Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T19:31:16.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To pay or not to pay? Monitoring performance and enforcing conditionality when paying for forest conservation in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2009

JORDI HONEY-ROSÉS ,
JOSÉ LÓPEZ-GARCÍA ,
EDUARDO RENDÓN-SALINAS ,
ARMANDO PERALTA-HIGUERA  and
CARLOS GALINDO-LEAL
JORDI HONEY-ROSÉS*
Affiliation:
WWF-Mexico Program, Av. México No. 51, Col. Hipódromo, 06100 Mexico City, Mexico
JOSÉ LÓPEZ-GARCÍA
Affiliation:
Geography Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico
EDUARDO RENDÓN-SALINAS
Affiliation:
WWF-Mexico Program, Av. México No. 51, Col. Hipódromo, 06100 Mexico City, Mexico
ARMANDO PERALTA-HIGUERA
Affiliation:
Geography Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico
CARLOS GALINDO-LEAL
Affiliation:
WWF-Mexico Program, Av. México No. 51, Col. Hipódromo, 06100 Mexico City, Mexico Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y el Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), Av. Liga Periférico, Insurgentes Sur, Núm. 4903, Col. Parques del Pedregal, 14010 Mexico City, Mexico
*
*Correspondence: Jordi Honey-Rosés, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois, 111 Temple Buell Hall, 611 Taft Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA e-mail: jhoneyr2@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Paying landowners to conserve forests is a promising new strategy to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. However to succeed with this approach, programme managers need reliable monitoring data to make informed payment decisions. This includes withholding payment from landowners who do not meet conservation objectives. The monitoring method used for the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund compared aerial photographs and conducted field sampling to identify forest changes. The comparison of aerial photographs showed that 161 hectares of forest were degraded in the central core zone of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico between 2001 and 2003. As a result, payment was withheld from one of 13 landowners. Analysis of high resolution (0.6 m) digital aerial photographs did not detect finer scale changes, despite obtaining an average pixel resolution 1000 times greater than Landsat satellite imagery. This suggests that current payment for ecosystem services programmes are underestimating environmental change and overpaying non-compliant participants. In addition, selecting a decision rule to enforce payment conditionality raised new questions about how much ecosystem degradation should be permitted before withholding payment. Sound decisions about withholding payment cannot be developed until the marginal value of ecosystem services is better understood. Until then, payment thresholds can be based on specific policy objectives.

