This paper arises with the idea of documenting and systematizing the experiences of Local Payment Mechanisms for Environmental Services (ML-PSA) in Mexico, within the framework of the ProÁrbol program of the National Forestry Commission and obtaining some lessons learned until 2012.
At the same time, it is expected that this information will contribute to the development of more PES experiences by providing information from the different mechanisms and their experiences in the implementation, organization and operation of local mechanisms.
This work was developed within a framework of cooperation between CONAFOR, FMCN, the international organization Forest Trends, and USAID, aimed at identifying progress and limitations in the implementation of collaborative schemes. The work involved a compilation of existing information in CONAFOR and FMCN, obtaining data in the field with the implementing actors of local initiatives, the systematization of experiences, the application of questionnaires, the elaboration of support maps and the structured description of ML-PSA experiences.
In Mexico, four main origins are distinguished for the establishment of PES schemes, those developed through Civil Society Organizations, those of the Federal Government, those of State Governments and those of Municipal Governments. Being the schemes of the Federal Government those that have had more scope in surface and financial investment.
Among the works carried out by civil society organizations, the Mexican Fund for Nature Conservation stands out, as it is an organization with extensive management at the national level that in turn has promoted other initiatives, it is relevant to mention its Watershed Program and Cities, which began in 2001 and which began its third stage in 2010; with which they seek to build a watershed management vision that helps migrate from a sectoral management of natural resources towards a more comprehensive approach; currently serves the basins that supply water to ten major cities in the country, contemplating the establishment of local PES mechanisms.
The context in which most of the local mechanisms are developed in Mexico shows as one of its main characteristics the support of the Federal Government through the National Forestry Commission, which within a short period of the operation of the Payment for Services Program Environmental, started in 2003, managed to innovate new alternatives to finance PES schemes; implementing a strategy based on three programs, with which it has tried to address the diversity of ecosystems, as well as the social, cultural, economic and political particularities of every corner of the country
Among the alternatives generated by CONAFOR is the “Program to Promote Local PES Mechanisms through Concurrent Funds”, which has catalyzed the emergence of new local experiences, and strengthened some others with several years of previous experience. The creation of this new scheme proposed recovering the advances in retribution for forest conservation and environmental services, capitalizing on the emergence of new actors willing to commit to new arrangements and consolidating long-range institutional arrangements that give certainty to the participation of the communities that own forest resources
This work collected concrete data on key aspects in the design and implementation of ML-PSA, in order to detect opportunities to improve the development of local schemes and cooperation among those who have taken the initiative to establish PES mechanisms, identified in this document. as Implementing Agents.
The development of this work involved the documentation of the following significant data: general information of the implementing agents; general characteristics of ML-PSA experiences; financial and operational characteristics of the ML-PSAs; relationship between users and providers of environmental services; and additional actions in the ML-PSAs.
With the information provided directly by the Implementing Agents of the ML-PSA, technical sheets of each experience were integrated, and they were complemented with information collected.
Regarding the Implementing Agents of local mechanisms in Mexico, an approximate universe of 60 actors had been identified. The present work defined the goal of documenting 20 experiences in the field, the data of which were complemented with information collected with the support of CONAFOR and the FMCN through a means of systematization implemented on the Internet to reach the largest possible number of ML-PSA experiences. in Mexico. Through this system, 47 Implementing Agents were registered in the database and enough information was obtained to integrate descriptive files of 35 cases.
The relationship observed between the initiatives to promote local mechanisms operated by the FMCN and the adoption of CONAFOR's ML PSA should be highlighted. The evolution of the projects of the FMCN Watersheds and Cities Program towards the local CONAFOR mechanisms has to do with the more comprehensive lines of support that attend to the tasks of communication, coordination, financing, watershed management and learning spaces.
An important relationship between the programs to promote local mechanisms operated by the FMCN and CONAFOR is detected, as well as the emergence of local experiences, which according to the data obtained, an increase and expansion of experiences is expected in the coming years. A portion of the cases show a direct dependence on the participation of CONAFOR to operate the local mechanism, however, several of the local experiences are supported by the promotion, support and accompaniment of organizations and local government entities that seek to develop sufficient capacities to operate. even without the intervention of the federal government.
The concurrence of the support of the National Forestry Commission with the accompaniment and additional resources of the local actors has given rise to the emergence of innovative experiences and more balanced and lasting institutional arrangements in different points of the national geography
The analysis indicates a great participation of Civil Society Organizations in the emergence and establishment of Local Mechanisms, since these turned out to be the ones that have generated the largest number of ML-PSA experiences in the country.
