MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY Mid-Term Evaluation Report MAY 2016 This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean—Office of Regional Sustainable Development. It was prepared by The Cloudburst Group for the Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME) Task Order under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) IQC. Written and prepared by Stephanie Fenner, Nora Nelson, and Karol Boudreaux with support from Dr. Cynthia Caron. Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean—Office of Regional Sustainable Development, USAID Contract Number AID-OAA-TO-14- 00011, Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME) Task Order under Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) IQC No. AID-OAA-I-12-00030. Implemented by: Cloudburst Consulting Group, Inc. 8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 550 Landover, MD 20785-2238 Monitoring and Evaluation of the AIME Activity Mid-Term Evaluation Report MAY 2016 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. CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 1 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 9 1.1 AIME ACTIVITY PROJECT OBJECTIVES......................................................................................... 9 1.2 AIME ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................12 2.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS...................................... 13 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................13 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................13 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS ................................................................... 15 3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................15 3.2 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................18 4.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 20 4.1 PROGRESS TOWARDS OVERALL AIME OBJECTIVE ..............................................................20 4.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1 ................................................................. 22 4.3 PROGRESS TOWARDS INTERMEDIATE RESULT 2 ................................................................. 34 4.4 PROGRESS TOWARDS INTERMEDIATE RESULT 3 ................................................................. 42 5.0 CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 53 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................................53 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................................55 ANNEX 1. EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................... 59 ANNEX 2. DESK REVIEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION ................................................. 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED.....................................................................................70 DESK REVIEW: DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX....................................................................................75 ANNEX 3. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS................................................................ 89 INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY LEADERS: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL......................................................................................................................................................90 SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ..94 PROJECT BENEFICIARIES: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL........................................97 ANNEX 4. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED................................................................... 101 AIME ACTIVITY AND FBLC MEMBER STAFF........................................................................................101 KEY INFORMANTS.......................................................................................................................................102 ANNEX 5. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...................................... 104 ANNEX 6. APPROVED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN AND TIMELINE ......... 107 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill AIME Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions AIME-PE Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions Performance Evaluation AMPB Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos y Bosques CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance CO Contracting Officer COIAB Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Peoples COICA Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca EDF Environmental Defense Fund EII Earth Innovation Institute FBLC Forest Based Livelihoods Consortium FGD Focus Group Discussion FUNAI National Indian Foundation of Brazil GCC Global Climate Change GCF Governors’ Climate & Forests Task Force GHG Greenhouse Gas IP Indigenous People IPAM Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia IR Intermediate Result LAC/RSD Latin America and the Caribbean Office for Regional Sustainable Development LED-R Low Emission Rural Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation METAREILA Metareilá Association for the Paiter-Surui People MOU Memorandum/a of understanding MTPE Mid-term Performance Evaluation PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PNGATI National Program for the Management of Indigenous Territories PNS Pronatura Sur PRISMA Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación Sobre Desarrollo y Medio RAN National Agrarian Registry REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RIA REDD+ Indígena Amazónico RIBCA Red Indígena Bribri-Cabecar SEDAM Secretary of State for Environmental Development SISA Sistema Estadual de Incentivos a Serviços Ambientais VCS Verified Carbon Standard AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of the Mid-term Performance Evaluation (MTPE) of the Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME) activity funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, Office of Regional Sustainable Development (LAC/RSD). The evaluation was conducted from September 2014 to March 2016 by a team from The Cloudburst Group. PROJECT BACKGROUND AIME is a 5-year USAID cooperative agreement awarded to U.S.-based nonprofit Forest Trends. Forest Trends implements the project together with nine additional environmental and indigenous organizations that serve as members of the Forest-Based Livelihoods Consortium (FBLC). AIME program activities started in Fall 2013 and are currently underway. The overall objective of the AIME activity is to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, REDD+1, and REDD+- compatible activities in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities, while also promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. AIME works towards this objective by engaging in three focus areas, including: • Communities: Creating tools and approaches that increase the capacity of local communities to engage with the private and public sectors more confidently and productively on resource management in general, and carbon credits in particular; • Jurisdictions: Improving the capacity of sub-national governments to play a critical role in community￾based REDD+ programs, with a focus on developing legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks to support fair inclusion of indigenous and traditional communities in REDD+; and • Dialogues: Bringing community, local and regional government, and private sector representatives together to develop new approaches to negotiate REDD+ contracts and/or support REDD+ compatible activities that benefit local communities and promote private sector engagement. Each focus area of the program is intended to generate an Intermediate Result (IR). The 3 AIME IRs are: • Intermediate Result 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir,2 conservation, and the reduction of emissions. • Intermediate Result 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. 1 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. REDD+ goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (UN-REDD, 2013). 2 The concept of buen vivir, loosely translated as “good living,” is rooted in the worldview of the Quechua and Aymara people of the Andes. It refers to a way of living which is focused on living in community, in harmony with nature and others, and in a culturally sensitive manner. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 2 • Intermediate Result 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS In September 2014, USAID awarded The Cloudburst Group a 52-month contract to design and conduct a Mid-term and Final Performance Evaluation of the AIME activity. The purpose of the AIME Mid-term Performance Evaluation (MTPE) is to review project performance, assess the ways in which project activities are contributing to the achievement of the AIME project objective, and to provide recommendations to ensure progress is made in the final years of implementation. The MTPE Report examines project progress and key activities under each of the three AIME intermediate results to answer the following evaluation questions: 1. How has AIME empowered indigenous groups/local communities to engage in: territorial governance; buen vivir; conservation; and the reduction of carbon emissions? a) Within these groups, have the results been equitable (extended to both sexes)? b) Have there been any unintended consequences of the project with respect to vulnerable subgroups of populations? 2. To what extent has AIME made progress towards enabling local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect and compensate Indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)? 3. What kind of progress has been made towards transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? 4. What changes will enhance the project’s implementation in the final years of implementation? EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS To assess the performance of the AIME activity, the AIME Performance Evaluation (AIME-PE) team employed a mixed methods evaluation methodology that included four interrelated components: a Desk Review; a Mid-term Field Assessment; Case Studies and; a Gender Assessment.3 The first component involved an in-depth desk review of key documents and materials related to AIME project activities. Content analysis of the documents allowed the AIME-PE team to track progress toward expected project outcomes, link project activities to MTPE questions, inform the case study and field assessment components of the methodology, and identify and prioritize primary data collection activities. The second component of the MTPE methodology, the Mid-term Field Assessment, was conducted during February and March 2016. The Field Assessment included site visits to: 1) Acre, Brazil; 2) Rondonia, Brazil and; 3) Chiapas, Mexico. Throughout the Field Assessment, the AIME-PE team collected primary data from a broad range of AIME stakeholders and beneficiaries and facilitated 54 interviews and 10 focus group discussions (FGDs). To inform the Mid-term Field Assessment site selection and strategy (i.e., identify key stakeholders to interview and the types of questions to ask), the AIME-PE team used the desk review findings coupled with guidance from Forest Trends and USAID. 3 The approved AIME Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline can be found in Annex 6. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 3 As a part of the third component, the AIME-PE team developed brief case studies of the AIME jurisdictions visited during the Mid-term Field Assessment (Acre, Rondonia, and Chiapas). The case studies, presented in Section 4 of this report, each include an assessment of the networks and relationships that the AIME activity facilitates and supports in the given jurisdiction, including partnerships between communities, government officials, and the private sector. Each case study extends down to the local level (i.e., indigenous or traditional communities) in a jurisdiction and up to the government and private sector institutions that shape the potential for jurisdictional arrangements and private sector investment surrounding carbon mitigation activities. The case studies also discuss various stakeholders’ experience with the project and the relationships between the social and institutional changes that the AIME activity promotes. Finally, the gender assessment component of the evaluation considers the differential impacts of the AIME activity on men and women. More specifically, the gender assessment examines whether or not project results, and opportunities to participate in the project, have been equitable among project stakeholders, or if there have been any unintended consequences of the project with respect to women. The gender assessment component and subsequent findings and recommendations are of particular significance given the mandatory REDD+ social and environmental safeguards relevant to gender4, particularly in the context of renewed support for REDD+ following COP21. In addition, the existing literature surrounding the potential effects of REDD+ and payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes in relation to gender equality and the provision of equitable outcomes among men and women highlight the importance of considering differential impacts. More specially, gender and equity concerns focused on how existing power relations may limit women’s ability to influence resource-related decisions suggest that REDD+ policies may reduce women’s access to natural resources and adversely affect gender equality (Peach Brown 2011; Gurung and Quesada 2009; Terry 2009). The findings and recommendations from the gender assessment component are intended to inform the development and implementation of the AIME gender policy to take into account the gender and equity-related social and cultural norms in the project area to ensure equitable project outcomes. Limitations of the evaluation are detailed in Section 3 and include the limited availability of reporting data to measure AIME activity outcomes and to directly attribute results to project activities. In addition, like most evaluations, the AIME Mid-term Evaluation faced limitations with respect to time and resources. More specifically, the time frame available for field assessments coupled with the geographic scope of AIME activity implementation meant the AIME-PE team was unable to visit each site of project implementation. However, due to the multi-component evaluation methodology employed and the facilitation of remote interviews with project stakeholders in project sites not visited, the AIME-PE team is confident that the AIME Mid-term Performance Evaluation findings and conclusions represent a fair and unbiased assessment of the AIME activity to date. 4 The Cancun Agreements specify that developing country parties address “land tenure issues, forest governance issues, gender considerations” and ensure “the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders” when developing and implementing national strategies or action plans (UNFCCC COP 16, 2010: para. 72). AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 4 EVALUATION FINDINGS As a result of the AIME Mid-term Performance Evaluation, the AIME-PE team finds: In relation to the overall objective of the AIME activity: • AIME’s advocacy and capacity building efforts at the sub-national and national-levels in Brazil are helping to increase the involvement of indigenous peoples and traditional communities in political activities and discussions related to climate change mitigation and REDD+. • Throughout the first half of the project, AIME’s Monitoring and Evaluation efforts have not produced a sufficient amount of performance reporting data to accurately and effectively measure the outcomes of project activities and directly attribute emission reductions to contributions of the project. In relation to Intermediate Result 1: • AIME’s capacity building efforts in Brazil and Chiapas have increased stakeholders’ knowledge of conservation initiatives and climate change mitigation activities. However, limited understanding among stakeholders in Brazil on the linkages between AIME-supported conservation initiatives and broader concepts of climate change remains a barrier to additional stakeholder participation in AIME￾supported carbon mitigation activities in Brazil. • AIME’s support for the development of Life Plans in Costa Rica and Chiapas has potential to strengthen territorial management and increase environmental protection in these areas in ways that support local culture and livelihoods. However, the challenges faced in Brazil among the Yawanawa and Surui indigenous peoples with respect to the implementation of their existing Life Plans, in part due to tenure insecurity on indigenous lands, highlights the need for continued support for Life Plan implementation in order to strengthen territorial governance. • AIME is succeeding in strengthening the capacity of communities to effectively engage in REDD+ and carbon mitigation activities by creating spaces for dialogue and fostering the exchange of knowledge among indigenous and traditional communities, members of the FBLC, and project partners. In particular, the dialogues and exchanges have resulted in increased knowledge and awareness of conservation initiatives and climate change mitigation activities among indigenous communities, and increased the exchange of knowledge among members of the FBLC on important topics relevant to the effective implementation of the AIME activity. • AIME’s support for workshops with women on REDD+ compatible income generation opportunities is helping increase the capacity of women in Rondonia and Chiapas to participate in carbon mitigation activities. It is also contributing to women’s empowerment by reducing gender disparities in access to income and increasing women’s ability to influence decision making. In relation to Intermediate Result 2: • Members of the FBLC are well-positioned to support jurisdictional programs and policies for REDD+ and LED-R based on the project’s effective engagement of governments and indigenous and traditional leaders and organizations. The FBLC is playing a key role in facilitating this engagement and also in advancing indigenous rights and inclusion under state jurisdictional frameworks in states like Acre. It is also providing considerable support to improve inclusion under national-level laws and frameworks, such as Brazil’s National Adaptation Plan and Mexico’s National Climate Change Law. • Through capacity building workshops conducted by AIME, indigenous representatives are able to actively participate in international negotiations and spaces for indigenous dialogues, including COP20 