Mexico ecodevelopment program : mid-term evaluation final report

Mid-term evaluation covers the period 1990-4/95. The MEP is implemented by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in collaboration with seven local Mexican partners (NGOs). Unfortunately, there has been little understanding of or support for the project's Integration of Conservation and Development (ICDP) strategy among concerned Mexican NGOs or government agencies. In fact, the project's strategy has been largely untested as there are few similar models with which to compare it. In addition, the rates and causes of deforestation in the project areas are not well understood, and, in particular, the relationship between the introduction of agroecological techniques and the reduction of deforestation is not clearly established. The MEP's conceptual framework, as outlined in the original proposal, is not being followed rigorously: an almost exclusive focus on campesino agriculture has precluded attention to other activities that have equivalent or greater environmental impacts. Further, insufficient attention has been paid to the participation of targeted communities (especially women and other family members), particularly during initial diagnostic activities. The Participatory Rural Appraisal technique used in the latter was applied incorrectly and/or was inappropriate to the circumstances, and no alternative technique was attempted. Other problems include a poorly defined relationship between the MEP's work with local populations in the buffer zone and a broader conservation and land use strategy for the area (including the core zone), and the need to improve extension and promotion methodologies and environmental education. The project has met with some institutional constraints. Disparities between NGO staff and communities decrease project effectiveness, as do intraorganizational problems (e.g., staffing, communication between field and headquarters, few women staff, and weak program administration). Communication among different WWF offices (Washington, Mexico City, and Oaxaca) and between WWF and the implementing groups could be improved. Collaboration among Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) consortium members on the MEP, especially between WWF and The Nature Conservancy, is weak. Moreover, collection and analysis of baseline data and information needed for project monitoring is weak overall and inconsistent between projects. The MEP seems to be working through some of these shortcomings; many significant positive changes have taken place in the first 3 years in terms of project management, selection of partners, project-level coordination, and quality of results. A 5-year time frame, which appeared realistic at the start, now appears inadequate to test hypotheses and achieve program objectives with this degree of social and ecological complexity.