With the information obtained and given the characteristics observed in the different experiences, a classification of Implementing Agents was established for practical purposes, defining the following: Unidirectional Implementing Agents towards providers, unidirectional towards users, bidirectional, and Integrating Instances. Doing this with reference to the strengths and specialization of each actor's work.
In addition to the progress, weaknesses were detected in some issues, which are recommended to be reviewed to guide possible improvements in government programs and civil society organizations, which are:
- Operational capabilities Assurance schemes and activities. Support and support studies Management and collection capacities with users of environmental services.
Given the weight of Civil Society Organizations in the establishment of ML-PSA and with the information on some aspects to improve, it is advisable to establish support schemes that allow addressing these issues with capacity development strategies that can even be supported with resources of CONAFOR programs, supporting or generating tools and methods that facilitate the attention of these weaknesses.
BACKGROUND
In the last three decades, attention to environmental problems has taken on greater importance at a global level, generating many international and regional agreements, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Diversity Biological (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the
To define the final version of the information gathering tools (interviews and surveys) before their application, a workshop was held between CONAFOR and FMCN in order to discuss their relevance and agree on the relevant aspects that should be included.
The procedure consisted of explaining the objectives of this work and its scope, as well as specifying how to use the online tool to compile the interviews, as well as supporting the interviewees in solving doubts about questions and data requested to integrate the database. of data.
Group sessions (Focus group). Group sessions are used in the area of negotiation, marketing, advertising, psychology, social studies, and in government agencies, among others. With group sessions, people's opinion, perception, attitude and knowledge about social and governmental programs, as well as products and services, can be much better understood (Namakforoosh, 2001).
The interaction of work teams that operate each local mechanism allowed the holding of some Group Sessions, which provided information on the internal integration of the implementing institutions as well as the interactions with users and providers of environmental services. This served as a help tool to better understand the systematized information and in some cases, complement it.
This tool was applied during field visits and in some cases it was even possible to group personnel of up to three Implementing Agents, which generated richer opinions due to the knowledge and exchange of different realities and cases of concurrent funds.
Synthesis of experiences in descriptive sheets of each case. With the information obtained in the documentary review, the field visits and electronically, descriptive files of the cases visited were generated, matching the information with the cases that CONAFOR had documented. These descriptive syntheses are part of this report and the cases that gave insufficient information to document their experience are not included.
These files allow a clear vision of the constitution and organization of each local mechanism according to the information provided by the implementing agents who participated. At the same time, there is a reference to exchange each experience with other cases in the country.
Elaboration of thematic maps. Based on the existing cartographic information and with the information obtained, some maps were prepared at a specific level that help to better understand each local mechanism, as well as observe the distribution of local mechanisms that has been generated in the country. The specific maps are part of the descriptive files, and those on a national scale illustrate the spatial distribution of local mechanisms together with some relevant characteristics.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS.
As a result of the visits to local experiences, 28 Implementing Agents corresponding to 26 Local PES Mechanisms were contacted, from which 20 complete files on these cases were obtained. Of the 28 actors visited, 5 were registered in the database but did not add any information and 3 were not registered in the database.
Additionally, considering those experiences that provided information with the support of CONAFOR, at the closing of the receipt of information in the database, the following level of participation was achieved by the Implementing Agents.
- 47 local actors registered in the system. They correspond to 45 local PES mechanisms. 12 of the registered actors provided little information, which made it impossible to prepare descriptive files on their experiences.
Although in most cases there was great interest in this exercise, as well as a great willingness to participate, on the part of the interviewed actors, the contribution of data online did not correspond to the interest expressed by the actors when interviewing them. This decrease in the level of participation is attributed to various reasons, which in some cases were corroborated in the field and with interaction via electronic and telephone. Among the most common were the following:
- Very high workload, which does not allow them to spend too much time on these types of exercises Operational and administrative changes that limit participation in these exercises Personnel changes, so they do not have the information at hand and require more time to look for it.
However, in other cases insufficient participation was detected for other reasons related to ideas and conceptions of the interviewee himself, among which the following stand out:
- They considered that this exercise did not contemplate the PES scheme that they have, without reviewing the information provided, although some participate in some mechanism through agreements with CONAFOR, they have insufficient knowledge about PES, they consider that their participation is focused in the economic contribution and not in the establishment of the local mechanism. o They did not respond to the calls used in the investigation.
Regarding the information collected through the online tool, the following findings were made:
In 23 states there is the presence of an implementing agent, and it is in the last 5 years where there has been a substantial increase in institutions and organizations interested in entering the issue of payment for environmental services and working on the establishment of payment mechanisms at the level local, as shown in the following graphic.
