mexico primer 5-15

May 2020

DISCLAIMER: The authors' views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

INTEGRATING SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES AND DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE: Briefer for USAID/Mexico— Learning, Evaluation and Research Activity II (LER II)

ANDRÉ COOK

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development, Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Center under the Learning, Evaluation and Research Activity II (LER II) contract: GS10F0218U/7200AA18M00017.

Prepared by:

The Cloudburst Group 8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 550 Landover, MD 20785-2238 Tel: 301-918-4400

CONTENTS

MISSION OVERVIEW 1

INSIGHTS FROM USAID’S SL-DRG INTEGRATION GUIDE 2

DRG TOOLS AND FRAMEWORKS TO STRENGTHEN SL PROGRAMMING 2

SL TOOLS AND CONCEPTS TO STRENGTHEN DRG PROGRAMMING 3

INTEGRATION APPROACHES 4

POTENTIAL THEMES FOR INTEGRATION OF DRG AND SL 8

COMBATING ILLEGAL LOGGING WITH JUDICIAL STRENGTHENING 8

EXPANDING ACCESS TO DATA AND INFORMATION AND PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY TO REDUCE CORRUPTION AND IMPUNITY 8

SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS, WATCHDOGS, AND ADVOCACY GROUPS 9

LEVERAGING PEA FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY AND LANDSCAPE PLANNING 9

1 | SL-DRG INTEGRATION: BRIEFER FOR USAID/MEXICO USAID.GOV

MISSION OVERVIEW

Mitigating climate change and strengthening democracy, government effectiveness, and human rights are critical global development objectives. How these objectives intersect, and how they can be better achieved through integrated programming, are core questions for USAID Missions. Both Sustainable Landscapes (SL) and Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) initiatives support collective action and the common good over generations. SL and DRG also share mutually supportive objectives: stronger, well-functioning, and accountable democracies that prioritize and benefit from better natural resource and land management. Improving natural resource management and taking other actions to mitigate climate change, in turn, can protect and preserve assets that underpin local economies and livelihoods, delivering more responsive, transparent, and participatory forms of governance.

Current projects at USAID/Mexico were designed within the framework of a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) that ran through 2019. This CDCS focused on developing mechanisms to leverage public- and private-sector resources, increase individual and institutional capacity, and strengthen policy and legal frameworks that support reforms. These programs are aligned with National Development Plans of Mexico, Mexico’s bilateral and global commitments (including on climate change), as well as high-level USAID strategies, including the Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance and the Climate Change and Development Strategy.

USAID/Mexico’s Governance, Human Rights and Citizen Security (GRC) Office manages over 30 mechanisms that cover many DRG themes. GRC programming supports the consolidation of Mexico’s justice sector reform through support to state attorneys general and courts to increase access to justice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. It also aims to reduce and prevent crime and violence through municipal civic justice systems and individualized prevention interventions targeting youth. To promote more transparent and accountable public institutions, USAID/Mexico has partnered with civil society and private sector actors to support citizen-led oversight initiatives, and with national and subnational government agencies to improve internal processes. USAID/Mexico is also working with the Government of Mexico (GOM) and civil society to both prevent and prosecute human rights abuses and to improve protections for journalists and human rights defenders.

USAID’s SL initiatives partner with a wide range of government and nongovernmental stakeholders. Activities seek to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Mexico by developing markets for forest-carbon credits and improving forest monitoring systems. USAID/Mexico is also strengthening land management and preservation by supporting regional land management organizations and enhancing income sources for community-based agricultural and forest-related businesses.

USAID/Mexico is developing a new CDCS that will launch in 2020. The Mission’s programming is particularly ripe for SL-DRG integration given the robust suite of activities in both program areas and the underlying problems facing the country, which arguably relate more to supporting democratic processes than to building technical capacity.

In terms of SL-DRG integration, USAID/Mexico is interested in forging direct linkages between sustainable development and the environment and DRG activities (such as transparency, justice, and human rights), by exchanging lessons learned and the know-how necessary for their operationalization. Specifically, USAID/Mexico is interested in how to measure and report SL-DRG integration, including


monitoring approaches and integrated indicators. In addition, the Mission seeks to understand ways that integration can be structured in programming; for instance, if an integration effort requires a co-designed program, or if an integration effort should be articulated as a Development Objective or Intermediate Result in a CDCS or Project Appraisal Document (PAD).

INSIGHTS FROM USAID’S SL-DRG INTEGRATION GUIDE

The SL-DRG Integration Guide provides insights and ideas for integrated programming within USAID/Mexico’s programs. The guide contains numerous additional ideas and resources that Missions can tap into at any stage of programming.