in Lima and COP21 in Paris. The FBLC is supporting this participation by hosting and participating in internationally-oriented events on indigenous REDD+ and threats to, and opportunities for, indigenous peoples and Low Emission Rural Development (LED-R). AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 5 • AIME is advancing support for indigenous inclusion under California Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32) and keeping the potential for AB-32 as a platform for the sale of indigenous offsets alive. While progress here has been incremental (see discussion below), AIME’s ongoing efforts to increase the visibility and inclusion of indigenous peoples under AB-32 are helping to ensure that AB-32 remains a platform for indigenous participation in these regulatory processes. • The FBLC regularly engages with the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF), which has resulted in the creation of a new Indigenous Working Group. This Group is expected to serve as a direct and specific platform for indigenous engagement both in AIME jurisdictions and in the GCF’s other member jurisdictions around the world. • Women’s participation in the jurisdictional policy process is limited, due in part of a lack of women in visible political leadership roles and asymmetries in training that have resulted in women receiving more training on handicrafts and NTFPs, and limited emphasis on climate change, REDD+, the jurisdictional policy process, or jurisdictional, national, or international venues for dialogues that are inclusive of indigenous women. In relation to Intermediate Result 3: • AIME is contributing to increased development and distribution of carbon credits, REDD+-compatible products, and other products with climate change mitigation benefits by providing support for the development of relevant supply chains, developing platforms and projects to market and promote demand for REDD+ compatible products, and identifying and developing new funding channels and innovative financing mechanisms. • With regard to forest-based livelihoods, AIME is supporting the development, monitoring and verification of carbon credits under FBLC-supported projects, such as the Surui Carbon Project. The FBLC is leveraging the existing Yawanawa arrangement with Aveda in order to propose a complementary financial mechanism that will help secure carbon tenure and market credits that will fund the Yawanawa Life Plans. Though the FBLC currently faces some bureaucratic hurdles, it has secured the legal counsel necessary to structure financial mechanisms that will boost investor confidence and transparency in transactions. • AIME continues to support the development of REDD+ compatible products and FBLC partners are at various stages in the development of supply chains and partnerships with the private sector in their respective jurisdictions. PNS is supporting the production of pine resin in Chiapas and advancing producer relationships with Alen del Norte and other buyers in the state while providing support for mangrove-related activities and cashew production. In Rondonia, METAREILA delivered on its first sale of brazil nuts during the AIME-PE team’s visit, and is currently laying the ground work for the production and harvest of native cacao. • An important element of developing and supporting these supply chains and transactions is ongoing AIME support for EcoDecision’s Canopy Bridge platform. In addition to improving the features and functionality of the Canopy Bridge site as a result of AIME support, AIME is contributing to the development of the Atlas of Amazon Indigenous Enterprises, which will help aggregate and identify indigenous producers or products. This should provide the basis for enhanced market-based exchanges. • AIME is helping to identify and develop innovative financing strategies that will help indigenous peoples secure the rights to a portion of the high quality (due to social and environmental co-benefits) emission reductions generated in their territories. Under the leadership of COICA, EDF and EcoDecision, AIME is supporting the development of the Amazon Indigenous Fund, which is working to secure pre-committed funding disbursed through channels like the Forest Carbon Partnership AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 6 Facility (FCPF) to reach a first close of $50 million USD and intended to contribute to the integrated management of 240 million hectares in the Amazon Basin. • Women are involved in the development of REDD+ compatible products to varying degrees; the handicrafts initiatives supported among the Yawanawa and Surui are the most robust, while women’s inclusion in the production of cashews, pine resin, and other products is very limited to non-existent. The handicrafts activity is helping to increase support among men and women for improving women’s livelihoods. However, uptake of the handicrafts activity is not universal, and women that participated in FGDs expressed concern that women in other villages may abandon more culturally relevant activities that enable them to earn a livelihood. This may frustrate further expansion of the handicrafts activity. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The MTPE findings underscore the diverse and cross-cutting role the AIME project plays in empowering indigenous and traditional communities to engage in carbon mitigation activities and to participate in discussions and processes surrounding policy alignment and institutional reform related to jurisdictional REDD+ programs. In order to achieve project goals, the AIME-PE team recommends that the AIME project focus on the following priority recommendations during the final years of project implementation: To improve performance in relation to the overall project objective, the AIME activity should: • Consider conducting a deeper dive study of the project’s advocacy and capacity building efforts at the sub-national and national levels in Brazil to identify critical lessons learned from this effort and to determine if this model can and should be replicated. • Strengthen efforts in monitoring and evaluation of the AIME activity. More specifically, the project needs to collect and report on data measuring progress towards impact-level performance indicators. This would allow for effective attribution of project activities to the intended intermediate results. Without improvements in data collection and reporting, it will remain difficult to attribute project activities to results. To improve performance in relation to Intermediate Result 1, the AIME activity should: • Provide additional support for workshops on the linkages between the technical aspects of climate change, AIME-supported conservation and carbon mitigation activities, and REDD+. A valuable example that can be used as a model for additional workshops is the course for Cultural Mediators in Forest and Climate Change. Increased capacity building efforts through workshops such as this will contribute to furthering stakeholder understanding of the importance of environmental protection for climate change and enhancing their awareness of the potential of AIME-supported REDD+ and REDD+ compatible conservation and carbon mitigation activities to enhance local livelihoods. In particular, stakeholders expressed a strong desire for additional workshops and trainings on the topics of agroforestry and the commercialization of REDD+ compatible products. As a result of this additional support, the AIME activity is more likely to increase levels of participation in AIME￾supported REDD+ conservation and carbon mitigation activities among project stakeholders, and strengthen their capacity to participate in ways that contribute to improved livelihoods and local well￾being. • In Brazil, increase support for effective territorial surveillance and monitoring on indigenous and traditional territories. This support should focus on workshops with indigenous and traditional leadership institutions to increase their institutional capacity to manage natural resource use. Support AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 7 should also include efforts (additional funding/workshops) to increase knowledge of, and access to, the advanced technologies necessary for effective territorial surveillance and monitoring on indigenous and traditional territories. As a result of this additional support, the AIME activity will be better positioned to strengthen territorial governance and enhance environmental protection in the targeted jurisdictions. • Increase support for the participatory improvement and implementation of Life Plans. This support should focus on workshops with women specifically intended to increase their knowledge of Life Plans and increase their participation in Life Plan-related activities. In addition, AIME should develop new indicators that measure site-specific project performance with respect to female participation in Life Plan development and implementation. This information will help AIME better ensure equitable outcomes among men and women as a result of project activities. • Support additional capacity building workshops and opportunities for REDD+-compatible income generation for women in Chiapas and Rondonia, and expand capacity building workshops and REDD+-compatible income generation opportunities for women in the Igarapé Lourdes and Yawanawa indigenous territories. A valuable example that can be used as a model for these expanded efforts is the work with Surui women in Rondonia where workshops centered on strengthening the commercialization of the handicrafts produced by female artisans for the Paiter-Surui Store and the Surui Forest Carbon Project have encouraged women to participate more in handicraft commercial activities. To improve performance in relation to Intermediate Result 2, the AIME activity should: • Use the considerable capacity of the FBLC to take on a more primary role in the development and planning of AIME-supported regional and international dialogue and events focused on jurisdictional approaches. By leveraging the FBLC’s ability to engage in agenda-setting related to jurisdictional approaches and indigenous inclusion, the GCG Secretariat would be better able to focus on convening its member states and generate maximum participation from various jurisdictions. These forums may serve as an additional platform to share lessons learned as a result of the AIME activity. • In order to garner more support among indigenous peoples for REDD+, it would be worthwhile for FBLC members to attempt to reach consensus around REDD+ as relevant to AIME objectives. It may be helpful for the FBLC to align/coordinate communications and communication strategies on this topic to communities and the ARB. Specifically, the FBLC should consider developing a timeline or work plan related to indigenous inclusion under AB-32 (and AIME project objectives related to emission reductions more broadly) that considers all FBLC partners, even if only a few key organizations are the ones leading efforts in California. To improve performance in relation to Intermediate Result 3, the AIME activity should: • Revisit project Indicator 3.2 and develop a strategy to monitor the details of different types and sizes of transactions supported, in part or in whole, by the project. At present, this indicator is not sufficiently well-defined to fully capture the scope of activities being undertaken under IR3 at the level of detail required to accurately report on overall progress in securing new investments and sources of finance. In addition, monitoring criteria may not be consistent across all jurisdictions in which transactions are taking place. A revised indicator would allow the project to more accurately gauge outcomes of the efforts undertaken by AIME to develop and market products with mitigation benefits, including the expansion and development of platforms designed to enable transactions. • Provide additional support for the Canopy Bridge platform, so that the site can serve as an e￾commerce platform that facilitates and supports transactions from start to finish, in addition to AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 8 matching or joining buyers and producers through continued support for the AIME-developed Atlas of Amazon Indigenous Enterprises. In addition to improving QA/QC of entries in the Atlas, the project may use the Atlas to identify additional producers or product lines that the project can support during the remaining years of the project. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 9 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 AIME ACTIVITY PROJECT OBJECTIVES AIME is a 5-year USAID cooperative agreement awarded to Forest Trends, a U.S.-based nonprofit. The FBLC, a partnership of ten environmental and indigenous organizations, implements the project. Program activities started in Fall 2013, and are currently underway. The ten members of the FBLC are: • Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos y Bosques (AMPB); • Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca (COICA); • Earth Innovation Institute (EII); • EcoDecision International; • Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); • Forest Trends; • Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM); • Metareilá Association for the Paiter-Surui People (METAREILA); • Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación Sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA); and • Pronatura Sur (PNS). The overall objective of the AIME activity is to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation and REDD+ and REDD+- compatible activities in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities while promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. This objective will be achieved by work in three focus areas including: • Communities: Creating tools and approaches that increase the capacity of local communities to engage with the private and public sectors more confidently and productively on resource management in general and carbon credits in particular; • Jurisdictions: Improving the capacity of sub-national governments to play a critical role in community￾based REDD+ programs, with a focus on developing legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks to support fair inclusion of indigenous and traditional communities in REDD+ and; • Dialogues: Bringing community, local and regional government and private sector representatives together to develop new approaches to negotiate REDD+ contracts and/or support REDD+ compatible activities that benefit local communities and promote private sector engagement. Each focus area of the program is intended to generate an IR along with a number of sub-IRs, each specified in the AIME Results Framework5 included below. 5 The AIME Results Framework was excerpted from Forest Trends, 2014, AIME Year 1 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and Work Plan and updated based on the Forest Trends, 2015, Monitoring & Evaluation Plan of the AIME Activity. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 10 The 3 AIME IRs are: • Intermediate Result 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation, and the reduction of emissions. • Intermediate Result 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. • Intermediate Result 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 11 Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions Overall Objective: Increased participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) deals in order to mitigate global climate change (GCC) emissions. IR 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, biodiversity conservation and the reduction of emissions. Sub-Intermediate Results for IR 1: 1.1: Greater understanding of REDD+ with a body of community knowledge, constructed from dialogue 1.2: Conceptual and methodological framework established for strengthening community capacities 1.3: Experiences and models validated 1.4: Territorial Governance Strengthened IR 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. Sub-Intermediate Results for IR 2: 2.1: Jurisdictional barriers and opportunities identified and innovative approaches disseminated 2.2: Governments effectively engaged to discuss policies and institutional reform 2.3: Indigenous leaders empowered and committed to implement reform and alignment together with jurisdictional officials 2.4: Policy and institutional reforms gain support through multi-sector dialogues and planning processes IR 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. Sub-Intermediate Results for IR 3: 3.1: Spaces for dialogue and win/win models created 3.2: Information created 3.3: Relate mitigation benefits to agroforestry products 3.4: Demand for carbon mitigation products created 3.5: Diverse funding sources and mechanisms FIGURE 1. AIME ACTIVITY RESULTS FRAMEWORK AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 12 1.2 AIME ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION The AIME activity’s approach to achieving the project objective and intermediate results involves project activities across seven key jurisdictions. As a part of this approach, AIME is supporting the development of four sub-national jurisdictions (Acre, Mato Grosso, and Rondonia in Brazil, and Chiapas, Mexico) and two national-level jurisdictions (Peru and Honduras). In Colombia, AIME is exploring a regional approach for the Amazon Region. While the overall efforts are focused on a jurisdictional approach, many of the project activities being implemented are complementary and cross-cutting, and contribute to progress not only across IRs, but also across multiple jurisdictions. Example of such activities include, but are not limited to: • Regional-level capacity building workshops for indigenous peoples and traditional communities, designed to inform participants of topics such as: Life Plans, climate change, economic development, and territorial governance. • Collaboration and exchanges of knowledge between FBLC member organizations, community leaders, and government officials to empower indigenous and traditional leaders to engage with government officials at the national and sub-national levels and participate in multi-lateral climate discussions such as COP20 and COP21. • Support for indigenous and traditional communities to engage with the private sector by linking indigenous producers to the market and the development of carbon products and REDD+-compatible products, including monitoring of emission reductions in compliance with standards such as the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), and promotion of credits in the California market under Assembly Bill (AB) 32. • Increasing access to REDD+ financing and promoting forest conservation through the support of the Indigenous Amazon Fund (RIA). AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 13 2.