturally incorporated, into the discussion of the corresponding central questions. Although the intention of this work was not to evaluate the conservation instru-ments themselves, interesting ideas and recommendations were raised during the second workshop and these are shown in Appendix 3.5.

Final set of criteria and indicators

The results of the second workshop allowed the formulation of a new proposal of criteria, indicators and variables. The first set or matrix presented below makes reference to the criteria and indicators to be used in a general manner to mea-sure whether the planning, design and implementation have been effective, and whether the capacities exist to make this happen. Following this matrix, three others are presented describing the criteria, indicators and variables for measur-ing the contribution of the three instruments of in situ conservation (SFM, PES,

106

UMA) in relation to conservation, and social and economic aspects. These three sections refer to natural, social and heritage capital. A Likert scale is included in the column of variables so that the respondent answers the question, and then a number of variables are included specifying the motive for the initial response. Variables do not have a specific weight because each case or region of the country presents different realities. Moreover, some of the variables, particularly the social variables, are more qualitative in nature, so their weight is difficult to establish and will depend on each case or region. Therefore, the proposed criteria and indica-tors presented here should be analyzed statistically, i.e., if a response is statistically representative, it will be considered. If the case study satisfies most of criteria and indicators in a positive manner, then the instrument will function effectively in that location.

In the case of indicators of design and implementation, while many of the indi-cators are qualitative, it is recommended that they be evaluated in as quantitative a manner as possible. In this case, the variables will depend on each instrument and are therefore not included as variables in the final matrix; for example, the indica-tor “is there an explicit synergy with other instruments or programs” can be mea-sured by showing how many programs or instruments referred to priority being given to the beneficiary that participates in an UMA, a PES or SFM. Other indica-tors such as, for example, “Was there participation of the target population in the design of the instrument”, may be measured by the number of public consultations or the participation scheme used (if any) when designing the instrument. Other indicators of design and implementation recommended for quantitative measure-ment are shown in Table 3.

TaBle 3. Indicators of design and implementation that can be measured quantitatively

Indicator Example of quantitative measurement

Most users receive the complete benefits of the instrument

For example, in the case of PES, the total amount paid and the number of users can be measured

There has been sufficient dissemination and promotion of the instrument throughout its implementation

Number of announcements on the radio, local promotional campaigns

Cost-benefit ratio is positive for the government Cost-benefit analysis

Cost-benefit ratio is positive for the beneficiary Cost-benefit analysis

Economic resources are sufficient to achieve the established goals

Cost-benefit assessment between the amount allocated by the federation and the achievement of goals

107

Similarly, it is recommended that the social and economic indicators of con-servation are measured quantitatively, as far as possible. In the case of social indi-cators, for example, the indicator “The instrument has led to social cohesion and unity among members of the community” is a qualitative indicator that can be measured based on the number of resolved conflicts within the community fol-lowing application of this instrument. In the case of the indicator “The instrument has influenced the environmental culture and awareness of the beneficiaries”, the internal regulations can be checked to verify any modifications with specific ac-tions to value the environment.