DRG TOOLS AND FRAMEWORKS TO STRENGTHEN SL PROGRAMMING

DRG conceptual tools and frameworks can be incorporated in SL to deepen and sustain SL outcomes. These include, but are not limited to, applied Political Economy Analysis (PEA), Thinking and Working Politically (TWP), and the principles of Participation, Inclusion, Transparency, and Accountability (PITA).

PEA is a structured analytical method that consists of gathering data through existing literature and rigorous fieldwork to help understand incentives and constraints impacting the behavior of actors within a larger system. Conducting a PEA leads to a more holistic picture of political, economic, social, and cultural influences on program objectives and outcomes. TWP is a strategic orientation that can help design and implement programs in a more politically informed way that includes adaptive management (shifting course based on new evidence). TWP enables better understanding of working environments and systems and the ability to identify sustainable, locally generated solutions. PITA are core principles of DRG practice that influence the relevance, effectiveness, and inclusiveness of public service delivery. Integrating PITA principles generally includes incorporating participatory planning, involvement of marginalized groups, public information on citizen rights or the performance of public officials, and citizen feedback.

For USAID/Mexico, where there is a mix of ongoing and new activities in both SL and DRG, consider the following entry points for these conceptual tools:

For new SL activities, craft a situation model that identifies both factors (e.g., land use change, unenforced policies) and actors (e.g., specific industries or even companies, specific political factions) driving GHG emissions, as well as those actors that have the potential to counter the specific pressures and threats. Consider how power relations among actors will shape responses to approaches to reduce emissions. Who has the power to bring about lasting change? What are the risks to groups in challenging powerful actors? Because the Office of Sustainable Development (OSD) has identified that strengthening political will, governance, and enforcement to secure and manage natural capital are key for successful initiatives, it will be important to identify organizations and initiatives that have a track record of building political will for sustainable management and find out how they succeeded. Then programs can develop concrete tactics based on this evidence, including how to deal with adversaries and challenges.

For ongoing activities, consider incorporating PEA into midterm evaluations or reflections, such as was done in the LESTARI project in Indonesia. In that case, a pre-evaluation reflection workshop determined that some activities were not achieving results due to political maneuvering that created a lack of


transparency about land-use decisions. The PEA helped steer the project to approaches that could address this blockage. PEA can also indicate pathways to enhanced impact. For instance, in the Sustainable Management of Community Lands II project, consider ways that improving forest enterprises and forest management can increase the political voice of marginalized communities and help them to deal with threats to their lands and natural resources.

SL TOOLS AND CONCEPTS TO STRENGTHEN DRG PROGRAMMING

Tools and approaches used in SL programming can be used to inform, design, adapt, or enhance DRG activities. These are approaches that could enable broad support for better management of lands and natural resources and improve Mexico’s democratic processes.

Measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV)1 promotes transparency because MRV systems track a country or region’s actual emissions reductions against what has been proposed or promised. MRV systems that incorporate data from remote sensing can pinpoint where emissions are rising due to deforestation or burning, and these areas may also be sites of land conflict, corruption in land allocation, or illegal exploitation. Transparency of and access to these data, for example, through traceability systems for commodities such as timber, are critical for civil society action. The SL and DRG programming approaches should therefore be integrated to promote collection, access and dissemination of MRV data systems.2 3

Large scale “landscape” planning processes, as described in the Applying the LandScale Assessment Framework in Mexico activity (see SL definition of landscape and description of project below), bring people together to study and make decisions on critical land use issues, with the aim of reducing GHG emissions at a large scale. These processes are an opportunity to convene government and non-government actors to review land-use decisions and options. Such processes promote transparency in data access and may reveal decision processes that are not transparent and require action by civil society.

1 The key function of MRV is enhancing transparency through the tracking of national GHG emission levels, the tracking of climate finance flows received, or the impact of mitigation actions. See https://carbon-turkey.org/en/what-is-mrv.

2 For more information on the post-2012 MRV data framework, see the OECD report: https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/44228245.pdf.

3 For discussion on MRV data and processes in the Mexico context see:

Deschamps Ramírez, P., & Larson, A.M. (2017) The politics of REDD+ MRV in Mexico: The interplay of the national and subnational levels. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 171. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). http://dx.doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006568.


INTEGRATION APPROACHES

INTEGRATION APPROACHES AND THEORIES OF CHANGE

The guide presents three model approaches and Theories of Change (TOCs) that integrate DRG and SL based on existing USAID programming.4 Note that the examples of these approaches in the guide are at the activity level and not from Development Objectives (DOs) or Intermediate Results (IRs) at the level of a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) or Project Appraisal Document (PAD).