Most are actors who have only been developing an ML-PSA for a short time, and have little experience on the subject. Almost three quarters of the participants have less than 5 years of work in implementing their experience; In all recent cases, it was found that there is a direct relationship with the CONAFOR and FMCN programs.
The presence of Civil Society Organizations as Implementing Agents is the most active, however not all play a direct role in the management to trigger local PES mechanisms, that is, in some cases it is observed that they are contributors of economic resources. without getting too involved in managing with providers and users of environmental services.
In the case of the option “Decentralized public body (municipal or inter-municipal)”, it was found that they are “Water Operators”, or they have a close relationship with them.
Additionally, it was detected that some experiences of Civil Society Organizations have a close relationship with “Water Operators”. This is relevant since in these cases resources are being managed and received from the direct users of environmental services, which is an important step for PES schemes to enter the economic system.
A “Water Operator Agency” is an economic unit that manages, operates the systems and provides the service of drinking water supply, sewerage and sanitation.
The services provided are limited to the urban localities that make up the municipalities and, where appropriate, some rural localities. Water suppliers have different types of organization, so they can be presented as: water systems, directorates, commissions, local boards, departments, committees, concessionaires, and so on. (INEGI, 2011)
The linking of Implementing Agents with “Water Operators” has occurred in different ways in the ML-PSA, obtaining contributions in the form of donations or as a mandatory charge, in both cases it is part of the water supply charges. It was found that two Implementing Agents who participated in this exercise are in turn Water Operators, and another four Implementing Agents are related to a Water Operator. This relationship is indicated in the following table:
| Implementing Agent | Relationship with Water Operating Organizations |
| Uruapan Drinking Water, Sewerage and Sanitation Commission | It is a decentralized public body, Operador de Agua, allocates ML-PSA resources from water charges in the city of Uruapan. |
| Water and Sanitation System
Metropolitan Veracruz, Boca del Rio Medellín |
It is an inter-municipal decentralized public body,
Water Operator of the Municipalities of Veracruz, Boca del Río and Medellín. Initially they obtained voluntary contributions through the collection of water destined to the local ML-PSA, currently it is a mandatory contribution included in the water supply service. |
| FIDECOAGUA | It is a decentralized public body, which operates a trust specifically destined for the preservation of the forest, as well as establishing the payment for forest and hydrological environmental services of the mountainous area, receiving economic resources for the ML-PSA directly from the Municipal Water Commission of Coatepec, Veracruz (CMASCoatepec) |
| Manantlán Foundation for
Biodiversity of the West AC |
Civil Association that has promoted the establishment of a Trust for the ML-PSA, which receives an annual contribution from the "Water Operator Agency" of the Colima-Villa de Álvarez Conurbation (CIAPACOV). |
| Protection of Mexican Fauna, AC | Civil Association that has promoted voluntary contributions from users of water intakes in the city of Saltillo, which are collected by the “Organismo Operador de Agua”, the company Aguas de Saltillo SA de CV, and are allocated directly to the ML-PSA. |
| Paths and Encounters for a Sustainable Autonomous Development, AC | Civil Association that has managed contributions from the Xalapa Municipal Water Commission, and that currently contributes to the ML-PSA in the Pixquiac river basin. |
It is worth mentioning that two other cases show a relationship with direct users of environmental services, which do not correspond to Water Operators, but to Groundwater Technical Committees (COTAS). These are collegiate bodies of mixed integration, which are not subordinate to CONAGUA or the Basin Organizations, they are considered auxiliary bodies of CONAGUA, according to the National Water Law.
In these cases, voluntary contributions have been made from COTAS to apply it to the payment of environmental services, these cases are shown below:
| Implementing Agent | Link with COTAS |
| Directorate of the Environment of the Municipality of Tulancingo. | Area that after establishing contributions from the
municipal budget for the ML-PSA, achieving that the COTAS of the Tulancingo Valley Aquifer will make contributions to the ML-PSA |
| Underground Water Technical Committee of the Valle de Tulancingo Aquifer, AC | Civil Association (Auxiliary Organism of the
CONAGUA) that joins the initiative of Municipality of Tulancingo, providing resources for the ML-PSA |
| Cuenca Alto Nazas AC Commission | Civil Association (Auxiliary Organism of the
CONAGUA), which has managed voluntary contributions from direct water users and has managed to obtain resources from users of the groundwater of the main aquifer of the Comarca Lagunera through COTAS Laguna |
The first two Implementing Agents mentioned above are part of the same ML-PSA, while the third has not only obtained voluntary contributions from the COTAS, it has also obtained contributions from the business sector of the Comarca Lagunera.
