Design Matrix (DeMax)
DATE & STAKEHOLDER GROUP PARTICIPATING IN PROCESS:
ECONOMIC INSTRUMENT TESTED:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE THAT THE INSTRUMENT IS BEING DESIGNED FOR:

CUMULATIVE SCORE:
RECOMMENDATION FROM CUMULATIVE SCORE:

SOCIAL CRITERIA
OCCURRENCE OF CONDITION (SELECT OPTIONS FROM DROP-DOWN MENUS BELOW)
CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE WEIGHTING
NOTES ON CRITICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL CONTEXT
FLAG ISSUE?
OVERALL WEIGHTING OF THE SOCIAL CRITERIA RELATIVE TO ECOLOGICAL, MARKET AND GOVERNANCE: Reasoning for this weighting:
1.1. The instrument has the potential to distribute the benefits (i.e. financial or non-financial benefits generated through the instrument) in a fair and equitable way to the resource/land users whose behaviour is being changed through the instrument Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.2. Implementing the instrument will not compromise (i.e. take away from) existing resource/land rights and ownership of resource dependent user groups/ communities Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.3. Implementing the instrument will help to alleviate poverty and reduce vulnerability of livelihoods of the target communities/ resource users Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.4. The instrument will maintains / strengthen the cultural values within community whose resource use management practices are being targeted (there is little risk of taking eroding or conflicting with local cultural values) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.5. There is likely to be collaboration between resource user / community groups in order to implement necessary changes (e.g. instrument targets cohesive groups with history of working together) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.6. The instrument will help to build or maintain cohesiveness within and between resource / land users (i.e. little risk of increasing conflict/division among user groups) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.7. The instrument creates opportunities to benefit and uplift marginalised/vulnerable groups within the community (e.g. women/youth) or has no risk of increasing vulnerability in marginalised groups Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.8. The instrument could also generate benefits (financial or non-financial) for neighbouring communities and can help to strengthen neighbour relations (no risk of creating tensions) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.9. The instrument will lead to independence of target groups through establishing self-sustaining sources of benefits and avoids dependence on donor funding (e.g. links to performance based benefits) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
1.10. Channels of engagement exist within target communities for fostering communication and conflict resolution if required Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No


ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA
OCCURRENCE OF CONDITION
(SELECT OPTIONS FROM DROP-DOWN MENUS BELOW)
CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE WEIGHTING
NOTES ON CRITICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL CONTEXT
FLAG ISSUE?
OVERALL WEIGHTING OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA RELATIVE TO ECOLOGICAL, MARKET AND GOVERNANCE: Reasoning for this weighting:
2.1. The instrument will not increase risk of creating new / compound environmental pressures on other resources or ecosystems (local or distant areas) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
2.2. The instrument will not create impacts that could compromise the integrity / effectiveness of other ecological management interventions (e.g. being implemented by other groups) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
2.3. The instrument can contribute to wider integrated ecological management objectives in the area Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
2.4. The instrument has the potential to enhance the ecological condition in adjacent areas, for example promoting land management compatibility and ecological connectivity (e.g. strengthens habitat connectivity across landscapes, enhances ecosystem function that is also important to downstream environments) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
2.5. The ecological impacts resulting from the management interventions introduced through the instrument can be measured, monitored and quantified to conform location and scale of impact (e.g. the change in the condition of ecosystem functioning, levels of erosion, levels of pollution etc.) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No


MARKET CRITERIA
OCCURRENCE OF CONDITION
(SELECT OPTIONS FROM DROP-DOWN MENUS BELOW)
CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE WEIGHTING
NOTES ON CRITICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL CONTEXT
FLAG ISSUE?
OVERALL WEIGHTING OF THE MARKET CRITERIA RELATIVE TO ECOLOGICAL, MARKET AND GOVERNANCE: Reasoning for this weighting:
3.1.The instrument will not fore-close on other economic/market-based opportunities that create benefits 3.1.1. Local scale Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.1.2. Regional / District / Meso scale Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.1.3. National scale Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.2. The instrument has potential to create additional economic/ market-based options for local stakeholders (i.e. stacking the benefits) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.3. The impact of the intervention on the local economic market are compatible with economic and market activities in neighbouring areas Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.4. There is sufficient interest and demand among investors/backers/ participants to provide benefits/funding for incentives the target changes in environmental management (e.g. there are willing buyers for ecosystem services) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.5. The scale of benefits and incentives are large enough to create meaningful incentives to change behaviour (i.e. either a single or multiple markets/investors that collectively will provide the meaningful incentives to change behaviour) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
3.6. The instrument can function in existing market structure and does not require new regulations, policies, or market dynamics (e.g. can function in informal markets) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No