● Co-designed approaches define co-equal and mutually supportive objectives: stronger, well-functioning, and accountable democracies that prioritize and benefit from better natural resource and land management. Better natural resource management protects assets critical to local economies and supports more responsive, transparent, and participatory forms of governance. Activities or projects using these approaches could be funded by either sector or use a mix of funding, but management should be shared between offices. A model TOC for such approaches is, “Improving specific DRG-relevant processes (such as rule of law, information access, or citizen voice) will improve decision-making for land and forest management and ultimately reduce GHG emissions, and improving forest and land management will contribute to greater government transparency and accountability.”

● SL approaches incorporating DRG tools and expertise are those that incorporate PEA or TWP into the activity at any stage.5 In the guide, there is an example from Indonesia of PEA being incorporated as a result of a midterm pause and reflect exercise. Among other issues, the PEA sought to analyze land-use decision-making processes that were not transparent, despite much support given to public forums to enhance transparency. A TOC underlying such an approach could be, “Incorporating PEA processes and recommendations leads to better targeting of actions and improved ability to reduce GHG emissions.”

● Natural resource governance approaches are those that have been undertaken over many years within USAID using frameworks like Nature, Wealth, and Power (NWP). Such approaches see improved land and natural resource management as shaped by governance arrangements at various levels. They build in efforts to strengthen local governance capacity and address perverse policy incentives that lead to poor outcomes. One TOC for such an approach is, “Integrating governance support and economic incentives with technical interventions improves the uptake of sustainable land and natural resource management.” While this approach remains common in environment programming, including SL, staff interviewed for the guide noted that involvement of DRG officers can strengthen the approach.

4 Note that there are other approaches described in the guide that are not based on USAID experience.

5 The guide does not describe an approach that integrates SL tools and concepts into DRG because as of the time of this report there are no USAID examples to draw from.


COLLABORATING, LEARNING, AND ADAPTING TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING PLANS

Understanding Terms and Concepts

To ensure good collaboration, it is important that both sectors have a mutual understanding of key terms and concepts. For example, SL staff can explain what is meant by the “landscape scale” and “landscape-level impact” in light of administrative and jurisdictional boundaries in Mexico. Why does using the landscape unit of analysis matter to SL? In turn, DRG staff can describe how boosting the rule of law and strengthening judicial systems improves the lives of key SL target groups in Mexico such as farmers, forest managers, and protected area management authorities. The guide provides a cross-sectoral lexicon to support this dialogue.

Team Building

USAID/Mexico’s experienced teams and the desire to find pathways to integration provide a sound foundation. Integration can be supported by, for example:

● Carrying out joint field trips to areas where there is both SL and DRG programming or potential programming. Even if one stream of funding is currently being used in an area, it is useful to carry out a joint field trip to see how integration can occur without co-funding (see points below under Joint Analysis).

● Forming an integration working group around one or more themes, such as anti-corruption and civil society strengthening. Experience shows that contractor support (for example, through a Mission-level Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning [MEL] or Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting [CLA] mechanism) can bolster the working group through research and analysis, such as developing case studies of particular localities. The working group can also consider how to integrate in specific priority regions or projects or provide general guidance to implementers on how to incorporate and resource integration into scopes of work and workplans for existing and new projects.

● Developing and delivering training modules for sectoral training, using research and cases developed in the working group.

Joint Analysis

Functional, team, or funding integration ideally occurs at the strategic planning phase, from CDCS to incorporation of portfolio reviews and cross-sectoral technical working groups. As the Mexico Mission drafts a new CDCS, there is an opportunity to link and integrate SL and DRG programming at the foundational level of a development strategy. The process of designing the CDCS itself can benefit from DRG and SL tools and analysis. For instance, one could interpret findings from the FAA 118-119 (Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Analysis) through the lens of PEA. Using the political economy framework, one would first identify the political and economic forces underpinning threats to biodiversity and tropical forests. Furthermore, it is important to examine which institutions are key to decision-making and action, and whether these are sufficiently supported or engaged. Specific questions could include:

● Where are the deforestation and land degradation pressures greatest? If DRG funds cannot be deployed in these areas, how can DRG support this work in other ways?


● In regions of DRG priority, how can SL concerns be integrated so that they expand the reach and effectiveness of DRG interventions (e.g., by identifying key drivers of degradation and poor governance, adding an SL objective to support for civil society, policy reform, or judicial strengthening)?

● Can the Mission consider in upcoming strategies that both SL and DRG concerns should be interwoven in order to support sustainable development (i.e., development that is environmentally sound and underpinned by transparent and accountable democracy)?