With regard to the environmental services that the implementing agents promote with the ML-PSA, the hydrological ones continue to be the most relevant, followed by the protection of biodiversity. This is partly attributed to the fact that the effects on water resources are more noticeable to the general population and generate greater concerns for local actors, both governments and local organizations. Observing the descriptions of several of the experiences, it can be seen that many of these processes were triggered after facing phenomena related to variations in water resources, such as droughts, decrease in the level of aquifers, floods, etc.
The importance shown on hydrological environmental services is reinforced when observing the reasons why they decided to establish the ML-PSA, which in a high proportion are related to the deterioration of water resources. Other motivations for the establishment of these schemes are: to help conserve biodiversity, stop deforestation, and encourage users of services to compensate forest owners.
A relevant aspect derived from these reasons is that little relevance was assigned to the concern for establishing new economic alternatives for the inhabitants of the areas of interest. Considering the theoretical aspects of the PES, which are focused on compensating the opportunity costs of activities that have been reducing the provision of environmental services and that implies stopping or modifying them, this should be a significant motivation to establish an ML-PES. It is likely that the little relevance that the implementing agents give to this aspect is mainly due to the fact that the PES has been conceived as a support instrument and they have not seen it as a scheme that should be integrated into the local economic system.
It was observed that most of the local experiences developed to date have a cooperative relationship with other institutions that support the establishment of ML-PSA, mainly with CONAFOR and the FMCN. An important part of the current experiences arises or is strengthened from the strategies to promote the local mechanisms of these institutions, as can be seen in the following graphs:
The relationship that CONAFOR has created with a large number of Implementing Agents suggests a long-term relationship, although most have 5-year agreements, there is a tendency to increase the number of years of agreement as well as the areas served in set.
This significant intervention of CONAFOR tends to remain in the work of the implementing agents, since around 65% of those who have an agreement with this institution intend to expand it in the short and medium term.
For those who do not have an agreement, 80% intend to establish it at some point, which implies that it must be foreseen how this participation will be approached and if the timing of support will have any limits, or if the collaboration of the government is prolonged indefinitely.
A majority of Implementing Agents hope that the intervention of CONAFOR, established for several years through collaboration agreements, will promote the development of operational capacities and an additional collection of resources to be maintained even without the intervention of the Federal Government, as shown in the following graph.
The possible increase of areas with PSA in the ML-PSA is not a dominant decision among the Implementing Agents, only a third of the participants in this exercise stated that they expect to increase the area of provision of environmental services, while a small fraction does not. they have contemplated increasing it.
Regarding operational aspects in the ML-PSA, there is an evident lack of personnel in charge of operating these schemes, mainly in the cases of recent creation. A small percentage declares to have more than 10 people to operate, this fraction coincides with the initiatives with the longest experience.
Another significant answer is that the percentage of work dedicated to ML-PSA by the staff of the Implementing Agents is low, that is, very few have personnel dedicated exclusively to attending the scheme, since they carry out other activities inherent to each institution. This can hinder efforts at the local level and take longer times for the activities, steps and processes necessary to develop each experience.
It was also detected that among those Implementing Agents who declared dedicating high percentages of their work to the ML-PSA, they have another series of activities related to the exercise of their organization, not related to the PSA, so that in reality the declared percentage may be less than expressed.
About half of the Implementing Agents do not have plans to increase operational personnel, which may imply that many activities would continue to be the responsibility of CONAFOR, establishing a dependency on the federal government and the Technical Advisors of the environmental service providers. Some cases expressed that it would be convenient to have a larger workforce to attend and develop their ML-PSA faster, however they find budgetary limitations for this issue.
It is vital to consider how to strengthen the operational bodies of the Implementing Agents if they are to achieve operational independence at some point.
On the other hand, the majority of promoters (more than 80%) expect to train their staff in different topics for the attention of the ML-PSA, but like the previous point, many find budgetary difficulties to develop these capacities.
With what is expressed in the previous graph, it is considered that an important niche to project means of support to the Implementing Agents is training. It was found that more than three-quarters of them think about training their staff to attend the local PSA.
Additionally, it was detected that in some experiences the fundamentals of the PSA are only beginning to be known, and that in several cases the initiatives would be strengthened by promoting the establishment of strategies to attract users who contribute financial resources. On the other hand, it has been detected that many cases have taken the guidelines issued by CONAFOR as a model of operating norm, so it is worth strengthening local efforts so that they develop their own norms that little by little adjust more to the local conditions of every experience.
Regarding the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), three-quarters assure that their personnel use them; However, the field review indicates that the use is made by the technical advisers of the providers, or what they consider to be some use of GIS, such as having some maps of the area.
This is also an important space to consider in the development of local capacities; In CONAFOR it has been detected that when establishing agreements with some implementing Agents there are important deficiencies in the management of GIS.