GOVERNANCE CRITERIA
OCCURRENCE OF CONDITION
(SELECT OPTIONS FROM DROP-DOWN MENUS BELOW)
CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE WEIGHTING
NOTES ON CRITICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL CONTEXT
FLAG ISSUE?
OVERALL WEIGHTING OF THE GOVERNANCE CRITERIA RELATIVE TO ECOLOGICAL, MARKET AND GOVERNANCE: Reasoning for this weighting:
4.1. The intervention meets legal and policy requirements at all levels of government and does not conflict with existing legislation or regulations in the local context Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.2. There will not be opposition from other government agencies or stakeholders that would inhibit the implementation of the instrument and distribution of benefits (i.e. there are no groups with nested interests that would oppose the implementation of instrument) Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.3. There are existing National Level structures and mechanisms that would be able to meet the conditions needed for the implementation of the instrument, if yes - Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.3.1. Do they have adequate / relevant implementing power to support the instrument Yes
No
Yes
No
4.3.2. Do they have adequate relevant implementing capacity and resources Yes
No
Yes
No
4.3.3. Do they have a proven track record / experience in these activities Yes
No
Yes
No
4.4. There are existing District/Regional level institutional and mechanisms that would be able to meet the conditions needed for the implementation of the instrument, if yes - Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.4.1. Do they have adequate / relevant implementing power to support the instrument Yes
No
Yes
No
4.4.2. Do they have adequate relevant implementing capacity and resources Yes
No
Yes
No
4.4.3. Do they have a proven track record / experience in these activities Yes
No
Yes
No
4.5. There are existing Local Level structures and mechanisms that would be able to meet the conditions needed for the implementation of the instrument, if yes - Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.5.1. Do they have adequate / relevant implementing power to support the instrument Yes
No
Yes
No
4.5.2. Do they have adequate relevant implementing capacity and resources Yes
No
Yes
No
4.5.3. Do they have a proven track record / experience in these activities Yes
No
Yes
No
List potential implementing agencies at National, Regional and Local Levels that need to be engaged during the design of the instrument for local implementation (flag potential constraints):
4.6. There are willing local partners with adequate capacity to assist with implementation and mentorship, if so - Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.6.1. Do they have relevant influence to secure support and participation of local stakeholders Yes
No
Yes
No
4.6.2. Do they have adequate/relevant capacity and skills Yes
No
Yes
No
4.6.3. Have they got relevant implementation experience Yes
No
Yes
No
4.7. There are independent local group(s) that could effectively facilitate the agreements needed between stakeholders and partners (e.g. play the role of independent broker), if yes - Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.7.1. Do they have necessary influence and independence to secure the trust of all partners Yes
No
Yes
No
4.7.2. Do they have adequate implementing capacity Yes
No
Yes
No
4.7.3. Have they got a proven track record Yes
No
Yes
No
4.8. There are independent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms / instruments that can be integrated into the design and implementation of the instrument to track ecological impacts against which the performance based benefits can be calculated Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No
4.9. If required, there is potential to amend local or national rights/regulations to create an enabling governance environment for the implementation of the instrument Above Average
Average
Below Average
Yes
No


OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (do not contribute to cumulative score)
OCCURRENCE OF CONDITION
(SELECT OPTIONS FROM DROP-DOWN MENUS BELOW)
NOTES ON CRITICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL CONTEXT
FLAG ISSUE?
5.1. Are there alternative opportunities (i.e. other than implementation of the target instrument) to achieve the improved environmental management that would be easier / more cost effective to achieve (i.e. other than implementing an economic instrument)? Yes
No
5.2. Would the implementation of this economic instrument provide a replicable model for other conservation interventions? Yes
No


FLAGGED CRITICAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN DESIGNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS


Creative Commons License
Afromaison - Economic Instruments, Design Matrix by Fonda Lewis, Eduard Interwies, Yaniss Guigoz, Gregory Giuliani is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Non-digital works: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US.