Indicators of design and implementation

Criterion Indicator Variables

DesignInstrument

planning

There is a specific program that details

the guidelines and objectives of the

conservation instrument

Disagree_____ Slightly

disagree_____ Slightly agree_____

Agree_____

The target population is broad and

appropriate

Disagree____ Slightly disagree____

Slightly agree____ Agree____

There are clear targets and indicators

for the instrument



The implementation mechanisms

are clearly proposed



There was participation of the target

population in the design of the

instrument



The budget is sufficient to carry out

the proposed objectives



There is a system of monitoring

of the instrument of conservation



This is proposed as a long-term

instrument



There is explicit synergy with other

instruments/programs



There are incentives that promote the

long-term persistence of the instrument



108

Criterio Indicador Variables

DesignInstrument

planning

The instrument proposes a scheme

of co-responsibility



The instrument is suitable for all types

of ecosystems



Implementation

Fulfilling the

objectives of

the instrument

The objectives of the instrument

are fulfilled



Services are provided to those who need

them



Most users receive the complete benefits

of the instrument



There is an efficient use of financial

resources for the instrument



Adequate and

efficient imple-

mentation of

the instrument

The administrative infrastructure

and services are appropriate

for the instrument

Disagree_____ Slightly

disagree_____ Slightly agree_____

Agree_____ Efficient issue of

permits_____ Efficient registration

procedures_____ Compliance

with response times_____

Negatives properly founded and

motivated_____ Administrative

simplification_____ Sufficient

administrative personnel_____

Qualified administrative

personnel_____ Offices with

suitable infrastructure_____

The quality of service is maintained with

changes of management



There is a synergy with other institutions

that assists the implementation of the

instrument


Slightly agree_____ Agree_____

Interinstitutional coordination

good_____ Intra-institutional

coordination good_____

There has been sufficient dissemination

and promotion of the instrument

throughout its implementation



109

Criterio Indicador Variables

Implementación

Adequate and

efficient imple-

mentation of

the instrument

The channels of implementation

of the instrument are appropriate



Quality of dissemination

appropriate____ Depth of

dissemination appropriate____

Sufficient dissemination to enable

easy access to the instrument____

There is synergy with other instruments

of conservation and productive

diversification



The cost-benefit ratio is positive

for the government



The cost-benefit ratio is positive

for the user



The regulatory framework facilitates

achievement of the objectives of the

instrument



Identified obstacles (if any)______

Alternative approaches could bring

the same benefits at lower cost



The financial resources are sufficient

to achieve the established goals



There has been decentralization in the

implementation of the instrument



If so, identify through which

scheme and institutions_____

Identify any problems faced

with the decentralized

implementation____________

The services provided have unexpected

adverse side effects on the population

served



The instrument builds the capacity of

local regulation



The instrument is adapted to the

traditions and customs of the

communities



110

Criteria and indicators for measuring the contribution of the instrument to conservation


Management

practices that

contribute to

conservation

The instrument promotes

management practices that

contribute to conservation

Disagree_____ Slightly disagree_____ Slightly agree____

Agree____

The instrument promotes appropriate management

practices_____

The instrument promotes protection against fire______

The instrument promotes protection against pests _____

The instrument promotes the protection against diseases _____

The instrument promotes surveillance_____

The instrument promotes

management practices that

contribute to sustainable use

Disagree____ Slightly disagree____ Slightly agree____ Agree____

The instrument promotes appropriate practices of use____

Conservation of

natural vegetation

The instrument has led to the

increase or reduction of the

primary vegetation cover of

the land under management


The instrument has led to positive changes in population

densities ______

The instrument has led to positive changes in the composition

of populations ________

The instrument has led to positive changes in population

structures ______

The instrument promotes the non-fragmentation of

habitats_____

The instrument promotes frequent monitoring of the

populations of interest _____

The instrument monitors the state of the habitat of species

of interest ______

The instrument promotes the monitoring of species associated

with habitats of interest________

Biodiversity

conservation

The instrument strengthens

or weakens the presence and

abundance of native species

on the property


The instrument promotes the presence and abundance of

native species sensitive to changes in their habitat_____

The instrument promotes the presence and abundance

of bigger predators _____

111

Criteria and indicators for measuring the contribution of the instrument to society


Positive effects on

social organization of

the beneficiary

The instrument has positively

affected community

organization

Disagree_____ Slightly disagree____ Slightly agree____

Agree____ It has led to forms of organization within the

community_____ with other communities _____ between

various communities or producers_____ has strengthened

them _____ has weakened them _____ has strengthened

their relationship with other stakeholders_____ which

__________________________

The instrument has

strengthened the capacity for

better management of natural

resources within the community


It has led to the training of technicians in the community

______ It has strengthened the management and technical

capacity among community members______ the community

mechanisms of surveillance_____ the imposition of sanctions

for non-sustainable uses_____ the community assembly_____

the adherence to community agreements_____ It has led to

participative land-use planning

Promote social

cohesion

The instrument has led to

social cohesion or unity among

community members

Disagree____ Slightly disagree____ Slightly agree____

Agree____ It has contributed to collaborative relationships

(collective work)_____ the capacity to solve conflicts within the

community____ and with other communities _____

Greater

environmental

culture and

awareness

The instrument has influenced

the environmental culture and

awareness of the beneficiaries


It has influenced the revaluation of natural resources_____ the

evaluation of conservation_____ the long term vision

of use______ It has led or strengthened these aspects in the

internal regulation _____ has influenced the establishment of

community reserves ______ has promoted the participation

of children in in situ conservation______

The instrument leads to the

participation of community

members who were not

previously involved


Proportion of women ______ elderly _____ young_____

non-ejidatarios_____ participating in the instrument_____

in making decisions______ in the management, use and

control of resources______ in the economic benefits of the

instrument_____ Always participating _____ sometimes_____

almost never ________

112

Criteria and indicators for measuring the contribution of the instrument to the economy


Increased and more equitable economic benefits

Incentive of the instrument for generating sources of permanent and/or temporary income

Disagree______ Slightly disagree______ Slightly agree______

Agree______ Temporary______ Permanent______ Both______

Sources of local income______ Sources of regional income

through linkage in productive chains ______

Promotion of productive diversification


Agree______ State the other productive activities ___________

The implementation of this instrument allows or facilitates access to the use of resources of other instruments