Although two-thirds of the Implementing Agents consider their funding sources stable, the statement must be taken with some reserve. Approximately 50% of those who consider they have a condition of financial stability, link it to the contribution of the federal government as a source of financing; while obtaining resources from direct users of environmental services, has little or no progress.
Regarding the instruments used by the implementing agents for the management of resources in the ML-PES, the highest fraction has been supported by the Mexican Forest Fund, followed by those that use bank accounts of their own institution. Considering all the options that involve trusts, there is an important percentage that is 28%, most of these are public trusts of municipal or state governments.
On the fraction that has relied on the Mexican Forest Fund as an instrument for the PES, they add up to a total of 34.3%. From this derives the opinion on the opportunity that CONAFOR gives to use this Fund for the exercise of the ML-PSA, the acceptance of the Implementing Agents to this instrument being generally good.
One of the fundamental issues little addressed by the Implementing Agents refers to transaction costs. For this exercise, the participants were provided with the following definition: Transaction cost is a cost incurred to carry out an economic exchange, more precisely a transaction. It can be made up of a series of costs such as: research, studies, drawing up contracts, surveillance costs, verification, etc.
Based on the foregoing, they were asked to express in an appreciative way if they considered them "very high" or "very low", and that in case of having any calculation exercise they would express it in "pesos per hectare per year". In no case was an estimate of these costs found at the time of the interview, only five cases presented a later estimate of which one was discarded since it expressed the payment for environmental services in the local mechanism and not the transaction costs.
In all cases, a solely appreciative view of transaction costs prevailed, expressed in the following graph.
The estimate of transaction costs made by some Implementing Agents based on the definition provided is shown in the following table:
| Implementing Agent | Transaction Cost ($ / ha / year) | Observations |
| Pronatura Noroeste, AC (Baja California Sur) | 9.6 | Sociedad de Historia Natural Niparajá AC, an association with which the local mechanism is jointly developed, does not present an estimate. |
| Manantlán Foundation for Biodiversity of the West AC | fifty | - |
| Community Development of Los Tuxtlas | 60 | Considering travel expenses for management, data collection expenses, payment of services by GIS, notarial expenses, photocopying, messaging, certification training and others. |
| Communal Assets of San Pedro and San Felipe Chichila | 18 | - |
Regarding the interaction with the providers of environmental services, it was found that around half of the Implementing Agents leave this task in the hands of the Technical Advisers of the providers of environmental services (registered with CONAFOR); some even consider that this work corresponds solely to these technical advisers. This can be seen in the graph where 53% have less than three meetings a year with suppliers.
In more than half of the cases, the intention was expressed to hold workshops or courses to strengthen the supply of environmental services, but contrary to this intention, in few cases were programs, agendas or defined agendas for this activity detected. The issue of linking with service providers represents a field of opportunity to strengthen local mechanisms, through providing logistics and technical support so that they themselves can address this work with providers.
Regarding the work aimed at incorporating users of environmental services, it is observed that half of the cases lack a defined strategy, and as mentioned above, this contradicts to some extent the apparent security of financial resources declared by an important part of the Implementing Agents. It was also documented that the identification of users who claim to have the majority of Implementing Agents is at a very general level, in many cases without any treatment in between. In other words, they assume the existence of a potential user with some local actors but have not carried out any approach or negotiation exercises.
This relationship with users of environmental services is raised optimistically by the Implementing Agents, the majority hope to establish a strategy to incorporate users or expand the one they already have. This also highlights an opportunity to support the generation of strategies that attract users of environmental services.
Regarding the preparation of support studies that allow promoting environmental services, or setting payments more in line with local conditions, a general deficiency was found. Less than a quarter have environmental services valuation studies, and even some that claim to have them are those promoted or carried out by the federal government. The above implies that the investment of the Implementing Agents in generating this type of studies is still very low.
The determination of opportunity costs is also a topic little addressed in local experiences. Around a quarter claim to have them, however some are not opportunity cost studies but production approximations or some report restoration costs.
On this aspect, an important space is also envisaged to promote and support the studies necessary to optimize local PES schemes or to promote strategies to carry out these studies.
Monitoring is another important aspect in the establishment of ML-PSA that has had a very slow development, which is verified when observing that around 40% do not carry out monitoring. In addition to what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, the documentary review and field visits made it possible to detect that around 10% consider verification activities and follow-up of commitments as monitoring, or stated that they carry out monitoring while they are still in the process of establishing it. These circumstances lead to the deduction that around half of the implementing agents do not carry out monitoring exercises.
For the cases that do carry out monitoring, the majority do so with their own personnel, followed by a fifth that have established agreements with a research institution.