Keywords

direct paymentloggingMexicomonarch butterflypayment for environmental servicesphotointerpretationprotected areas
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 120 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. & Wolmer, W. (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alonso-Mejía, A., Montesinos-Patiño, E., Rendón-Salinas, E., Brower, L.P. & Oyama, K. (1998) Influence of forest canopy closure on rates of bird predation on overwintering Monarch butterflies Danaus plexippus L. Biological Conservation 85: 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andam, K., Ferraro, P.J., Pfaff, A., Sánchez-Azofeifa, A.G. & Robalino, J.A. (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings on the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 105: 16089–16084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J.B. & Brower, L.P. (1996) Freeze-protection of overwintering monarch butterflies in México: critical role of the forest as a blanket and an umbrella. Ecological Entomology 21: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, J. & Landell-Mills, N. (2002) Forest environmental services: an overview. In: Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, ed. Pagiola, S., Bishop, J. & Landell-Mills, N., pp. 15–35. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Bojórquez-Tapia, L.A., Brower, L.P., Castilleja, G., Sánchez-Colón, S., Hernández, M., Calvert, W., Diaz, S., Gómez-Priego, P., Alcantar, G., Melgarejo, E.D., Solares, M.J., Gutiérrez, L. & Juárez, M.D.L. (2003) Mapping expert knowledge: redesigning the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve. Conservation Biology 17: 367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, C.R. (2005) Contested terrain: forestry regimes and community responses in northeastern Michoacán, 1940–2000. In: The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Landscapes, ed. Bray, D.B., Merino-Pérez, L. & Barry, D., pp. 27–48. Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, D.B., Merino-Pérez, L. & Barry, D., eds (2005) The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Landscapes. Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Brower, L.P. (1977) Monarch migration. Natural History 86: 40–53.Google Scholar
Brower, L.P. (1999) Biological necessities for the monarch butterfly overwintering in relation to the oyamel forest ecosystem in Mexico. In: 1997 North American Conference on the Monarch Butterfly, ed. Hoth, J., Merino, L., Oberhauser, K., Pisanty, I., Price, S. & Wilkison, T., pp. 11–28. Montreal, Canada: The Commission for Environmental Cooperation.Google Scholar
Brower, L.P., Castilleja, G., Peralta, A., Lopez-Garcia, J., Bojorquez-Tapia, L., Diaz, S., Marmolejo, D. & Missrie, M. (2002) Quantitative changes in forest quality in a principal overwintering area of the monarch butterfly in Mexico 1971–1999. Conservation Biology 2: 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, L.P., Kust, D.R., Rendón-Salinas, E., García-Serrano, E., Kust, K.R., Miller, J., Fernández del Rey, C. & Pape, K. (2004) Catastrophic winter storm mortality of monarch butterflies in Mexico during January 2002. In: The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, ed. Oberhauser, K. & Solensky, M.J., pp. 151–166. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chapela, G. & Barkin, D. (1995) Monarcas y campesinos. México City, Mexico: Mexico Centro de Ecología y Desarrollo.Google Scholar
Costanza, R. & Folke, C. (1997) Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness, and sustainability goals. In: Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, ed. Daily, G.C., pp. 49–68. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Daily, G.C., ed. (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Diario Oficial (1980) Decreto que declara zonas de reserva y refugio silvestre, lugares donde la mariposa inverna y se reproduce. Diario Oficial. Mexico City, Mexico: Órgano del Gobierno Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.Google Scholar
Diario Oficial (1986) Decreto que declara áreas naturales protegidas para fines de migración, invernación, y reproducción de la mariposa monarca. Decreto Vol. 398. Mexico City, Mexico: Órgano del Gobierno Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.Google Scholar
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 64: 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. (2001) Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology 15: 990–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. & Kiss, A. (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferraro, P.J. & Simpson, R.D. (2002) The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Economics 78: 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furusawa, T.K., Pahari, M., Umezaki, , & Ohtsuka, R. (2004) Impacts of selective logging on New Georgia Island, Solomon Islands evaluated using very high resolution satellite (IKONOS) data. Environmental Conservation 31: 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., Miller, C. & Marinoni, O. (2008) Targeting conservation payments to achieve multiple outcomes. Biological Conservation 141: 2368–2375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honey-Rosés, J. (2005) The monarch butterfly conservation fund. In: The Green Buck: Using Economic Tools to Deliver Conservation Goals, ed. LeQuesne, T.. & McNally, R., pp. 16–18. London, UK: WWF United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Honey-Rosés, J. (2009) Disentangling the proximate factors of deforestation: the case of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. Land Degradation and Development. 20: 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoth, J., Merino, L., Oberhauser, K., Pisanty, I. & Price, S., eds (1999) 1997 North American Conference on the Monarch Butterfly. Montreal, Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.Google Scholar
Kaimowitz, D. (2002) Amazon deforestation revisited. Latin American Research Review 37: 221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klooster, D. (2003) Campesinos and Mexican forest policy during the twentieth century. Latin American Research Review 38: 94–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mas, J.F., Velázquez, A., Díaz-Gallegos, J.R., Mayorga-Saucedo, R., Alcántara, C., Bocco, G., Castro, R., Fernández, T. & Pérez-Vega, A. (2004) Assessing land use/cover changes: a nationwide multidate spatial database for Mexico. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 10: 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merino-Pérez, L. (1995) La Reserva Especial de la Biosfera Mariposa Monarca: Problemática y Perspectivas. Vol. II. Mexico City, Mexico: El Colegio de Mexico.Google Scholar
Missrie, M. (2004) Design and implementation of a new protected area for overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico. In: The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, ed. Oberhauser, K. & Solensky, M.J., pp. 141–150. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Missrie, M. & Nelson, K. (2007) Direct payments for conservation: lessons from the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund. In: Biodiversity and Conservation: International Perspectives, ed. Usha, A., pp. 189–212. Hyderabad, India: The Icfai University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J.M. & Braña, J. (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 65: 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, N. (1997) The world's forests and the ecosystem services. In: Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, ed. Daily, G.C.. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65: 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Bishop, J. & Landell-Mills, N., eds (2002) Selling Forest Environmental Services Market-Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. & Rios, A.R. (2008) The Impact of Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.Google Scholar
Panayotou, T. & Ashton, P.S. (1992) Not by Timber Alone: Economics and Ecology for Sustaining Tropical Forests. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Pfaff, A., Robalino, J.A. & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A. (2008) Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. [www document]. URL http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCC/Resources/407863–1213125462243/5090543–1213136742584/PSAeffectsSAN0805.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rendón-Salinas, E., Ibarra-Contreras, A., Pérez, J. & Galindo-Leal, C., eds (2005) Primeras Memorias del Foro Regional Mariposa Monarca. Mexico City, Mexico: Fundación Telmex.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Azofeifa, A.G., Pfaff, A., Robalino, J.A. & Boomhower, J.P. (2007) Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conservation Biology 21: 1165–1173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SARH (1982) Manual de Aplicación del Método de Desarrollo Silvícola. Mexico City, Mexico: Dirección General para el Desarrollo Forestal, Subsecretaria Forestal y de la Fauna, Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hídricos.Google Scholar
SEMARNAT (2001) Programa de Manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Mariposa Monarca.Mexico City, Mexico: Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. & Sedjo, R.A. (1996) Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches. Environment and Development Economics 1: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tattenbach, F., Obando, G. & Rodríguez, J. (2006) Mejora del excedente nacional del pago de Servicios Ambientales. San José, Costa Rica: FONAFIFO.Google Scholar
Urquhart, F.A. (1976) Found at last: the monarch's overwintering home. National Geographic 150: 160–173.Google Scholar
Wells, S.M., Pyle, R.M. & Collins, N.M. (1983) The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: pp. xxi and xxxii.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR [www document]. URL http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S. (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecology and Society 11: 23 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art23/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S. (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 48–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wunder, S., Engel, S. & Pagiola, S. (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 834–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WWF Mexico (2000) Convenios de concertación WWF-FMCN-SEMARNAP-comunidades 24 de octubre de 2000. Contractual Agreement. WWF Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
WWF Mexico (2002) Contrato de fideicomiso monarca WWF-FMCN-BBVA Bancomer servicios S.A.- comunidades. Trust Contract. WWF Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
WWF Mexico (2004) La tala ilegal y su impacto en la Reserva de la Biosfera Mariposa Monarca. WWF Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico [www document]. URL http://www.wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/descargas/010604_Informe_Tala_Reserva.pdfGoogle Scholar