Agree______ Which?______

Subsidies of SAGARPA______ SEDESOL_____ SRA______ Others_________

Insertion into productive markets and chains

The instrument promotes a complete use of the product or exploited asset


Agree______ All is used______ almost all______ or only a small

part______ The product, or part thereof, is processed______ is

not processed______

The productive chain of the product is easy to access


Agree______ Do you know the intermediaries______ their

prices______ the prices are appropriate______ do you have

access to the intermediaries______ The international market is

easy to access______ difficult to access______

Existence of positive aspects of certification (if they exist)


Agree______ It gives prestige______ Opens certain niche

markets______ Leads to better management practices______

It is viable in terms of cost benefit______ Allows better

administrative organization______ Adds value______

113

Action plan The criteria and indicators generated in this work, and implemented in a pilot test, should be applied more widely in order to determine the efficacy and capacities of various instruments for in situ conservation. However, one of the recommenda-tions that emerged in both workshops was to send a report of the most relevant results of the project and, in particular, the results of the pilot test, to the authori-ties responsible for the implementation of these instruments. Therefore, in Ap-pendix 3.5 a summary of those results is provided in order that they may be sent to the head of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, as well as to the following bodies:

• FederalEnvironmentalProtectionAgency• UnderministryofEnvironmentalPlanningandPolicy• UnderministryofPublicWorksandEnvironmentalRegulations• UndersecretaryofManagementandEnvironmentalProtection• UnitforSocialParticipationandTransparency• CenterforEducationandTraininginSustainableDevelopmentFor SFM• GeneralDirectionofCONAFOR • GeneralDirectionofForestandSoilManagementFor PES • DirecciónGeneraldelaCONAFORFor UMAs• NationalComissionofNaturalProtectedAreas• GeneralDirectionofWildlife

It is strongly recommended that the reports are accompanied by an explanation of the project, as presented in Appendix 3.5. It is important to remember that the results of the pilot test are a preliminary guide to recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the instruments, but that a more nationally representative evalua-tion is still required. To carry this out, the following action plan is proposed, for which the bodies responsible and a detailed schedule should be assigned prior to implementation.

114

Objective To design and implement a program to submit these instruments for evaluation at national level, through validated criteria and indicators, and to propose to the relevant authorities the necessary adjustments to improve their efficiency and ca-pacities for in situ conservation in Mexico.

Goals

a) To apply the evaluation criteria and indicators generated in this work to the various relevant stakeholders related to each instrument of in situ conservation, through a sample that is both statistically significant and representative of the national reality.

b) Submit proposals to the relevant authorities to improve the design, form of implementation, and results of these three instruments in the short, medium and long term.

Activities

The activities proposed in this action plan are:

1. Design of the methodology for implementing the evaluation. This activity will include determination of sample size, sampling sites, people

or organizations to analyze, and the methods for implementing the indicators (focus groups, questionnaires, interviews). It also must determine the costs and time required, as well as the scales within which it will operate.

2. Application of the instrument. At this stage, fieldwork is required which will use the methodology determined

in the previous section to apply criteria and indicators to a given sample. This sample should be representative of the national reality.

3. Analysis of results. At this stage, the suitability of weight given to each variable should be deter-

mined and an index estimated; or the results analyzed in a more qualitative manner or via a statistical approach.

4. Development of recommendations. The results should support the recommendations to improve the efficacy and

capacities of the instruments. The recommendations should be aimed at deci-sion makers, and also at the beneficiaries and intermediaries.

5. Presentation of results to the relevant authorities, together with specific pro-posals.

115

Finally, it is very important that the results of this study are forwarded to the authorities in order to improve the design, implementation and results of the in-struments of conservation. Similarly, the results should be disseminated to the beneficiaries and other relevant intermediaries for the implementation of the in-struments.

Lessons learned and challenges Broad social participation is a key element in the articulation of strategies, projects and actions related to the different instruments of in situ conservation. Therefore, we should encourage and promote the participation of different sectors that make up our society in the related public issues which should be understood as three converging paths; that of the administration, the direct beneficiaries and the indi-rect beneficiaries, who are in a position for dialogue, negotiation and joint effort.

Unfortunately, in the various forums organized to design, implement or even evaluate the instruments, the absence of the direct beneficiaries is notable, espe-cially because it is they who could ultimately make the conservation of biodiver-sity in the Mexican countryside a reality. Knowledge and incorporation of their views and needs is essential for the successful implementation of public policies of in situ conservation. It is also important to note that a pilot test was necessary in order to confirm the relevance of the establishment of criteria and indicators, as well as their variables. How-ever, now arises the challenge of applying the indica-tors both to those decision makers directly involved, as well as to the technicians and direct beneficiaries of the instruments, because only in this way will they be properly evaluated.

indicators for the instruments of in situ conservation · of the factors that strengthen or block...

Documents