Of the Implementing Agents that currently do not carry out some type of monitoring, the majority intend to do so in the future. In the experiences of CONAFOR and FMCN, this is one of the most complicated and expensive complementary activities, so defining the type of monitoring is decisive to ensure that it can be carried out continuously.
This aspect constitutes an important space to strengthen the Implementing Agents, either with training, support in the development of methods or with the financing to define and carry out the activity.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis of the information and the forms of organization and work of the Implementing Agents shows that 13% have made great efforts to establish working conditions and coordination with environmental service providers, while 55% have focused their work on work with users of environmental services. There is a third block that represents 30%, which has managed to carry out negotiations with both actors, that is, with both suppliers and users of environmental services. This is directly associated with the strengths that Implementing Agents have developed, for example, those who have a high investment of their work in preparing communities to integrate as providers of environmental services,It tends to have advances such as well-established community organizing agreements and great experience in carrying out activities that favor the provision of environmental services.
Additionally, there are agents in the country that have developed initiatives to strengthen and consolidate the work of local actors, and that although they have developed payment schemes, they have diversified their functions to encourage local actors to adopt and execute the operation of a ML-PSA.
Considering what is stated in the previous paragraphs, a classification of the Implementing Agents is proposed based on their operational strengths and the direction in which they have concentrated their greatest efforts within the general PES scheme. This will allow a more precise classification of these actors, beyond labeling them only as promoters without considering that they have substantial differences. With this, it will be possible to find groups with similarities in development, which will facilitate the design and adoption of strengthening, exchange and strategic alliance practices.
The proposed types are:
Unidirectional Implementing Agent towards Suppliers (UP): This type of actor focuses most of its activities with environmental service providers, and they carry out management and work of different kinds with them, such as technical assistance, community organization, legal advice, assistance in the management of government support, etc. Their work and management with users of environmental services are usually limited and in some cases non-existent.
Unidirectional Implementing Agent towards Users (UU): These are actors that have focused most of their activities on users of environmental services; Its main activities include management and awareness-raising work to influence users by motivating the adoption of measures to provide financial resources for PES. Their work with environmental service providers is often scant or nonexistent.
Bidirectional Implementing Agent (B): These are actors who have established work and management strategies with both providers and users of environmental services, they usually have more consolidated structures that allow them to serve both groups in PES schemes.
In the national framework, we also find actors such as CONAFOR and FMCN, who have played a role in strengthening and promoting local mechanisms, without the aim being to become operators of these schemes. In order to consider them in the national relations that exist in the management of ML-PSA, they are defined as follows:
Integrating Instances: These are actors that interact promoting the strengthening and development of ML-PSA through the Implementing Agents, with the aim that the latter develop sufficient capacities to operate a local mechanism autonomously.
This typification distinguishes the development of different strengths and the experience of working with the different actors of a PES scheme. They are represented schematically in the following figure, where it is clearly observed that the three types of Implementing Agents are in the institutional management niche necessary for the implementation of a ML-PSA.
Derived from this classification, the classification of the Implementing Agents who participated in this work is shown:
| Implementing Agent | Implementing Agent Type |
| Niparajá AC Natural History Society | USA |
| Pronatura Noroeste, AC (Baja California Sur) | USA |
| Secretary of the Environment and Sustainable Use (Campeche State Government) | USA |
| The Nature Conservancy (TNC) | USA |
| Uruapan Drinking Water, Sewerage and Sanitation Commission | USA |
| Chipinque ABP Ecological Park | USA |
| Pronatura Noreste, AC (Nuevo León) | USA |
| Secretariat of Rural Development of the State of Jalisco | USA |
| Manantlán Foundation for Biodiversity of the West AC | B |
| Pronatura Noroeste A, C. (Chihuahua, Durango) | USA |
| Conselva, Coasts and Communities, AC | UP |
| Water Factories of Central Sinaloa IAP | B |
| Agricultores Unidos de Poncitlán, SA de CV | USA |
| Quintana Roo State Forest Institute | USA |
| Secretary of the Environment of the State of Aguascalientes | USA |
| Grupo Ecológico Sierra Gorda, IAP and Bosque Sustentable, AC | B |
| Chinantla AC Oaxaca Regional Environmental Fund | USA |
| Secretary of Rural Development DEL Edo. Of warrior | USA |
| Underground Water Technical Committee of the Valle de Tulancingo Aquifer, AC | USA |
| Directorate of Forest Development, Secretariat of Rural Development, Government of the State of Chihuahua | USA |
| Cuenca Alto Nazas AC Commission | USA |
| Environmental Services of Oaxaca AC | B |
| Autonomous Group for Environmental Research AC | B |
| Protection of Mexican Fauna, AC | B |