Learning and Adapting

● During activity design, develop PEA-inspired learning questions that delve into SL-DRG connections and integrate these into workplans. For example, in the LandScale Tool activity, one may ask, “What are the incentives for farmers or land managers to adopt sustainable land-use practices and what are the political barriers involved?” Use the information to adapt programming (such as was done in the case of Indonesia cited above).

● Commission an evidence review of the political economic dimensions of deforestation and land degradation in Mexico. See, for example:

● An analysis of conflict and forest cover change in Mexico ● An article about the threat of expanding oil palm plantations in Mexico ● An article about deforestation caused by illegal avocado farming

Developing Integrated Indicators and Other Measures

To monitor an integrated project, indicators and other measures should focus on the additive effect of integration. One example of a set of integrated indicators from the guide can be found in the Greening Prey Lang project in Cambodia. Box 1 presents examples drawn from this project with other inputs.

The guide recommends combining collection of quantitative data for such indicators with use of qualitative monitoring. Qualitative information helps with attribution—being able to show that a result

Box 1: Example of integrated indicators

Number of civil society groups with improved capacity to address sustainable landscape issues as supported by USG assistance. Note: this can include any groups supported by any USAID funding stream, not just SL funds.

Number of people trained in PEA approaches to improve sustainable landscapes outcomes supported by USG assistance. Same as above.

Number of laws, policies, or regulations that address SL issues officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance (any funding stream).

Percentage of SL funding using DRG approaches, tools, concepts and technical assistance.

Percentage of DRG funding that addresses land and natural resources management issues.


was achieved due to a combined DRG and SL intervention or the use of an SL or DRG tool or expertise; in other words, the additive effect of integration. For instance, support to civil society watchdogs working on anti-corruption and transparency issues could create a critical mass for changing political decisions that foster land degradation. Understanding and measuring such an outcome will require a type of “outcome monitoring” or other method that USAID’s Learning Lab describes as complexity-aware monitoring.

Box 2 presents sample outcome measures that USAID/Mexico could consider.

Box 2: Measuring outcomes of SL-DRG integration

Comparing the outcomes of community forest groups supported by or linked to civil society/human rights groups and those that are not. Outcomes could include shifts in gender equality, resolution of conflicts and land use disputes or leadership accountability and transparency.

Gauging the additive value of PEA in determining why stakeholders adopt or do not adopt renewable energy solutions. Does PEA illuminate barriers to adoption that would not ordinarily be visible?

Where the Projust project has targeted technical assistance to investigating and prosecuting environmental crimes such as illegal logging, has this had an impact on reducing GHG emissions? Where the US Forest Service collaborates with Projust does this improve the quality of stakeholder engagement in reducing emissions (for example, by addressing rights and governance issues related to illegal incursions into a community)?


POTENTIAL THEMES FOR INTEGRATION OF DRG AND SL

There has been interest in integration of governance in SL programming within USAID/Mexico. For example, there are initiatives working with both government and civil society to develop policies and regulations for a national REDD+ strategy, or strengthening legal, institutional, and public policy frameworks and the capacities of multiple actors to engage in participatory planning of energy projects. Several existing and planned USAID/Mexico initiatives offer many additional entry points for integration. What follows is a selection of integration themes and activities that may provide further opportunity for integration of SL and DRG concepts, methods, and programs.

COMBATING ILLEGAL LOGGING WITH JUDICIAL STRENGTHENING

The Mission is interested in tracking and attacking illegal logging, including constructing systems for forest sector management, permitting and traceability systems, and legality of wood, where 30 to 50 percent of the wood exported is illegal, and illegal wood flows into Mexico from other Central American countries. The Forest Legality Initiative is a new activity led by the U.S. Forest Service that incorporates this theme and was launched with USAID funding.

The Projust project is providing technical assistance to Mexican state and federal authorities in support of an effective consolidation of the new criminal justice system, with a focus that includes strengthening the legal framework, increasing prosecutorial and judicial capacity, and public outreach. Targeted technical assistance could be expanded to include investigating and prosecuting environmental crimes such as illegal logging. USAID’s work with civil society and private sector actors to support public outreach to inform the citizenry about the value of transparent, efficient, and responsive justice could potentially incorporate training prosecutors to identify and prosecute environmental crimes.

EXPANDING ACCESS TO DATA AND INFORMATION AND PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY TO REDUCE CORRUPTION AND IMPUNITY

On the theme of transparency, USAID/Mexico provides support to civil society at local levels and builds national networks dedicated to oversight and watchdog actions, especially related to government procurement. This theme could be expanded to focus on environmental transparency, which supports the anti-corruption theme. An additional linkage with transparency is strategic litigation work.