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE The objectives of the AIME-PE are: • Document successes and shortcomings of the AIME project to determine its effectiveness in achieving the project’s goal of increasing the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, REDD+, and REDD+-compatible activities in particular, in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities; • Provide information about successful approaches and methods to increase participation in and utilization of REDD+ and REDD+-compatible activities by forest-based communities; • Make recommendations for future investment within the REDD+ sector; and • Validate the AIME Theory of Change, or recommend course corrections during the project’s lifetime, mindful that the voluntary carbon market is not yet fully viable. The specific purpose of the MTPE is to review key project activities and ensure progress is made towards achieving AIME’s project goals and objectives in the final years of project implementation. The MTPE provides insight into activity performance and effectiveness beyond that captured in the activity implementer’s Performance and Management Plan and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activities. The intended audience of the MTPE includes the USAID LAC/RSD, USAID/LAC Missions, and USAID’s GCC Office. These findings may be used to inform current and future programming in the REDD+ arena. 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The AIME MTPE examines select project activities and key progress made towards each of the three AIME IRs to answer the following evaluation questions: 1. How has AIME empowered indigenous groups/local communities to engage in: territorial governance; buen vivir; conservation; and the reduction of carbon emissions? a) Within these groups, have the results been equitable (extended to both sexes)? b) Have there been any unintended consequences of the project with respect to vulnerable subgroups of populations? 2. To what extent has AIME made progress towards enabling local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect and compensate indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 14 3. What kind of progress has been made towards transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? 4. What changes would enhance the project’s implementation in the final years of implementation? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 15 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS The evaluation plan and methodology utilized in the course of carrying out the AIME Mid-term Performance Evaluation (MTPE) are detailed in the AIME-PE Plan and Timeline. The AIME-PE Plan and Timeline, included in Annex 6, was submitted by The Cloudburst Group and approved by USAID in 2014. 3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To assess the performance of the AIME activity and examine the pathways to achieving project outcomes, the AIME-PE team employed a mixed method evaluation approach. The four components of the evaluation methodology are detailed below and include: a Desk Review; Mid-term Field Assessment; Case Studies and; a Gender Assessment. COMPONENT 1: DESK REVIEW Under the desk review component, the AIME-PE team conducted a periodic review of key documents related to AIME project activities. These included: performance management frameworks, annual work plans, quarterly reports, workshop and event summaries, training and outreach materials, and technical reports, papers and research developed by FBLC members and project partners. The AIME-PE team began requesting and collating material for the desk review in January 2015. Though USAID and Forest Trends supplied the majority of the documents requested by the AIME-PE team, certain documents that the AIME-PE team identified as high priority, based on their potential to inform the MTPE, were not received on a regular, ongoing basis. These documents included Quarterly Reports and performance indicator reporting data from FBLC members (i.e., AIME sub-awardees). Rather, these documents were only provided for three project quarters. The desk review also includes publicly available data, such as pertinent newspaper and journal articles. The documents contained in the desk review provide a rich dataset for content analysis. The AIME-PE team drew on findings from the desk review to track progress toward expected project outcomes, link project activities to MTPE questions, inform the case study and field assessment components of the methodology, and to identify and prioritize primary data collection activities. A complete list of documents reviewed for the evaluation and a Desk Review Matrix detailing the key sources used is included in Annex 2. COMPONENT 2: MID-TERM FIELD ASSESSMENT The AIME-PE team conducted a Mid-term Field Assessment in February and March 2016. The field assessment included site visits to: 1) Acre, Brazil; 2) Rondonia, Brazil; and 3) Chiapas, Mexico. Structured to collect primary data from a broad range of AIME stakeholders and beneficiaries and to allow the AIME-PE team to observe first-hand progress towards project objectives, field assessment site AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 16 locations were selected by the AIME-PE team together with Forest Trends and discussed with USAID. The selection process was informed by a site selection criteria developed by the AIME-PE team in collaboration with Forest Trends. Based on a purposeful, criterion sampling approach intended to carefully balance the mix of time and funding available for field assessments in order to optimize effectiveness, the main site selection criteria included: • Sites receiving higher amounts of USAID funding and/or conducting larger number of AIME activities; • Sites including the presence of multiple FBLC members and AIME partner organizations; and • Site visit logistics, including seasonal/weather considerations, travel and accommodation expenses, and FBLC member schedules. TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF FGD LOCATIONS AND PARTICIPANTS Focus Group Discussion # Male # Female Total Location Date FGD 1 9 11 20 Yawanawa Village #1, Acre 02-14-2016 FGD 2 0 8 8 Yawanawa Village #1, Acre 02-15-2016 FGD 3 10 8 18 Yawanawa Village #2, Acre 02-16-2016 FGD 4 10 2 12 Surui Village #1, Rondonia 02-20-2016 FGD 5 0 14 14 Surui Village #2, Rondonia 02-21-2016 FGD 6 5 0 5 Pesqueria Guadalupe Victoria, Chiapas 03-01-2016 FGD 7 0 5 5 Pesqueria Guadalupe Victoria, Chiapas 03-01-2016 FGD 8 0 12 12 Aztlan, Chiapas 03-02-2016 FGD 9 10 4 14 Aztlan, Chiapas 03-02-2016 FGD 10 10 0 10 Villa Flores, Chiapas 03-03-2016 Total: 54 64 118 During field assessments, the AIME-PE team conducted 10 FGDs with 118 project stakeholders (54 men, 64 women) in seven beneficiary communities (Table 1). The AIME-PE team also conducted individual and group interviews with 44 key informants and FBLC staff members. An additional 10 interviews were conducted remotely for a total of 54 interviews with key informants and FBLC staff members (37 men, 17 women). Key informant interviews (KIIs) consisted of semi-structured, qualitative, in-depth interviews with stakeholders identified based on their specialized knowledge of AIME project activities. Key informants of interest included: community leaders, sub-national government officials, representatives from organizations partnering with the FBLC, and project beneficiaries. KIIs were used to collect detailed information from project participants and partners on specific topics relevant to the AIME Mid-term evaluation questions. A complete list of key informants and FBLC staff members interviewed for the Mid-term Field Assessment can be found in Annex 4. The AIME-PE team designed and used three data collection instruments to guide primary data collection. The instruments were informed by the team’s knowledge and experience within REDD+ and Low Emission Rural Development (LED-R) sectors and the preliminary desk review findings. Throughout KIIs and FGDs, the protocols were adapted to fit the context of the field location and stakeholder AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 17 involvement with AIME activities. The three data collection instruments are included in Annex 3 and listed below: • Indigenous and Traditional Community Leader Key Informant Interview Protocol • Sub-national Government Official Key Informant Interview Protocol • FGD Guide for Discussions with Project Beneficiaries Key informants were identified and selected based on the advice of the FBLC, and the AIME-PE team’s identification of important stakeholders based on the desk review exercise. The team also worked with FBLC members to identify project stakeholders to participate in the FGDs. All KIIs and FGDs were voice recorded, and recordings were translated and transcribed as necessary for the MTPE analysis. The AIME-PE team employed a deductive approach to the qualitative analysis, meaning the evaluation questions and AIME Results Framework were used to guide and focus the analysis of the KII and FGDs data. Analysis involved reading and re-reading the transcripts, carefully coding and grouping the data according to similar or related pieces of information presented. This process allowed the AIME-PE team to organize and compare similar and related pieces of information in the qualitative data and to identify key themes and common properties across the project area to inform the evaluation’s findings. Quotations were selected to illustrate the findings with simple, focused pieces of information representing key themes. COMPONENT 3: CASE STUDIES The AIME-PE team conducted brief case studies of three project jurisdictions: Acre, Rondonia, and Chiapas. The case studies, included in Section 4, provide an assessment of the networks and relationships that the AIME project facilitates and supports in a given jurisdiction, including partnerships between communities, jurisdictions, and the private sector. Each case study investigates nodes across the project network, reaching ‘down’ to the indigenous or traditional communities in a jurisdiction and ‘through and up’ to the government and private sector institutions shaping the policy environment and the potential for jurisdictional arrangements and private sector investment. For example, in the Rondonia Case Study, data from interviews collected at the grassroots level with indigenous communities is analyzed together with interviews of indigenous leaders and government officials to examine cross-cutting project outcomes. The case studies contribute to the evaluation findings by identifying: • How a variety of stakeholders in a given jurisdiction experience their participation in AIME the activity; • The relationships between the social and institutional changes that the AIME projects promotes; • The connections between project activities across all three IRs in a given jurisdiction and the subsequent results and outcomes; and • Best practices and the potential for future investment by USAID and other donors. COMPONENT 4: GENDER ASSESSMENT Guided by the USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy (2012), the gender assessment component of the evaluation considers the differential impacts of the AIME activity on men and women. The gender assessment was designed to examine what, if any, differential effects the AIME activity has had on men and women with respect to their participation in, and influence of, project activities, and AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 18 their respective ability to access AIME-generated project benefits. The assessment also sought to understand whether or not project activities have generated any unintended positive or negative impacts on women. To support the gender assessment, the data collection tools utilized during site visits were designed to capture the perspectives and experiences of both men and women. In addition, whenever possible during site visits, focus group discussions were conducted with separate groups of men and women to help identify gendered differences in perceptions of knowledge, capacity, and the AIME project and its activities in a given field site (Table 1). Finally, throughout the desk review content analysis, special attention was paid to sex-disaggregated data and content regarding project activities in relation to women. Based on the findings of the gender assessment, the AIME-PE team formulated gender-specific recommendations. The recommendations are designed to inform the development and implementation of the AIME gender policy and to improve outcomes related to benefit sharing and women’s empowerment. 3.2 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The USAID Evaluation Policy recommends the collection and use of data on variables corresponding to project inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts (USAID, 2011). However, the administrative and reporting data available to the AIME-PE team related to activity outcomes and impacts was limited. The reasons for this are three-fold: 1) The AIME performance indicators selected by the FBLC to track progress towards the three intended intermediate results (IR) measure project outputs rather than outcomes. For example, the two indicators selected to measure empowerment under IR1 - the number of people trained and the number of communities that have developed Life Plans (see Table 2) – represent quantities of people participating, rather than potential outcomes of IR1 activities such as changes in stakeholder knowledge as a result of participation in trainings; 2) the AIME-PE team did not have access to quantitative data on outcomes to supplement the indicator reporting data (i.e., from sources such as surveys with project participants), because these have not been reported by the FBLC; and 3) the AIME M&E Plan and the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) were not developed until the third quarter of the second year of project implementation. As a result, precise indicator definitions and documented methods of collecting and calculating indicator reporting data remained unspecified until then, further limiting data available for analysis. Finally, semi-annual performance indicator reporting data included in AIME reporting documents were not consistently disaggregated across countries or members of the FBLC. Given the diverse and geographically widespread nature of the FBLC and AIME project activities, the unspecified nature of the indicators and reporting methods during Years 1 and 2, and the lack of site￾specific performance data reported, the AIME-PE team had concerns regarding the quantity and quality of the reporting data available to assess the AIME Theory of Change and, in turn, to attribute outcomes to project activities. To help mitigate these concerns, the AIME-PE team collected in-depth qualitative data from a wide variety of KIIs and FGDs during field assessments and from remote interviews. In addition, the team supplemented the desk review documents received with additional sources of publicly available data, such as newspaper and journal articles and existing research relevant to the evaluation questions. In addition, like most evaluations, the AIME Mid-term Evaluation faced limitations with respect to time and resources. The time frame available for field assessments (3 weeks) coupled with the geographic scope of AIME activity (activities in 7 countries) meant the AIME-PE team was unable to visit each site of project implementation. To help address these limitations, the AIME-PE team supplemented the data AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 19 collected through FGD and in-person KIIs with remote interviews. In addition, the criteria used to inform site selection criteria carefully considered the mix of time and funding available for field assessments in order to optimize effectiveness. Lastly, while site visit locations were selected based on recommendations from Forest Trends and many of the interviewees were identified based on the advice of the FBLC, the AIME-PE team was able to independently identify and interview stakeholders during site visits to reduce the risk of potential selection bias. The AIME-PE team is therefore confident that the MTPE findings and conclusions represent a fair and unbiased assessment of the AIME activity to date. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 20 4.0 FINDINGS This section presents the MTPE findings on the performance of the AIME activity based on the evaluation methodology outlined above. Findings presented provide both progress to date on the overall AIME objective and impact indicators, as well as, on key activities contributing to the three intended IRs. 4.1 PROGRESS TOWARDS OVERALL AIME OBJECTIVE The overall objective of the AIME program is to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, REDD+ and REDD+- compatible activities in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities, while promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. The AIME project objective is measured by three impact indicators, listed below and in the AIME Monitoring & Evaluation Plan. 1. Quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in metric tons of CO2, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG assistance. 2. Percentage of compliance with human welfare parameters related to ecosystem services. * 3. Number of communities participating in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, REDD+ activities and activities compatible with REDD+6. To date, the AIME activity has contributed to 70,000 tons of emissions reductions through its continued support of the Surui Forest Carbon Project.7 According to the AIME Year 2 Fourth Quarterly Report from November 2015, emissions reductions as a result of other AIME initiatives have yet to be calculated, and the FBLC is “still seeking ways to attribute AIME’s impact on emissions reductions through jurisdictional approach” (Forest Trends, 2015). Though 70,000 tons represents minimal progress made towards AIME’s Life of Project (LOP) target of 1,000,000 tons of emissions reductions, the ongoing political and advocacy efforts surrounding climate change mitigation that are occurring as part of AIME’s jurisdictional approach (further discussed under IR2) have resulted in increased potential reduction of GHG emissions in the second half of the project. For example, the Rio Branco Declaration, issued in 2014, thanks in part to technical support from the FBLC, includes the commitment of thirteen governors in rainforest nations and provinces to reduce deforestation by 80 percent by 2020. If met, this commitment would represent a reduction in emissions of four billion tons of CO2. However, in the absence of a clear method to measure the outcomes of AIME’s jurisdictional efforts on emissions reductions, attributing AIME-specific contributions to the amount of GHG emissions reductions remains a significant challenge, particularly as FBLC members continue to work alongside, 6 No reporting information available. Precise data collection plans for these indicators are not currently documented in the AIME M&E Plan or in Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS). Baseline levels, LOP targets, and data collection methods (i.e., how the indicators will be measured, by whom, when, and where) all remain unspecified in AIME reporting documents. 