| Protector of Forests of the State of Mexico | B |
| Monarch Fund | B |
| El Triunfo Conservation Fund | B |
| International Union for Conservation of Nature | B |
| Friends of Calakmul, AC | UP |
| Niños y Crías, AC | USA |
| Friends of Sian Ka'an AC | USA |
| Let's save the Laja river | No reference |
| Community Development of Los Tuxtlas | UP |
| Metropolitan Water and Sanitation System Veracruz Boca del Rio Medellin | USA |
| Paths and Encounters for a Sustainable Autonomous Development, AC | B |
| Directorate of Environment Environment of the Municipality of Tulancingo | USA |
| FIDECOAGUA | B |
| INDAYU AC | UP |
| Geoconservation A, C. | UP |
| Guardians of the Volcanoes AC | UP |
| Bepensa Foundation, AC | USA |
| Cooperativa AMBIO | B |
| Ingenieros Civiles y Asociados SA de CV | USA |
| Communal Assets of San Pedro and San Fleipe Chichila | B |
| H. Town Hall of Los Cabos | USA |
| Pedro y Elena Hernández AC Foundation | USA |
| H. City Council of San Luis Potosí | USA |
It is evident that the development of ML-PSA in Mexico has had a substantial increase in recent years, associated with the program to promote and strengthen local actors that CONAFOR has established, and with the work in the same direction of the FMCN with its program Basins and Cities.
This exercise also shows that there are still many challenges to be solved, among them the attention to issues to strengthen the ML-PSA Implementing Agents, such as:
- Operational capabilities: This involves the number of personnel available, the time devoted to the ML-PSA and the specialization of these personnel to attend the PSA. Support studies and insurance activities: Referring to studies that, although in many cases have not been essential to start a local mechanism, are important to make payment schemes more efficient and increase the scope of each experience. Some of those that may be relevant are valuation, opportunity costs, determination of transaction costs, verification actions and monitoring of contractual agreements, monitoring of forests and water, and water balance, among others. Monitoring: In many cases it has not been essential to initiate the local mechanism, however this gives certainty about the environmental services provided and is of great support to involve more users, which can be reflected in a greater obtaining of resources. Monitoring is essential to improve management activities that ensure the environmental services of interest. Management and collection capacities with users of environmental services: It was found that in a number of important experiences it has not been possible to establish clear agreements with users of environmental services or it has been difficult for them to increase them, this is mainly observed with the one-way Implementing Agents towards providers. But it was also observed that in some unidirectional Implementing Agents towards users, some even being direct users, the attraction of other users that join the experience in which they participate has been complicated.
As a recommendation, it is considered that the attention to these points is very relevant in the coming years to consolidate local experiences and allow the emergence of new cases.
Some general actions that can be taken to address the points mentioned are:
- Modify the scope of the programs that the Integrating Instances currently have, directing a part of their efforts to temporarily finance operational capacities and support studies in the ML-PSA. Promote management with users of environmental services, promoting their participation in the platforms that have been generated so far, such as learning communities, meetings and workshops.
In particular, to address each point, the following is suggested:
1.- To strengthen operational capacities, financial support can be established for certain items that help to implement and ensure the operational capacity of local experiences, as well as develop training schemes that help to specialize the personnel dedicated to operating the ML-PSAs.
2.- To strengthen the preparation of support studies and assurance activities, financial support schemes could also be established, although perhaps the most relevant thing is to establish tools and methodologies that serve as a guide for them to be carried out, this also implies developing capacities to employ the possible tools or suggested methodologies.
3.- To strengthen the Monitoring, it is also recommended to develop tools, methodologies and infrastructure that are made available to the Implementing Agents, in order to reduce design and establishment times. It is also considered feasible that through the platforms for the exchange of experiences the capacities that even involve research institutions are improved.
4.- To strengthen the management and collection capacities with users, it is recommended to establish user participation in the platforms created so far, so that, like the research institutions, they generate links and possible agreements with the Implementing Agents. In this case, it would be important to develop awareness campaigns that can be at two levels: the first of a general nature and a national level, with the perspective of supporting the awareness and participation of users in the maintenance of environmental services; the second with campaigns that can be adjusted to the local conditions of each experience and that are developed at the local level through the Implementing Agents.
The signing of cooperation agreements and the establishment of inter-institutional ties are among the elements that give strength to the ML-PES. It is evident that the intervention of the Integrating Instances has favored the management work of the Implementing Agents, some with a greater incidence with the providers and others with the users. It is also clear that in recent years the management of PES principles has been strengthened, and the participation of multiple actors has been activated, with which a continuous growth of experiences is expected in the coming years.