USAID/Mexico’s support to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Transparency, Integrity and Citizen Participation for Sustainable Development program includes development of citizen oversight mechanisms for the GOM’s priority initiatives. This program will also strengthen civic oversight mechanisms that are applicable to initiatives, projects, and other GOM spending that involves the redevelopment of rural lands, forests, or other undeveloped areas. This is an excellent entry point for a better understanding of how government spending, and reporting on it, affects the use and allocation of lands and how they are managed.


SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS, WATCHDOGS, AND ADVOCACY GROUPS

USAID/Mexico’s work in human rights promotion and protection includes assistance to journalists and human rights defenders to network, form strategic alliances, and improve their advocacy and oversight of GOM efforts to prevent human rights abuses. For example, the PROVOCES initiative strengthens institutional capacities of government and civil society to improve the security of journalists and human rights defenders, and the Dialogue on Journalist Protection project highlights aggressions against journalists, increasing visibility at national and international levels. These programs might include journalists and activists involved in forest protection and conservation activities. The National Mechanism to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Defenders could also include greater focus on decisions and allocations related to land and resource use. The Inter-Agency Working Group on Environmental Defenders, run by the U.S. Department of State, is a great source for information and guidance, including how embassies can get involved in protecting defenders and advocating for safeguards.

LEVERAGING PEA FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY AND LANDSCAPE PLANNING

Mexico has long been an icon in community forestry based on successful models working through ejidos6 to establish sustainable forest enterprises. Mexico is also at a key moment to establish governance schemes, improved public policies, and economic instruments to reach the zero deforestation goals (Community Land Management Support Program (PAGET)/ Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable

Forestry / Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible A.C. (CCMSS) workplan). An activity of the PAGET/CCMSS project is designed to “contribute and strengthen the participation of forest communities in the government-society dialogue spaces within the framework of the Emissions Reduction Initiative,” including analyzing information regarding government interventions on land use and subsidies. Consider introducing PEA into this analysis to better understand the forces behind land use decisions and subsidies that may be driving unsustainable land use practices.

Rainforest Alliance’s LandScale Tool activity seeks to create “a coordinated effort between public and private sector actors to account for, and address, the cumulative impact of land use activities across an entire landscape that result in significant greenhouse gas emissions and generate a variety of other social and environmental problems.” The hypothesis is that if the LandScale standard can be applied more effectively to identify and monitor the diverse indicators associated with GHG emissions from land use change, while also creating improved incentives for local stakeholders, then it will be widely applied by companies, governments, and communities in landscapes where sustainable production is a priority, leading to more collaboration and effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions and associated causes and factors. The model will identify where contradictions or opportunities for strengthening synergies exist, as well as where there are options for minimizing negative externalities between landscape stakeholder groups (i.e., water quality and availability, pesticide and fertilizer use, soil erosion and degradation, habitat loss, crop diversification).

PEA may provide a critical perspective and answer important questions on this hypothesis. Overall, is it clear what the incentives are for sustainable land management and what is driving deforestation and

6 The communal farmland of a village, usually assigned in small parcels to the villagers to be farmed under a federally supported system of communal land tenure.


unsustainable use? Given that there have been many planning efforts, is there a risk of “participation fatigue?” How will adopting a technical standard provide incentives or increase collaboration? It will be important to understand the current incentive structures of stakeholders, including how actions are financed and how particular land uses are perceived by local actors. What are potential negative externalities from this process, such as policies and incentives that promote increased use of chemicals, increasing cattle herds, etc.?

USAID/Mexico’s new Sustainable Management of Community Lands II project seeks sustainably managed community forests that reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and improve rural livelihoods. Working primarily in the Yucatan and Amancalo regions, activities include land-use studies to identify local drivers of deforestation. Such studies could incorporate elements of PEA to inform this analysis and develop TOCs that consider all contributing factors to deforestation in these communities.

USAID/Mexico’s Improving Livelihoods Through the Recognition of Standing Forest Value market mechanism is based on the premise that the value of sustainably managed forests can be monetized by carbon credit for preserved forests. The program also aims to improve public policy on emissions trading through research. The program design would likely benefit from increased and holistic understanding of challenges to preserving land and opting out of income-generating activities like farming, or through identifying linkages with other actors who share an interest in preserving forests, such as environmental organizations, indigenous peoples’ groups, legal defenders, etc. The program also envisions ambitious targets in revenue generation and carbon sequestration resulting from the TOC and subsequent activities. If targets appear unlikely to be met, a pause and reflect-type strategic assessment and planning exercise may be warranted.

mexico primer 5-15

Documents