7 The initial Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) monitoring report of the Surui territory showed approximately 70,000 tons of emissions reductions compared to the baseline. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 21 and in partnership with, a number of different organizations to advance AIME’s carbon sequestration and mitigation objectives. Contributing to this challenge, documented methodologies and reporting data are not yet available on the other two AIME impact indicators in AIME reporting documents. More specifically, for these two performance indicators, first specified in the 2015 AIME M&E Plan, Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) documenting baseline levels, LOP targets, and data collection methods have not been reported. Therefore, whether or not and how data for these two impact indicators were collected during the first two years of the project, and how data will be collected moving forward is unknown and of a key concern of the AIME-PE team. This lack of data affects the extent to which the AIME-PE team can effectively assess the project’s Theory of Change and attribute outcomes to project activities. Recognizing these important constraints, the AIME-PE team does feel that AIME’s progress towards increasing the participation of indigenous communities in activities and negotiations relevant to climate change and REDD+ (Impact indicator 3) is evident in Brazil, as a result of the following four efforts: 1. In Acre, the FBLC successfully supported the Yawanawa Sociocultural Association’s (ASCY) advocacy efforts related to indigenous rights and the recognition of the indigenous contributions to climate change mitigation. Forest Trends and the Earth Innovation Institute provided technical support to the ASCY and also facilitated discussions with Yawanawa leaders and government officials. As a result of these efforts, the ASCY’s proposal for indigenous rights and inclusion (primarily aimed to create a mechanism for conservation finance to the Yawanawa) in Acre’s state jurisdictional framework is being considered by the government. 2. In collaboration with Brazil’s Indigenous Affairs Foundation (FUNAI) 8, IPAM provided research and technical inputs to a chapter in Brazil’s National Adaptation Plan devoted specifically to the needs of indigenous peoples and traditional communities. Given that the process of policy development in Brazil has historically excluded indigenous and traditional communities, this chapter represents an important step towards incorporating their needs into national-level environmental policy. 3. IPAM hosted a series of seminars in Brazil with over 50 indigenous leaders and FUNAI representatives. The series, entitled Climate change from the perspective of indigenous peoples in Brazil, focused on deepening participants' understanding of concepts related to three key topics: 1) the historical development of the REDD+ mechanism and Brazil’s National REDD+ Strategy; 2) technical concepts related to climate change adaptation and mitigation; and 3) participation and understanding of discussion topics at COP20 related to indigenous peoples. As a result of these seminars, participants were able to engage with government officials in discussions related to climate policy and institutional reform. This included discussions with representatives from the Brazilian Environmental Ministry on the development of the national REDD+ strategy and with the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations on the development of Brazil’s international REDD+ mechanism. Also as a result of this initiative, eight indigenous leaders from various regions of Brazil, with the support of IPAM and FUNAI went to Lima to attend the COP20. 4. AIME is also increasing the number of indigenous and traditional communities participating in state￾level activities and negotiations related to REDD+ in Rondonia, where the state is currently in the process of developing a jurisdiction-wide system of eco-system service payments, including those from REDD+ and climate finance. As part of these efforts, METAREILA has participated in meetings with the Governor and Secretary of the Environment of Rondonia to discuss the development of the REDD+ policy with the objective of ensuring that the Surui indigenous people and other 8 FUNAI is a Brazilian national agency that monitors and control indigenous affairs throughout the country. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 22 indigenous and traditional communities in Rondonia can effectively participate in, and benefit from, the new policy. METAREILA is also working to support the direct participation of indigenous peoples in the political process with the state government through capacity building workshops. For example, the organization conducted a workshop on REDD+ for indigenous teachers and municipal and state government officials where a key goal was to better equip indigenous organizations to advocate on behalf of their territorial rights in the context of Rondonia’s evolving REDD+ law. The workshop generated a set of recommendations for the state government to incorporate into the it’s emerging REDD+ strategy. Discussing AIME’s support for the Surui’s political involvement with the state of Rondonia, Chief Almir Surui noted: “AIME has empowered the Surui to influence policies at the state and federal government. We are in a position to sensitize the state and raise awareness about the context of indigenous people. This empowerment is very important and strategic for us.” These specific results from AIME’s advocacy and capacity building efforts in Brazil represent a model the project may build on to increase the involvement of indigenous peoples and traditional communities in political activities and discussions related to climate change mitigation and REDD+ in Brazil. Project efforts in Brazil are therefore a valuable example of advancements made towards the overall objective of the AIME activity and provide insight into the significance of the project’s multi-faceted approach in Brazil for project performance. Here, capacity building efforts at community-level in combination with capacity building efforts with indigenous and traditional leaders, and advocacy activities across sub￾national and national jurisdictions have together increased the project’s overall success. Next, we discuss MTPE findings on progress made to date towards each of the AIME activity intermediate results. 4.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1 4.2.1 INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1: COMMUNITIES ARE EMPOWERED FOR TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE, BUEN VIVIR, BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION, AND THE REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS. AIME activities under intermediate result 1 (IR1) focus on empowering local communities to protect their territories and to engage with the government and private sector equitably and productively on issues related to sustainable resource management. Efforts are primarily focused on building capacity among indigenous and traditional communities and leaders to further local understandings of REDD+ and climate change, and to strengthen territorial management and governance. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 23 TABLE 2. INDICATORS FOR IR1: CUMULATIVE RESULTS AND LIFE OF PROJECT TARGETS IR 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, biodiversity conservation, and the reduction of emissions. Indicators Baseline Y1 Y2 Y3 Cumulative Results LOP Target 1.1 (4.8.2-6): Number of people receiving training in GCC as a result of USG assistance 0 70 600 * 669 175 1.2: Number of indigenous and/or campesino organizations that have developed Life Plans or other intercultural proposals for REDD 0 0 2 * 2 3 *No reporting information available. 4.2.2 FINDINGS IR1 To assess progress towards IR1 and examine how AIME has empowered indigenous groups and local communities to engage in territorial governance; buen vivir; conservation; and the reduction of carbon emissions, the evaluation focused on IR1 activities and achievements related to: 1. Stakeholder knowledge and understanding of climate change and conservation initiatives 2. Territorial Governance 3. Dialogues and the Exchange of Knowledge The AIME-PE team’s findings on IR1 are presented below. 1) STAKEHOLDER KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CONSERVATION INITIATIVES Training and Workshops: At the time of this evaluation, AIME has exceeded the Life of Project target of 175 for the number of people receiving training on global climate change (GCC) as a result of USG assistance (Indicator 1.1, Table 2). The AIME Year 2 Fourth Quarterly report states that 669 people have received training, with the following caveat: “Within this 669 figure, there are many duplicate names (individuals participate in multiple training events and are counted each time).” The report also states that “at least 20 workshops have been given, with over 19,000 person-hours of participation, at least 37 percent of which represents participation by women.” Contributing to the achievement of the LOP target for the number of people trained, a series of capacity building workshops with FBLC partners, indigenous and community leaders, and community members were held on issues such as conservation initiatives, climate change, and territorial control and surveillance. Quantitative data measuring project outcomes in relation to empowerment, such as changes in stakeholder knowledge or perceived changes in capacity, as a result of participation in workshops was not collected as a part of AIME’s M&E efforts. Analysis of the qualitative data obtained from interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) during the Mid-term Field Assessment reveals that AIME-supported workshops in Brazil and Chiapas have increased stakeholder knowledge of conservation initiatives and climate change Two primary examples demonstrate this finding. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 24 First, AIME workshops with community leaders in Brazil provided leaders with opportunities to increase their knowledge of topics significant for climate change mitigation, specifically carbon sequestration and the importance of forest protection. To take one example, 23 participants (9 women, 14 men) belonging to five Brazilian indigenous groups attended a training course for Cultural Mediators in Forest and Climate Change in Acre. The course provided them with scientific information on climate change and the environmental benefits of forest protection. In interviews, the AIME-PE team noted evidence of an increase in knowledge of climate change and the importance of forests for environmental protection. For example, one attendee, a Yawanawa village leader, stated: “I know that our forests hold carbon gas and that if we protect our forests it will benefit the entire world. The workshops are showing us the potential and importance of the forest resources we have.” Another attendee said: “I know that our forests contain a lot of carbon and that if we burn them, the carbon will be released. The forests are our protection from climate change.” The Cultural Mediators workshop also explored how best to communicate technical knowledge of climate change and carbon mitigation alongside indigenous and traditional knowledge and experiences. By training Cultural Mediators to use language that is culturally appropriate while explaining scientific concepts surrounding climate change, this initiative represents an approach that could be replicated to expand understanding of climate change among indigenous communities in a way that respects indigenous and traditional knowledge. This approach is important, as a number of interviewees throughout field assessments underscored the value of strengthening the capacity of indigenous and traditional leaders and communities in ways that respect their culture and indigenous and traditional knowledge. An increase in level of knowledge on these topics emerged as a key theme from analysis of the qualitative data. For example, an anthropologist and member of project staff working in Rondonia said: “The AIME project capacity building initiatives give the indigenous people the resources and tools they need to accomplish their goals. In the process of capacity building, while understanding the needs of indigenous people and adapting the project to their culture, the project is also achieving important outcomes such as providing them with information they did not have previously.” Second, AIME workshops for communities in Chiapas have also resulted in greater stakeholder knowledge of topics significant for climate change mitigation. More specifically, increased knowledge of mangrove conservation initiatives was evident in discussions held in two communities in Chiapas, where participants in four focus group discussions conducted with a total of 36 participants noted that participation in these workshops had increased their understanding of the importance of mangrove conservation and reforestation initiatives. Participants repeatedly mentioned the importance of mangrove conservation to environmental protection. For example, when a workshop participant in Chiapas was asked about what she had learned as a result of attending workshops, she talked about the importance of protecting mangroves and said: “Our community has learned about the importance of protecting our mangroves. We now know that the mangroves help bring humidity and rain, provide oxygen and clean air, and provide protection from AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 25 wind. Now our mangroves are destroyed. We learned that before it was not like that, it was green. For that reason, we need to plant and we should not cut the mangroves.” While these two examples provide evidence of increased knowledge among project stakeholders on topics significant for climate change mitigation in Brazil and Chiapas, project stakeholders across all sites the AIME-PE team visited also expressed a strong desire for increased capacity building opportunities, particularly additional workshops and trainings on the topics of agroforestry and the commercialization of REDD+ compatible products. This need emerged as a key theme from analysis of the qualitative data. In contrast, in Brazil stakeholders displayed, limited understanding of the linkages between AIME￾supported activities and the importance of these activities in relation to broader concepts of climate change. This limited understanding remains an obstacle to additional stakeholder participation in carbon mitigation activities. This was most evident in Rondonia, where interviews and focus groups discussions with 10 Surui leaders and five other indigenous leaders described challenges faced throughout their efforts to encourage community members to participate in AIME conservation activities. The leaders described local people’s lack understanding of topics such as carbon sequestration and the importance of protecting their territories to limit the impacts of climate change. For example, one indigenous leader in Rondonia said: “We understand that our people have different views about the project. Not everybody understands that this is a development project, some people think that deforestation is progress and development. We do not want to impose the project on anyone or restrict access to the forest, but we want to teach them why it’s important to protect our land and show the necessity to use the forest with responsibility, and in the right way to ensure the sustainability.” This finding is significant because local knowledge of climate change was highlighted by eight Yawanawa, Surui, and Gaviao indigenous leaders and five of the government officials interviewed as a necessary precondition for the increased participation of indigenous and traditional communities in AIME activities. Furthermore, the importance of raising awareness of issues related to climate change was noted as necessary to increase participation in REDD+ and carbon sequestration activities in ways that improve local livelihoods and well-being. As one indigenous leader in Acre explained: “When you talk about carbon credits and the technical aspects of REDD+, it’s very difficult for indigenous people to know about this, so sometimes indigenous people go to participate in meetings and they just sit and do not interact…you need to really work to empower indigenous people with information because otherwise it is a kind of game, on one team it’s just the technical experts, and on the other’s it’s the indigenous people. In that game indigenous people can only assist, they cannot participate.” These examples suggest that limited understanding among some stakeholders in Brazil of the linkages between AIME-supported conservation initiatives and broader concepts of climate change may constrain stakeholder participation in carbon mitigation activities and REDD+. The findings highlight the need for additional support to increasing local understanding of REDD+ and climate change in order to increase participation in AIME-supported conservation initiatives that help improve local livelihoods and environments. This support could take the form of additional workshops, trainings, and opportunities for further education linking the technical aspects of climate change with the importance of forest protection, and the potential of conservation and carbon mitigation initiatives for local development. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 26 2) TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE: Life Plans: The AIME activity’s support for the development and implementation of Life Plans is relevant for accessing progress towards IRI’s goals related to territorial governance. To date, two communities in Costa Rica, the Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó, have developed Life Plans as a direct result of AIME workshops and meetings. These efforts were facilitated by PRISMA in collaboration with Red Indígena Bribri-Cabecar (RIBCA) (Indicator 1.2, Table 1). In addition, Life Plan development activities are being implemented in coastal communities in Chiapas by Pronatura Sur. AIME is also supporting the implementation and improvement of existing community Life Plans with the Yawanawa and Surui indigenous peoples in Brazil. Though performance reporting data on the outcomes of AIME Life Plan activities on the capacity to engage in territorial governance has not been collected in Costa Rica or Chiapas, existing research suggests that creating and implementing Life Plans may help strengthen territorial governance and increase environmental protection. A Life Plan is a tool that communities can use to better manage their resources and protect their lands from deforestation. In theory, Life Plans also represent a participatory approach to planning that allows for the effective inclusion of community members in important decisions related to the current and future uses of their land and resources, thus contributing to collective support. Strong community ownership and support for Life Plans was evident in six focus group discussions across the three field assessment sites with community members involved in the development and implementation of Life Plans. The following statement is representative of focus group discussant comments: “The energy of the Yawanawa people is completely devoted to our Life Plan. All of the Yawanawa people wish for the same, so the commitment is very strong. The collective nature of the Yawanawa Life Plan makes us happy and confident that we can have a peaceful life and achieve our goals.” Life Plans are not only important for the effective management of land—they can also create a forum for communities to decide on and manage the access and use arrangements of their territories with different users—arrangements that could potentially allow communities to engage in a more equitable, and less conflictual, manner with outsiders. Additionally, evidence from site visits in Brazil suggests that Life Plans represent an approach to improving livelihoods that may strengthen territorial governance and promote environmental conservation, while also strengthening local culture. For many in Acre and Rondonia (participants in three focus group discussions with the Yawanawa and two focus group discussions with the Surui), the most important aspect of their community’s Life Plan is the embedded commitment to strengthen and maintain their culture and traditional knowledge, while simultaneously protecting their forests. This is illustrated by the following comment from a focus group participant in a Yawanawa village: “Our culture is what keeps the forests alive. The Life Plan allows us to maintain and teach about the Yawanawa culture…Above all else, our Life Plan is focused on maintaining our culture.” While existing research, including the AIME-supported reference document ‘Methodological approaches for the Development of Life Plans and Governance of Indigenous Territories’,9 and findings from field assessments highlight the potential usefulness of Life Plans, challenges faced in Brazil among the 9 Methodological approaches for the Development of Life Plans and Governance of Indigenous Territories’ was produced as a part of AIME activities under IR1 and is based on a review of more than 30 Life plans and relevant literature. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 27 Yawanawa, and Surui indigenous peoples with respect to the implementation of their existing Life Plans are also evident.10 In 4 FGDs, and over 20 KIIs, members of these groups identified challenges related to tenure security and territorial management, and multiple leaders in Acre and Rondonia described unoccupied lands as “open doors” for others to come into their territory and misuse or misappropriate resources. To illustrate this concern, one indigenous leader in Rondonia explained: “Today indigenous land is a target of encroachment and this encroachment is happening on indigenous land.” The challenges faced in Brazil with respect to tenure security and territorial management highlight the fact that the successful implementation of any community management plan requires sound institutions of territorial governance. Territorial Surveillance and Monitoring: To help address the need for sound institutions for territorial governance, AIME has also developed activities that build capacity related to territorial surveillance and monitoring. For example, a workshop held in Bogota on Indigenous Territorial Control and Surveillance brought project partners together to discuss experiences and efforts related to territorial governance and to identify and compare strategies for securing the protection of indigenous territories from outside encroachment. In addition, a workshop in Guatemala carried out by PRISMA, AMPB, Forest Trends and COICA supported the training of six indigenous and technical staff from the Comarca Emberá-Wounan and the Mayangna Nation. This two-week training focused on community mapping, geographic information systems (GIS), and the use of drones for territorial governance and monitoring to reduce deforestation. These trainings can help empower local communities with more detailed knowledge of their territorial boundaries and provide them with additional tools to monitor what occurs within those boundaries. This can help them to more effectively direct action to curb deforestation and strengthen territorial governance. The value of this kind of technical capacity was noted by an indigenous leader in Brazil who said: “We are working to protect the environment while others are destroying the environment. The concept is that since the beginning indigenous people have preserved nature and put their lives at risk to protect their lands. This is very difficult because we do not have the technology that big farmers have. We are very behind on that. But if we had access to technology we could protect our land and preserve the environments much better.” The findings on territorial governance highlight the potential of the AIME activity’s support for the development of Life Plans in Costa Rica and Chiapas to strengthen territorial governance and increase environmental protection in ways that support local culture and livelihoods. At the same time, the challenges that the Yawanawa and Surui indigenous peoples face with respect to implementing their existing Life Plans and with respect to weak tenure security highlight the need for additional support. Support should focus on helping these communities: engage in a participatory review of existing Life Plans; create strategies to implement these plans; and strengthen the capacity of indigenous and traditional leaders to effectively manage land uses and leverage advanced technology for territorial surveillance and monitoring as a means to improve territorial governance. 10 Additional challenges faced in securing finance for the implementation of Life Plans are discussed in Section 4.4. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 28 3) DIALOGUES AND THE EXCHANGE OF KNOWLEDGE: Fostering Dialogues: By creating space for dialogue and by fostering knowledge exchanges among project partners and stakeholders, AIME has helped strengthen the capacity of communities to engage in REDD+ and carbon mitigation activities. This success is evident in three main ways: 1. AIME-supported workshops and meetings with members of different indigenous and traditional communities have created opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and information enabled groups to learn from each other what works best to promote community engagement. For example, in Rondonia, METAREILA has hosted multiple workshops where the Surui people and other ethnic groups shared knowledge with indigenous and non-indigenous communities about the Surui Forest Carbon Project. Five indigenous leaders highlighted the importance of such exchanges for local capacity building. To illustrate this point, one leader noted: “A program like this creates a space to see what other people are doing. For example, here there are two very different ethnic groups, it’s hard to communicate even though they are nearby. But a program like AIME brings indigenous communities together to exchange knowledge. It is very powerful to hear and learn what other communities are doing.” 2. AIME-facilitated dialogues among FBLC members and partners are increasing the capacity of FBLC members and partners to implement AIME-supported REDD+ and carbon mitigation activities. Interviews with staff members from 6 FBLC organizations highlighted how the exchange of knowledge and experiences is strengthening the capacity of FBLC members to implement the AIME activity. Noting the significance of project efforts facilitating dialogues to increased organizational capacity, one interviewee explained: “Working with the FBLC is a valuable opportunity to strengthen efforts surrounding forest protection. It is very important when your goals and dreams are supported by others. Having the support from USAID and also the partnerships with the other organizations in the Consortium gives us the opportunity to exchange information and increase our capacity.” The value of such dialogues to knowledge creation surrounding technical models and approaches to REDD+ was stressed throughout interviews with FBLC members and their partners. Another FBLC member stated: “In terms of the technical aspects of the project related to carbon, we learn from our partners. Our partners play the role of teaching us and contributing to our understanding of the technical aspects of REDD+. Our partners in the Consortium are allowing us to know more about these issues. This is a long process that is still in progress. We don’t know everything, we are still learning all the time.” 3. FBLC-generated knowledge is providing new strategies and technical approaches to REDD+ programming, as evident in findings from the desk review and AIME reporting documents. This knowledge can be leveraged to inform the implementation of REDD+ and carbon mitigation activities. For example, a PRISMA report examining the implications and opportunities of the application of the jurisdictional REDD+ approach in Mesoamerica provided sound guidance to the Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos y Bosques (AMPB) on how to move forward on jurisdictional REDD+. A study produced by IPAM on alternatives for benefit-sharing mechanisms is being used to inform the jurisdictional approach to REDD+ in Rondonia. In addition, research and technical reports on the potential for, and AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 29 implementation of, the REDD+ Indigena Amazonico (RIA) model were presented by project partners at the COP21 in Paris. A Gaviao indigenous leader in Mato Grasso noted that FBLC-generated partnerships and dialogues are strengthening the RIA model and said: “After launching RIA we have realized the most important thing is the exchange of knowledge and learning from partnerships.” AIME is helping to strengthen the capacity of communities to engage in REDD+ and carbon mitigation by creating spaces for dialogues and the exchange of knowledge among indigenous and traditional communities and members of the FBLC. However, while knowledge generated and technical research developed under AIME is helping to advance AIME’s REDD+ and carbon mitigation efforts, how and when this information will be used to inform action is dependent on effectively engaging with key actors and government officials in advocacy surrounding REDD+ and LED-R policies and on securing access to REDD+ finance. AIME’s progress towards these outcomes is presented below in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. GENDER ASSESSMENT OF IR 1 Sex-disaggregated information on workshop attendees from the AIME Year 2 Fourth Quarterly report states “at least 20 workshops have been given, with over 19,000 person-hours of participation, at least 37 percent of which represents participation by women.” This highlights AIME’s attention to women’s participation in project capacity building efforts. The gender-focused assessment of the activities implemented under IR1 reveals that AIME’s support for workshops and REDD+ compatible income generation among women in Rondonia and Chiapas has helped women in these areas demonstrates significant progress towards increased capacity among women to participate in carbon mitigation activities while enhancing female empowerment. Increased participation among women in REDD+ compatible income generation is most evident in reporting data from Rondonia, where workshops were held with Surui women. These workshops centered on strengthening the commercialization of the handicrafts produced by female artisans for the Paiter-Surui Store and the Surui Forest Carbon Project. The workshops encouraged women to participate more in commercial handicraft activities. For example, the number of Surui women producing handicrafts increased from 73 in April of 2015 to over 150 women at the time of this evaluation. Participants in a focus group with 14 Surui women involved in the handicraft initiative noted how an AIME-supported workshop renewed their interest in and support for the handicraft initiative. One participant said: “At first, we were not convinced our handicraft business could work because a former initiative, led by another donor, had failed in the past. However, these AIME meetings and workshops encouraged us to regain our confidence. A key source of the confidence surrounding the success of our initiative is that we now know our handicrafts are included in the Surui 50-year Plan. We do not know much about the Plan as a whole, but we do know that our handicrafts are included.” Evidence from focus group discussions in Chiapas, where women are participating in workshops on mangrove conservation-related income generation initiatives, also suggests that AIME-supported capacity building efforts are increasing the participation of women in REDD+ compatible income generation. According to qualitative analysis, workshops related to income generation have also served as a platform for women’s empowerment in Brazil and Chiapas, most notably in reducing gender disparities in access AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 30 to income and increasing the capacity of women to influence decision making. For example, one woman in a focus group in Chiapas noted: “Education and knowledge brings opportunity. Workshops provide a safe space where women can go and learn and talk to other women…Opportunity for women to earn an income, brings them confidence when they can contribute to the household, especially important to have another income now that there are quotas on fishing. Income brings greater gender equality within the household… Participation is important to show that women can do the same work as the men, but also that they have different needs than men.” Additional findings from the gender-focused assessment of activities under IR1 reveals that, although there was broad community support for Life Plans, over 30 female stakeholders from the Surui and Yawanawa indigenous territories (where Life Plans were developed prior to the AIME activity), mentioned in focus group discussions that they did not participate in the development of their community’s Life Plan and they expressed limited knowledge of their community’s Life Plan. This theme is evident in the following quote from one Yawanawa women who said: “We did not participate in any of the conversations surrounding the development of the Yawanawa Life Plan. Actually, we are just hearing about it for the first time now during this meeting, but it sounds like a good thing.” Furthermore, there is no reporting data available on how, if at all, women from the Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó communities in Costa Riva were involved in the AIME-supported Life Plan development workshops and meetings. In contrast, in Mexico, AIME has succeeded in creating a space for the participation of women in activities related to Life Plan development and gender-focused dialogues related to female empowerment, thus increasing opportunities for women to determine their life outcomes. This was made evident when approximately 17 women in Chiapas were asked, during two focus group discussions, about their participation in Life Planning activities: “They [Pronatura] invited us, all the women, to participate in the project and foremost to raise our voice, to vote in something we want to do. They have asked us what we want to do, what activities are important for the community. And we realize the benefits that the sea, the trees, and the earth give to us…We also talked about our self-esteem as women. We talked a lot about what we want to do, where we are from, how we value all that we see, how we value all that we get, how we can realize these things.” The findings of the IR1 gender assessment, therefore, show that inclusion of women in the development and implementation of Life Plan activities in the AIME project area is variable. While the qualitative evidence suggests that Pronatura has been proactive and successful in recruiting women to participate in community-level Life Plan activities, this is not the case in Brazil. As a result, it is particularly important to encourage women living in areas where Life Plans were developed prior to the AIME activity to participate in follow-on community planning activities. In addition, to effectively document relationships between men and women at the community level and provide insights into decision making structures and local hierarchies influencing women’s participation in Life Plan activities, sex-disaggregated performance data documenting the number of men and women participating in key decision making activities related to Life Plan development and implementation should be collected and reported against. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 31 The findings point to the need to support follow-on activities that allow women to participate in the process of adapting and implementing Life Plans. This support should focus on workshops with women specifically intended to increase their knowledge of Life Plans and increase their participation in Life Plan-related activities. The work of Pronatura in Chiapas should be used as a model to guide this additional support. In addition, the AIME activity should develop new indicators that measure site￾specific project performance with respect to female participation in Life Plan development and implementation. This information will help AIME better ensure equitable outcomes among men and women as a result of project activities. BOX 1. CASE STUDY 1— RONDONIA In the Brazilian state of Rondonia—home to a vast proportion of the Amazon Forest—important outcomes of the AIME activity are emerging across all three of the project’s focus areas: Communities, Jurisdictions, and Dialogues. By exploring AIME’s efforts in each project focus area in Rondonia and the resulting outcomes to date, this case study demonstrates the value and significance of the AIME activity’s three-pronged approach to increasing the participation of forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to carbon mitigation as a means to address global climate change and improve local livelihoods. Communities: At the community level, AIME efforts in Rondonia are focused primarily on providing workshops and trainings and supporting research to increase knowledge and understanding of topics related to carbon mitigation and sustainable livelihood development, such as the potential for REDD+ and the production of non-timber forest products for income generation. As a result of these efforts, AIME has successfully increased the capacity of communities in Rondonia to engage in REDD+ and low emission development programs. Several examples help demonstrate the impact of these efforts. As highlighted in the findings of the IR1 gender assessment, workshops held with women in Rondonia on the Paiter-Surui Store supported business plan development for the women’s handicraft initiative and encouraged more women to participate in these commercial activities. In addition, AIME workshops held with members of the Paiter-Surui Parliament Council to discuss the Surui Forest Carbon Project (SCFP) helped the Council refine their approach to implementing the SCFP and develop a strategy for increasing local participation in the project. More specifically, the workshops helped the Council narrow the focus of the SFCP to specifically support the community members dedicated to the project, and to increase efforts towards raising awareness among the entire community on the importance of forest protection. According to members of the Council, the approach they adopted has increased the success of the agroforestry efforts towards increased carbon mitigation. One workshop participant explained: “By choosing to restructure our project approach and support only the families that are truly committed to our [Surui Forest Carbon Project] efforts and long-term goals, we have been able to focus support and strongly influence the capacity of those families. We believe that this decision has strengthened their [agroforestry] efforts, and we are now able to give more support to the families that are truly committed.” –Paiter-Surui Parliament Council Member AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 32 Lastly, AIME capacity building workshops for indigenous leaders around Jurisdictional REDD+, payment for environmental services, Life Plans, and territorial governance are fostering the exchange of knowledge and experiences among communities in Rondonia. AIME-generated dialogues surrounding strategies and approaches to REDD+ are particularly evident in activities related to the REDD+ Indigena Amazonico (RIA) model and the RIA Igarapé Lourdes Pilot. Delson Gaviao, an indigenous leader among the Gavião peoples in the Igarapé Lourdes territory noted: “Support from AIME has enabled us to bring various partners together to discuss issues and challenges surrounding Igarape Lourdes as a RIA pilot program. This support has primarily been in the form of facilitating communication and dialogues and convening community meetings… And that is the most important thing about RIA, the programs and ideas come from the communities themselves, not outside forces. Since the launch of the RIA pilot, we’ve realized the most important thing for success is the exchange of knowledge and learning from partnerships.” –Delson Gaviao Jurisdictions: In parallel with the community-level efforts in Rondonia, AIME is also supporting the development of a jurisdictional REDD+ program with the state government. The project has successfully increased opportunities for key indigenous stakeholders to interact with government officials in discussions surrounding the development of REDD+ and low emissions policies and programs. While discussing AIME’s political involvement with the state of Rondonia, Chief Almir Surui of the Surui indigenous people emphasized project’s efforts to expand reach and increase the number of communities participating in state-level activities and negotiations: “We know the support of the municipal state government is very important, so our strategy is to work in an area that is bigger than the Surui territory and to involve more stakeholders and players in the process in order to strength the ideas and concepts of the AIME project. We have tried to increase not only the Surui’s political articulation with the state government, but we also work towards bringing our partners to the political articulation process. Our efforts related to forest carbon are no longer exclusively oriented towards indigenous land… We are committed to involve the entire Tupi Monde corridor in our efforts.” –Chief Almir Surui AIME also works with local farmers in Rondonia to express their needs to the state government and to advocate for the creation of incentives and mechanisms to extend the benefits of biodiversity conservation to their activities. The project supports the participation of other indigenous people in the political sphere and aims to give them the same kind of political articulation experience with Rondonian government officials as the Surui. The state’s initiative to develop a jurisdiction-wide system of economic incentives for forest and natural resource protection is spearheaded by Vilson de Salles Machado, the Rondonia Secretary of Environment, who said: “We are still in the early stages of this initiative, it is a work in progress, but we are currently expanding on existing partnerships, such as the partnership with the Surui… As a result of these discussions, forest degradation and climate change are becoming more important issues and receiving more attention from the government, specifically the Amazon.” –Vilson de Salles Machado AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 33 Dialogues: To promote stronger demand for products with carbon mitigation benefits and to increase financial transactions for emissions reductions in Rondonia, the AIME activity supports the development of REDD+-compatible products and associated livelihood activities. In the Surui and Igarape Lourdes territories, the project supports the production and commercialization of Brazil nuts and native cacao. These efforts are fostering engagement between the private sector and local producers. For example, a Surui man receiving technical support from AIME to grow bananas, coffee, and cacao explained: “The project has allowed me to gain access to the markets to sell my crops. That is the main reason I chose to get involved, because the connections to the market are difficult to make and I realized that the project had these connections.” This quote illustrates the value that indigenous community members attribute to AIME’s efforts to link local producers and communities in Rondonia to the private sector and to hard-to-reach markets for REDD+-compatible products. AIME also supports a variety of community climate finance approaches in Rondonia. For example, the project continues to assist the Surui Forest Carbon Project, which is financed by the sale of carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market. The project is helping to verify new credits under the VCS standard and revise benefit sharing arrangements through increased community consultations to ensure greater understanding and participation of the Surui people in the SCFP. Furthermore, as outlined in the findings on project activities under IR2, AIME-supported partnerships and dialogues with indigenous leaders and GCF member states surrounding California Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32) are an important vehicle for the potential sale of Rondonia emission reductions in voluntary and compliance markets. The increased levels of communication among key indigenous stakeholders and government officials are therefore a valuable illustration of how AIME brings these parties together in constructive ways to promote dialogue and debate related to jurisdictional REDD+ in Rondonia. Cross-Cutting Outcomes: Across the three project focus areas, AIME’s efforts in Rondonia are leading to cross-cutting and complementary outcomes that contribute to the success of AIME. For example, community level efforts focused on increasing knowledge and understanding of topics related to carbon mitigation and sustainable livelihood development have improved the capacity of communities to engage in local REDD+ and low emission development programs and they have increased the capacity of key indigenous stakeholders to effectively interact with government officials in discussions surrounding jurisdictional REDD+. Equipping indigenous leaders with the knowledge and experiences necessary to effectively engage in discussions with the government is a key element of project success at the jurisdictional level. This kind of engagement better enables the development of REDD+ policies and programs that take the needs and views of indigenous communities into account; that result in improved livelihoods; and that ensure policies and programs recognize and incentivize indigenous and local communities to continue to conserve forests. At the same time, legislative frameworks are necessary to turn shared knowledge and experiences at the community level efforts into sound action. Effective policies and programs at the AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 34 jurisdictional level create the policy environment necessary for financial transactions that support emissions’ reductions in Rondonia. AIME activities in Rondonia provide an example of the effectiveness of the three-pronged approach to increasing the participation of forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to carbon mitigation in ways that address global climate change and improve local livelihoods. As explained by Chief Almir Surui: “The AIME approach is importance because it supports a lot of different activities. When you are supposed to improve the livelihoods of a people a broad approach is needed, but the projects and initiatives are always linked to each other and depend on short-term and long-term approaches. When you talk about sustainability you need to think about communities, the environment, and the economy. Everything is linked. The implementation of such ideas is not dependent on only indigenous peoples.” –Chief Almir Surui 4.3 PROGRESS TOWARDS INTERMEDIATE RESULT 2 4.3.1 INTERMEDIATE RESULT 2 (IR2): INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO FOREST CONSERVATION ARE RECOGNIZED AND INCENTIVIZED THROUGH THE REFORM AND ALIGNMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL POLICIES AND MARKETS TO SUPPORT RESILIENT AND LOW EMISSION DEVELOPMENT AIME activities under IR2 focus on supporting national and sub-national jurisdictional frameworks for REDD+ and LED-R that take into account the contributions indigenous and traditional communities make to forest conservation and climate change mitigation. More specifically, IR2 efforts contribute to effectively engaging indigenous and traditional leaders in discussions surrounding low-emission policies and institutional reforms, identifying opportunities for jurisdictional REDD+, and garnering increased support for AIME’s jurisdictional approach through advocacy and dialogues. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 35 TABLE 3. INDICATORS FOR IR2: CUMULATIVE RESULTS AND LIFE OF PROJECT TARGETS IR 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development Indicators Baseline Y1 Y2 Y3 Cumulative Results LOP Target 2.1 Number of IP-related organizations working with AIME that form part of new multi-lateral spaces in their municipality or other sub-national governments and have had their proposals or demands adopted, taken into account, or resolved by the government(s) 0 1 1 * 2 3 2.2 Number of jurisdictional programs supported in the AIME program 0 0 8 * 8 6 2.3 (4.8.2-28) Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation) and/or biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance 0 2 1 * 3 3 *No reporting information available. 4.3.2 FINDINGS IR2 To assess progress towards IR2 and examine how AIME has contributed to recognizing and incentivizing the contributions of indigenous and local communities to forest conservation and carbon mitigation at the jurisdictional level, the evaluation focused on AIME’s IR2 activities and outcomes relevant to: 1. Effective engagement of governments and indigenous and traditional leaders in discussions and processes surrounding low-emission policies and institutional reform; 2. Support for sub-national governments to develop and reform jurisdictional-level low-emission policies and programs; and 3. Advocacy and dialogues surrounding jurisdictional policy and institutional reforms. Findings related to these three areas are discussed below. 1) EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENTS AND INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL LEADERS IN DISCUSSIONS AND PROCESSES SURROUNDING LOW-EMISSION POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM With regard to effectively engaging indigenous and traditional leaders in discussions with government officials surrounding REDD+ and LED-R policies and institutional reforms, AIME is on track to achieve the Life of Project (LOP) target for the number of IP-related organizations working with the project that are part of new multilateral political spaces and that have had their proposals or demands taken into account, adopted, or resolved by the government as a result (Indicator 2.1, Table 3). During the first half of project implementation, the FBLC engaged two of the three LOP targeted organizations including the Yawanawa Sociocultural Association (ASCY) and the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 36 in Brazil. The ASCY represents all the villages within the Yawanawa indigenous territory and works to develop and promote income-generating activities through the preservation and promotion of Yawanawa territory and culture. IPAM is primarily a resource institution that works to make environmental data accessible to indigenous communities. AIME has supported the advocacy efforts of these two organizations related to indigenous rights and the contributions of indigenous communities to climate change mitigation. To provide one example, as a result of AIME support, the ASCY’s proposal for indigenous rights and inclusion in the state jurisdictional framework is being considered by the state government of Acre. In addition, IPAM, together with the National Indian Foundation of Brazil (FUNAI) and at the request of Brazil’s Minister of Environment, made contributions to Brazil’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP), a comprehensive policy approach to medium and long-term climate change planning. The opportunity to engage in this work is the result of a 2014 AIME-supported workshop on indigenous needs, rights, and inclusion in which the Minister of Environment participated. While the contributions to the NAP are currently undergoing public consultation, the participation of IPAM and FUNAI in the NAP is a significant accomplishment of AIME’s efforts towards empowering indigenous leaders to work together with government officials; particularly as the process of policy development in Brazil has historically excluded indigenous peoples. To date, IPAM and FUNAI are the only two indigenous organizations that have contributed to the development of the NAP. IPAM has also fostered the engagement of indigenous communities through AIME-supported capacity building workshops for indigenous peoples. For example, workshops focused on climate change and international negotiations and spaces for indigenous participation enabled 12 indigenous representatives from Amazon states to participate in the negotiations at COP20 in Lima. AIME was also an active participant in the COP21 in Paris. For example, the Earth Innovation Institute (EII) and IPAM presented research findings on threats to and opportunities for indigenous peoples and LED-R, while COICA shared progress on the development of the RIA proposal they have developed with the international community. An additional highlight of AIME’s performance from COP21 was a side event hosted in partnership with the GCF. The event, titled Subnational Innovations for Climate and Forests, focused on raising awareness and sharing knowledge surrounding the efforts of the GCF and member states in building jurisdictional programs. Governors from AIME-supported jurisdictions in Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and California were present and shared their respective states’ commitments to local communities under the Rio Branco Declaration. In particular, Governor Jerry Brown of California spoke on California’s partnerships with GCF states in the Amazon and Mexico. This partnership supports the inclusion of indigenous carbon credits in the California compliance market under California Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation is an important vehicle for the sale of jurisdictional carbon credits in the compliance market. Though California signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with the states of Acre and Chiapas in 2010, to date the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has demonstrated very little support for indigenous offsets. By the third compliance period (2018-2020) of California Assembly Bill 32, the number of indigenous offsets that can be purchased under AB-32 will be significantly limited. Only Mexican credits and those generated in Acre are currently eligible, further limiting the field for indigenous inclusion under AB-32. Lack of support from the ARB for indigenous inclusion is also related to the high-risk nature of indigenous/community-based offset programs and project permanence, the need for credits to be additional, and varying perceptions about REDD+ and whether or not REDD credits should be included AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 37 under AB-32. Since these indigenous REDD projects are forest-based, this has also been challenging, since most US-based offsets that qualify under AB-32 are not from forestry projects and thus are not as heavily promoted under the state agenda. However, AB-32 does hold significant potential to advance the sale of emission reductions in voluntary and compliance markets. The work of the FBLC in relation to AB-32 is an important and cross-cutting element of AIME activities related to jurisdictional support and the inclusion of indigenous peoples. Discussing AIME’s contributions to AB-32, Dan Nepstad of the EII said: “AIME has contributed to keeping the potential alive for indigenous offsets under AB-32.” At the most recent COP in Paris, Forest Trends, EII and the GCF participated in an event intended to generate support for AB-32. Nepstad said: “At our event in Paris, it represented the stage we’re at. We had Jerry Brown and [other governors] …[ARB] pulled the trigger on it in that the workshops leading into the regulatory process that has begun.” EII is advancing a series of three workshops that will further educate indigenous peoples in the REDD regulatory process; regulations were expected to go before ARB in mid-April 2016. AIME brought a delegation of indigenous leaders to California for the first workshop in early 2015. According to Nepstad: “…the dialogue that we’ve initiated, the representation that AIME has been able to get to the workshops…without that, there would not be…a counterpoint to all of the local groups that are trying to kill REDD.” FBLC member efforts at COP20in Lima, COP21 in Paris and surrounding AB-32 are examples of AIME’s progress towards ensuring that the voices of indigenous and local communities are heard in international discussions surrounding climate change. 