Initiatives with more experience represent a source of inspiration and support for those more recent, but it is necessary to establish or expand the means of exchange and networking. In this sense, the dissemination of this work is recommended to help more recent initiatives and the opening of spaces for innovation and creativity based on the lessons learned.
On the other hand, the experience of this study in obtaining data through the Internet operated efficiently, despite some flaws at the beginning; It is also concluded that it is necessary to adjust some questions, as well as their format to facilitate their filling. It is possible to eliminate some items and increase others to refine the detail of the information to be obtained, which leads to the integration of a matrix of initiatives at the national level and the identification of trends in the country that may be useful for adjustment of programs and public policies on PES.
The interviews carried out in the field were very important to achieve a better interpretation of the information collected in the database, since if they had not been carried out, they would have generated an incorrect or distorted interpretation of some data.
The group sessions generated interesting spaces for discussion that allowed a clearer vision of the opinions and expectations of each Implementing Agent, however, it was one of the most difficult tools to carry out due to the time dedicated to this by the participants it was short, which made it difficult to coordinate groups; in some cases the participation of the Implementing Agents was not achieved.
Among the greatest difficulties observed in carrying out this work were the interpretation of the questionnaires by the Implementing Agents and their participation in the exercises carried out.
Regarding the interpretation of the questionnaires, despite having a written explanation with examples and reinforced through verbal interactions (field visits and telephone calls), some confusion arose. In some cases this was derived because the people who received the information or clarifications were not the ones who completed the questionnaires, or because some Implementing Agents spent little time providing the requested information. These defects can be mitigated by allocating more time for these exercises, and asking the participants to have one or two people who punctually follow up on the performance of these activities.
Regarding the participation of the Implementing Agents as local actors, the majority expressed that this type of work is considered important and they were enthusiastic about their contribution to this, but there was a decrease in participation when providing information or allocating time to these exercises. To reduce this effect, it is recommended that the dissemination through institutions such as CONAFOR and the FMCN be more intense and that details be made about the importance of supporting these efforts. The work showed that there may be a better participation of the implementing agents with group dynamics with the presence of the media. Thus, it would be advisable to take advantage of platforms such as committees, workshops and meetings to encourage the participation of the Implementing Agents.It is also feasible to take advantage of electronic means such as videoconferences to disseminate and clarify the scope and doubts about these activities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
- Asquit, N. & Wunder, S., 2008. Payments for Watershed Services: The Bellagio Conversations, Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Fundación Natura Bolivia.Bauche P., P., 2012. Interview on promotion strategy for local PES mechanisms (May 25, 2012).DOF, 2002. DECREE by which various provisions of the Federal Law on Rights and the Federal Film Law are amended, added, and repealed. Official Gazette, December 30, p. 32.DOF, 2003. DECREE amending, adding and repealing various provisions of the Value Added Tax Law, the Income Tax Law, the Special Tax on Production and Services Law, the Law of the Tenure Tax. Official Gazette, December 31, p. 80 DOF, 2004.Program to develop the market for environmental services by capturing carbon and those derived from biodiversity and to promote the establishment and improvement of agroforestry systems. Official Gazette, November 24, p. 22.Frausto, JM, 2012. Interview on the Watershed and Cities Program (08/23/2012).INEGI, 2011. Census overview of water utilities in Mexico: Economic Censuses 2009.. Mexico: INEGI.Jackson, R. and others, 2005. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310: 1944-1947. MAE, 2005. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Our human planet: summary for decision markers. In: Washington DC: Island Press, p. 109.Mayrand, K. & Paquin, M., 2004. Payment for environmental services: Study and evaluation of current schemes, Montreal: Unisféra International Center. Mayrand, K. & Paquin,M., 2004. Payment for Environmental Services: Study and Evaluation of Current Schemes., Montreal: Unisféra International Center.Meyers, N., 1997. The Worl's Fores and Their Ecosystem Services. In: Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.. Washington: Island Press.Namakforoosh, MN, 2001. Research Methodology. México, DF: LIMUSA.Pagiola, S. & Platais, G., 2002. Payments for Environmental Services, Washington, DC: The World Bank Environment Department. Pearce, D. & Moran, D., 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. In: London: Earthscan. Pigou, A., 1920. The Economics of Welfare. In: sl: Macmillan and Co. Roe, D., 2006. Biodiversity, climate change and complexity: An opportunity for securing cobenefits ?, London: IIED.Rojas, R., 1999. Guide to Conduct Social Research. Mexico: Plaza and Valdez.Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional paper 42, Volume 42. Wunder, S., 2007. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation.. Conservation Biology 21, pp. 48-51.