2) SUPPORT TO SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR JURISDICTIONAL-LEVEL LOW-EMISSION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS As a result of AIME’s efforts, the project exceeded its Life of Project target for the number of jurisdictional programs supported in the AIME project (Indicator 2.2) in Year 2. The AIME activity is currently supporting eight11 jurisdictional programs in Brazil and Peru. In addition, AIME supports national and sub-national policy efforts and framework development in other jurisdictions in Mexico, Central and South America12—such as the Mexican state of Chiapas—for a total of 16 jurisdictions supported. Interviews with FBLC members and governmental and non-governmental stakeholders revealed the role Forest Trends and the rest of the FBLC is playing in translating political will into action: supporting jurisdictions at the national and sub-nation levels has enabled FBLC members to influence policy and legal frameworks at the state level in multiple focal jurisdictions, and has promoted continuity with relevant national laws and policies. Pronatura Sur (PNS) has been particularly instrumental in advancing jurisdictional policy approaches. As one member of Pronatura’s staff stated, the AIME project is “very political,” with an emphasis on consolidating REDD mechanisms through the generation of legal and public policy instruments and the 11 In Brazil: Acre, Mato Grosso, Rondonia. In Peru: Amazonas, Loreto, Madre de Dios, San Martin, Ucayali. 12 The following jurisdictions are receiving support from AIME in accordance with GCF standards: Gracias a Dios (Honduras); North Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (Nicaragua); Para, Amazonas, Toncantins, Amapa (Brazil); Chiapas (Mexico); Peten (Guatemala) AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 38 creation of benefit sharing and financial mechanisms. One way that PNS is working to achieve their goals related to strengthening policy instruments and benefit sharing is through its work on improving Chiapas’ climate change and forestry laws, particularly with regard to safeguards and community rights. PNS formally submitted modifications to various articles under the state climate change mitigation and adaptation law of Chiapas to the Secretary of Environment and Natural History (SEMAHN). They also submitted modifications to the overall objectives of the law under Article 2, placing greater emphasis on preventative measures, improving resilience, and reducing the vulnerability of the people of Chiapas to climate change. Instead of identifying critical themes in a specific State Climate Action Strategy as originally set forth in the law, PNS suggested creating a strategy that unites and addresses key aspects of the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Law, as well as the national Climate Change Law and other applicable legal frameworks. In order to achieve this goal, PNS’ amendments to the existing framework call for greater coordination between state and national-level actors with similar objectives and mandates. PNS has paid particular attention to financial instruments for funding implementation and the carbon development process, which is also reflected in the suggested language changes to the General Sustainable Forest Development law. PNS is heavily involved in national-level discussions around REDD+, intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), and forestry development. For more information on AIME activities in Chiapas being led by PNS, please see Box 3. In Brazil, EII is hoping to make a positive difference in Mato Grosso, according to staff members Dan Nepstad and Maria DiGiano. Fernanda Bortolotto of IPAM agreed that the state is at a “critical point” thanks to AIME’s jurisdictional work. Key advances have included dialogues about the Mato Grosso Deforestation Pact, which would provide support to indigenous communities, as well as the development of an indigenous peoples’ consultation protocol to be included as part of the state REDD law development process, which was directly supported by FBLC partners. According to the Secretary of State for Environmental Development (SEDAM): [the] “governor has motivated the Secretary to establish MOUs and cooperative agreements with civil society organizations and the private sector. The jurisdictional strategy is very important, [as are] cooperative agreements, but [SEDAM] is struggling to support them. There are many global efforts that could be applied in Rondonia, like [Peru’s] Sociobosques. GCF is promoting this process in Rondonia.” IPAM is supporting jurisdictional work in Rondonia in coordination with METAREILA. As a result of AIME efforts, Rondonia became a GCF member state in July 2015. To further support AIME work in Acre and Mato Grosso, EII has been working closely with the state governments and GCF on the development of streamlined monitoring and validation systems, and EII has signed an MOU with the state of Acre. In Acre, AIME has also supported the forest carbon elements of the State System of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA), launched in 2010 (see Case Study 2). Ideally, SISA will seamlessly link to other sub-national, national, and/or international incentive systems. The system includes its own regulatory, monitoring, and scientific bodies to drive investment in Acre’s land use activities. The FBLC has supported workshops on SISA and indigenous peoples, which have served as a platform to identify, discuss, and develop solutions related to validation under SISA, social and environmental safeguards, and benefit distribution, among other topics. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 39 3) ADVOCACY AND DIALOGUES SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONAL POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Planning and dialogue around the proposal, adoption and implementation of laws and policies have been central to AIME achieving progress towards Performance Indicator 2.3: Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation) and/or biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance. The project has already met its Life of Project goal of three policies adopted. During Year 1, both the Rio Branco Declaration and the New York Declaration on Forests were adopted and incorporated into AIME work planning and objectives. In Year 2, PNS proposed amendments to the Sustainable Forest Development Law of Chiapas related to ecosystem services, carbon rights, land management, and recognition of traditional forest management practices. EII also led the FBLC in a synthesis of barriers and opportunities for indigenous peoples with regard to LED-R. Completing this report was an important step in identifying areas of opportunity for LED-R and REDD+; barriers to implementation of indigenous and community programs at scale; and strategies to overcome barriers. The report, a cross-cutting baseline assessment, focuses on key AIME jurisdictions, covering each jurisdiction’s public policies, sustainable supply chain initiatives, and international REDD commitments. Multi-sectoral exchanges among FBLC members to empower indigenous leaders and facilitate dialogue and collaboration among indigenous leaders and governments officials have been central to AIME activities related to supporting jurisdictions. COP21 in Paris was an important forum for exchange between the FBLC partners. Almost all of the FBLC members were represented at this meeting, and many had display stands during the events, including during the Global Landscapes Forum. COICA was particularly active in the Indigenous Pavilion, participating in multiple panels, including: climate change adaptation models and traditional knowledge; support for women under climate change; regional funds for indigenous peoples and climate change; safeguards for REDD+ and indigenous peoples; and proposals for mitigation and adaptation. COICA also chaired the Indigenous Adaptation Strategies for the Amazon and Canada side event, which focused on the Amazon Indigenous Fund (RIA) as a tool for effective mitigation and adaptation through improved land tenure and governance of indigenous territories and indigenous REDD+. These activities demonstrate how AIME is advancing collaboration between sub-national governments with key strategic partners for the development of REDD+ and LED-R policies and programs, and promoting improved jurisdictional performance. These collaborations and partnerships may lead to new sources of support and funding for jurisdictional programs. AIME’s jurisdictional advances in Brazil have created an environment conducive to effective engagement on policy and indigenous inclusion and this model for engagement could also be deployed in other AIME focal jurisdictions. However, it is still necessary to increase support to indigenous communities related to political articulation and the advancement of policy proposals and demands with jurisdictional governments. AIME could enable continued participation in national, regional and international dialogues on climate change and jurisdictional REDD by conducting additional workshops on policy and regulatory environments. Such efforts are recommended because of the complexity associated with navigating, understanding, and interacting with the jurisdictional development process. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 40 GENDER ASSESSMENT OF IR 2 The role of women in the jurisdictional policy sphere and AIME-related activities in the focal jurisdictions appears limited. The AIME-PE team recognizes, however, that this may be due in part to the role women have historically played in indigenous and traditional communities. Women have typically been excluded from community leadership and decision-making roles, as well as from certain cultural activities, practices, or positions of cultural significance, such as shamans. This is slowly changing in some indigenous communities. For example, a female Yawanawa community leader noted, “Yawanawa women were the first to be teachers, first to be shamans.” However, while MTPE findings suggest that the inclusion of indigenous and traditional leaders in the development of REDD+ and LED-R policies has increased as a result of AIME’s activities, the level of participation among women appears unchanged. In field sites visited, women still do not participate in an equal manner in dialogues related to indigenous and traditional community inclusion, nor do they serve in visible leadership roles related to jurisdictional approaches. Women who participated in FGDs and KIIs across all three field sites indicated that they primarily participated in activities closely related to IR1 and IR3, such as workshops and trainings related to handicrafts and non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Only 3 female stakeholders (1 in Acre and 2 in Rondonia) mentioned any involvement in AIME project activities directly related to IR2. To help support the increased participation in jurisdictional governance and ensure women’s voices are heard in the policy development and alignment process, it is essential that AIME continue to empower women to serve in active leadership roles in their community, and to include them in planning and decision-making processes related to activities that support jurisdictional approaches. One way this can be accomplished is by ensuring that indigenous women in AIME focal communities are able to attend national, regional and international events and dialogues on jurisdictional governance, indigenous inclusion, and carbon and other conservation markets, not only events focused on women’s empowerment in general. AIME should continue to train women on topics related to REDD+ and climate change as discussed under IR1, as well as continue to train and support women to ascend to positions of leadership in their own communities. For example, the Surui villages visited as part of the evaluation exemplified how leadership roles within the community can serve as a pathway to women’s representation in other forums. The coordinator of the women’s department at METAREILA, is supported by female representatives, vice representatives and, with continued AIME support, other female apprentices who support women’s livelihood and policy initiatives. As a result of this increased support within her community, the coordinator is not only able to serve as the president of Rondonia’s organization for women, but as the national representative for the indigenous women’s movement in Brazil and as a representative at international forums hosted by global organizations such as the United Nations. BOX 2. CASE STUDY 2—ACRE In the Amazonian state of Acre, located in the northern region of Brazil, the AIME activity supports a nested approach to REDD+ that links individual projects with the Government of Acre’s REDD+ model. AIME activity efforts in Acre are a valuable example of the project’s progress towards aligning jurisdictional policies and reforms to support sustainable and low emission development and compensate indigenous communities for their contributions to carbon mitigation. This case study presents an initial exploration of how the AIME activity is supporting Acre’s robust jurisdictional program to protect forests and climate while enhancing indigenous AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 41 livelihoods and addressing the challenges of turning legislative frameworks and government commitments into sound action. In recent years, Acre has worked to define strategies for sustainable forest-based growth and the provision of incentives and payments for REDD and payment for environmental services (PES) schemes more generally. The state has succeeded in setting up an advanced legislation framework to support sustainable forest management and forest protection. As a part of this framework the government enacted Law 2.308/2010 in 2010, creating a State System of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA). SISA provides an innovative, jurisdiction-wide approach to low￾carbon rural development and establishes a set of principles, policies, institutions, and instruments for building an effective program for achieving environmental sustainability through ecosystem services incentives. It is designed to promote public-private initiatives to achieve the state’s goals with respect to ecosystem services. Through SISA, Acre has already invested more than $3 million in indigenous territories. Acre is also a member state of the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) and is implementing commitments made in the Rio Branco Declaration signed at the 2014 GCF Annual Meeting. At the 2014 meeting GCF members agreed to reduce deforestation 80% by 2020, contingent upon the receipt of international financing. The Government’s strong commitment to forest protection and sustainability is coupled with the strong commitment of indigenous peoples and their leaders to protect their territories. The jurisdictional approach in Acre provides an opportunity for indigenous people, such as the Yawanawa people, to be compensated for preserving their forest resources. Indigenous people have long preserved their natural resources, as explained by Tashka Yawanawa, Chief of the Yawanawa people, “Indigenous people work so hard to preserve the environment and receive nothing for it. Meanwhile, while we are working to protect, others are destroying the environment. Indigenous people should benefit from the preservation they have done. The concept is that since the beginning indigenous people have preserved nature, we have risked our lives to protect our land and received nothing, this is not right.” To help the Yawanawa and other indigenous peoples in Acre utilize the state’s jurisdictional REDD+ framework to receive compensation for their forest protection efforts, the AIME project, led by the Earth Innovation Institute (EII), is working with indigenous leaders and government officials to structure a mechanism for nesting the carbon mitigation activities of indigenous peoples within the state’s jurisdictional framework. The mechanism would allow indigenous peoples to be recognized for their contribution to REDD+ outcomes in Acre. Dan Nepstad of EII is leading these efforts and said: “EII is working with the Acre Institute for Climate Change on SISA and meets with them every couple of weeks. We are now pushing on developing a territorial performance system, which still is very much in discussion. As a cross-cutting strategy of AIME, the basic idea is a shared set of targets for deforestation and other issues of community welfare, an integrated system of incentives to achieve those targets, really easy credible monitoring towards those targets, and then a governance structure in AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 42 the middle that moves that strategy along. SISA wants to do this, which means AIME will begin pulling multi-stakeholders in to work with.” Yet despite strong initial support from government officials, AIME’s joint efforts with the state and indigenous leaders have not yet translated into movement toward adopting the mechanism, due primarily to the slow processes surrounding state government approvals. To address this, the FBLC has secured legal counsel to help establish the financial mechanisms and structures needed to increase investor confidence and permit transparent, stable management of carbon or other revenues generated from ecosystems. Tashka Yawanawa expressed his frustration with lack of government movement and the importance of AIME’s multi-stakeholder efforts: “The Yawanawa are looking for resources to help us protect our land and create income for our communities. We are tired of waiting for the government. We need to find a private company, or NGOs, or other support so that we do not wait too long for the government…if you wait so much for them you are never going to move forward, for this reason Yawanawa has partnerships with projects such as AIME” While Acre’s strong legislative framework positions the state to supply high-quality, compliance￾grade emissions reductions to international and domestic buyers, additional efforts are necessary to help ensure that government policies and programs recognize and incentivize indigenous and local communities to continue to conserve forests. AIME’s work in Acre to develop a mechanism to link individual projects with the Government of Acre’s REDD+ model is therefore a valuable example of both the project’s progress and the challenges faced in aligning jurisdictional policies and reforms to support sustainable and low emission development and compensate indigenous communities for their contributions to carbon mitigation. 4.4 PROGRESS TOWARDS INTERMEDIATE RESULT 3 4.4.1 INTERMEDIATE RESULT 3 (IR3): GREATER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTS WITH MITIGATION BENEFITS AND GREATER TRUST BETWEEN ACTORS, LEADING TO TRANSACTIONS WHICH SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF BUEN VIVIR AND THE MITIGATION OF EMISSIONS. AIME activities under IR3 focus on the development and marketing of carbon products; platforms and projects to promote demand for REDD+-compatible and/or non-timber forest products; and funding channels and innovative funding mechanisms. These activities seek to achieve a greater understanding and build trust between forest communities and representatives of the public and private sectors, as well as greater demand for community-based products with climate mitigation benefits. Activities under IR3 are closely linked with activities taking place under IR2. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 43 TABLE 4. INDICATORS FOR IR3: CUMULATIVE RESULTS AND LIFE OF PROJECT TARGETS IR 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. Indicators Baseline Y1 Y2 Y3 Cumulative Results LOP Target 3.1 (4.8.2-14): Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance. 0 15 * * 15 25 3.2 (4.8.2-10): Amount of investment leveraged in USD from private and public sources, for climate change as a result of USG assistance. 690,000 213,870 810,00013 * 1,713,870 4,000,000 *No reporting information available. 4.4.2 FINDINGS IR3 In order to monitor progress towards IR3 and examine how the AIME activity has contributed to increasing demand for REDD+-compatible products and greater trust between actors, resulting in transactions that mitigate emissions and support the concept of buen vivir within indigenous and traditional communities, the evaluation focused on AIME’s IR3 activities and outcomes related to: 1. Development and distribution of REDD+-compatible and/or non-timber forest products; 2. Platforms and projects to market and promote demand for REDD+-compatible and non-timber forest products; and 3. Funding channels and innovative financing mechanisms. Findings related to these three areas are discussed below. With regard to indicators for this IR, AIME will meet or exceed its Life of Project target for Indicator 3.1: “Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance.” To date, AIME has supported 15 unique institutions with a minimum of 80 person-hours of training and participation in mitigation-related negotiations and/or transactions. The project has a target of 25 institutions for the life of the project. While the extension of AIME activities supporting this indicator to 15 unique organizations puts the project well on its way to achieving its Life of Project target, the use of person-hours trained within organizations as a means of measuring progress toward IR3 is insufficient to capture the ways in which this training has specifically supported the development of REDD+-compatible products, markets for those products, or advancing new and innovative sources of financing. It would be useful to have a better understanding of how this training is applied in order to support these outcomes, rather than the training simply serving as organizational capacity building on climate change. With regard to Indicator 3.2, AIME has leveraged nearly 43 percent, or $1,713,870 in investments from public and private sources, with a Life of Project target of $4,000,000. These investments came from a variety of sources, including partnerships facilitated by Canopy Bridge, and one-off transactions through 13 This figure is not reported directly in AIME reporting documents, but rather represents the amount that would need to have been leveraged during the course of Year 3 thus far to achieve the cumulative mid-term result of $1,713,870 (as reported in the indicator tracking table). AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 44 platforms including Stand for Trees, which has generated sales of credits for the Surui Carbon Project. While the FBLC is making progress in diversifying sources of finance for communities and developing new opportunities to stimulate investment, discrete funding amounts should be better tracked and reported in order to map investments to project outcomes. The project reports a significant investment of $600,000 from a “confidential” investor, which provides no insight into which activities or opportunities piqued investor interest and potentially limits the opportunity to scale these investments elsewhere. While some degree of confidentiality is inherent in the investment process, limited transparency into transactions catalyzed by the project, and the relatively one-dimensional nature of Indicator 3.2, makes this indicator insufficient for fully evaluating project progress. 1) DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF REDD+-COMPATIBLE AND NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS The FBLC has adopted a two-pronged approach to supporting forest-based livelihoods: support for projects managed by FBLC members to develop and market carbon credits, and support for the development, marketing and distribution of forest products, including REDD+-compatible products and/or non-timber forest products. This has allowed AIME to continue to support existing project-level initiatives, like the Surui carbon project, while providing new support for the development of supply chains for NTFPs like brazil nuts and pine resin. Carbon Credits: Working with the Yawanawa people and the Aveda Corporation, Forest Trends and EcoDecision created a proposal for the State of Acre to secure and market credits in order to fund the Yawanawa Life Plan. This proposal, and a complementary financial mechanism, has currently stalled in the state government, but the FBLC has secured legal counsel to establish the financial mechanisms and structures needed to increase investor confidence and permit transparent, stable management of carbon or other revenues generated in the Yawanawa territory. In an interview, Jacob Olander of EcoDecision said he: “is still optimistic that with the relationships with the businesses who have pledged support to date, this will still result in significant funding for the preservation of the Yawanawa territory, traditional culture, and income-generating enterprises.” Support for indigenous offsets in the California market is a cross-cutting activity for the FBLC, and plays an important role in supporting jurisdictional activities and may serve as a potential funding mechanism. EII has continued to work with the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the Brazilian Ministry of Environment, the GCF, and other actors, to find a way to bring these offsets to market. While an agreement may not be put in place between the governments of California and Brazil, AIME has continued to support Brazil’s advanced jurisdictional REDD programs in the event that a domestic buyer, such as the Indigenous Amazon Fund (RIA), becomes a viable funding source. The negative perception among indigenous peoples, particularly the Surui, of sustainable forest or timber management coupled with the high risk associated with developing carbon projects in compliance with standards like VCS and CCB, have made REDD+-compatible products a more attractive livelihood option for many communities. Community members see outsiders logging and engaging in deforestation, but do not necessarily understand that this activity is illegal and does not reflect sound community forest management strategies. METAREILA has, however, continued to monitor emission reductions generated from the Surui Carbon Project in accordance with VCS and CCV standards, a key activity under IR3. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 45 REDD+-compatible products: AIME is developing several REDD+-compatible product initiatives in Acre, Rondonia, and Chiapas. PNS has been working with pine resin and cashew nut cooperatives, such as the producers’ cooperative in Aztlan, on their internal processes in order to prepare for sustainability improvements in the cashew supply chain, and the cooperative is eager to find new ways to sell their products based on market demand. Together with METAREILA, PNS held discussions with buyers of sustainably produced cashews, brazil nuts, and native cacao to generate market interest. In Brazil, METAREILA has been active in developing REDD+ compatible products; they successfully completed the first major delivery of brazil nuts during the field assessment in Rondonia. The organization also began laying the groundwork for the first native cacao harvest in the Surui territory sometime during 2016. This will fulfill an agreement with a European buyer. It should be noted that while there was significant community interest in the development of homestead gardens and other areas to devote to the cultivation of native medical plants, key informants and focus group participants in each Yawanawa village, and particularly health agents, are adamantly opposed to any private sector engagement related to medical plants and by-products. As one Yawanawa community health agent lamented, the community is “concerned about stealing of plants, and there is no interest” in a relationship with pharmaceutical companies. 2) PLATFORMS AND PROJECTS TO MARKET AND PROMOTE DEMAND FOR REDD+-COMPATIBLE AND/OR NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS The development of new methods to monetize carbon products is essential for generating financing from the sale of REDD+-compatible products that go beyond carbon credits and climate finance streams. Ideally this will happen by relating mitigation benefits to agroforestry products and drive demand for GHG mitigation. As Jacob Olander of EcoDecision noted: “REDD-compatible development, or LED-R, ideally [fosters] a host of rural enterprises producing agricultural and forest-based products in a sustainable fashion.” This development is still in early stages in AIME project areas. Canopy Bridge: The FBLC recognizes the need to have products from AIME focal jurisdictions integrated into Ecodecision’s online platform, Canopy Bridge. By bringing products produced through the AIME project to market via Canopy Bridge, companies with sustainable supply chain commitments and other would-be buyers of REDD+-compatible products are able to see producer information, certifications and product-relevant standards. In addition to integrating key producers from focal countries (particularly in the Amazon), EcoDecision and the FBLC have been able to design and improve the overall functionality of the Canopy Bridge site. This platform is an important means of facilitating market contact between indigenous communities and buyers, but it does not currently function as an e￾commerce site; any transactions resulting from connections made through Canopy Bridge take place away from the platform, though EcoDecision does provide support to close transactions. According to EcoDecision, there is need for more customized and direct support to buyers and producers in forest communities, like those engaged by AIME, to better facilitate transactions from start to finish. One transaction currently taking place based on connections made through the Canopy Bridge platform and as a result of AIME, is between buyers and coffee cooperatives in the San Martin region of Peru, which has strong jurisdictional and land-use frameworks. Producers were identified through workshops on forest-based enterprise and indigenous economy conducted by Canopy Bridge, EDF, Forest Trends in San Martin and Madre de Dios, Peru. Another innovative approach undertaken by EcoDecision and Canopy Bridge with AIME support is an initiative based on sustainable gastronomy that is helping to bring products from the Amazon region to AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 46 the international market. A workshop was held in Ecuador in November 2015 with a unique group of stakeholders in the culinary, conservation and business fields. The group identified key Amazon products and relationships that would need to be developed to achieve this goal. They suggested an initial emphasis on processing and marketing tucupi, an in-demand ingredient produced by communities in Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador. Though Olander claims that there has been strong interest among chefs to purchase these products, next steps do not yet appear to have been identified for this interesting initiative. The Atlas: Indigenous producer initiatives may present opportunities to increase demand for products with mitigation benefits that AIME is exploring. Some initiatives are market-ready and featured on Canopy Bridge, but many are still in the early stages or are focused on increasing demand for their products in local markets. One way EcoDecision is working to address this with AIME support is through the development of an indigenous, enterprise-specific database called the Atlas of Amazon Indigenous Enterprises (also referred to as Putting Amazon Indigenous Producers on the Map). In a joint effort with COICA, EDF, Canopy Bridge, and Forest Trends, the Atlas hopes to be an important tool for documenting and marketing indigenous projects and enterprises that can then be targeted for REDD finance or support from the Amazon Indigenous Fund. Further AIME support for the Canopy Bridge platform should also provide support for the development and refinement of the Atlas. This tool can help support more indigenous producer initiatives to become market-ready and connect to buyers. Currently, the Atlas comprises over 150 indigenous producers and/or their representative organizations, primarily in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia, in an open-access database. Any user can add an entry for a product or organization, but the database is not currently searchable by products available, and entries are inconsistent, not surprising given the crowd-sourced nature of the platform and the limited information available on certain producer initiatives. Continued technical support for the Atlas could also help identify and inform additional producer groups or product lines that could be featured in the latter half of the project. 3) FUNDING CHANNELS AND INNOVATIVE FINANCING MECHANISMS EcoDecision has also played a role in advancing activities under IR3 related to funding channels and innovative financing mechanisms. Working alongside Forest Trends, EcoDecision is engaged with the Yawanawa in Acre to structure a mechanism for nesting the activities of indigenous peoples within a jurisdictional framework. Based on their forest conservation and stewardship activities, EcoDecision has worked with Forest Tends and the communities to develop a mechanism that will allow the Yawanawa to be recognized for their contribution to REDD+ outcomes in the state of Acre, setting a policy precedent for other indigenous peoples. Though the state of Acre maintains the rights to carbon credits generated in its territory, the state would grant a portion of its emission reductions (ERs) to the Yawanawa through the proposed funding mechanism. The Yawanawa would then be able to sell the ERs in the voluntary market. Although the market is currently flooded with credits like those held by the State of Acre, credits sold by the Yawanawa in the voluntary market command a premium due to added environmental and social/cultural benefits they represent. Initial strong support from state officials has not, however, translated into movement toward adopting the mechanism, so the FBLC partners will continue to explore alternative structures that do more to divorce forest stewardship activities from REDD+ carbon schemes. This approach could provide a lower risk and potentially beneficial model that other project jurisdictions may potentially replicate. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 47 Finally, the Amazon Indigenous Fund (RIA) has the potential to be a key source of investment in indigenous communities and funding for indigenous Life Plans. The Fund is supported by COICA, EDF and EcoDecision, in consultation with donor agencies. This mechanism is compatible with the REDD+ funding objectives of international donors, particularly as they relate to land tenure, territorial governance, and sustainable economic development/indigenous economy, and the fund hopes to attract at least a portion of the money pledged by international governments through channels like the FCPF and the Green Climate Fund to reach a targeted first close of $50 million USD. COICA and EDF have worked to get concept documents and proposals in front of potential funders. If they are successful, this will help AIME support the objectives of the Fund, which include the integrated management of 240 million hectares across the countries of the Amazon basin, and will set the stage for the fund to attract more financing from subsequent tranches. As discussed above, FBLC efforts to advance the inclusion of indigenous offsets under AB-32 also aim to use the compliance market as a source of funding for these activities. GENDER ASSESSMENT OF IR 3 Women in the communities the AIME-PE team visited identified several options for engaging with the project in relation to the creation and sale of REDD+-compatible products. For example, project efforts related to the empowerment of Surui women center on strengthening the commercialization of handicrafts produced by female artisans and on promoting and selling the crafts in the Paiter-Surui Store. Trainings designed to support the Paiter-Surui handicraft initiative focused on topics such as financial statements and collection, labeling, transport, and delivery procedures for handicraft products to a retail shop in Cacaol. These efforts enable women to build skills, generate income, and enable them to engage more directly in household and community-level decision making. Handicraft initiatives involving Surui women in Rondonia were a particularly successful activity. METAREILA has a network of handicraft suppliers that now exceeds 150 women, and the opening of a store at the METAREILA office in Cacaol was described by one participant in a women’s focus group as something that “changed everything…a new moment in the history of this activity.” The jewelry and other small handmade items produced by the women use forest products like seeds and feathers, instilling the importance of forest conservation to female livelihoods. Throughout site visits with the Surui, it was clear that the handicraft initiative supported by AIME serves as a valuable platform for supporting female leadership in the community. Community members highlighted ways in which the handicraft initiative is starting to change community norms regarding the autonomy of women related to decision-making and household purchases, and strengthening the aspect of the Surui culture focused on forest protection. Participants in a focus group with 14 Surui women involved in the handicraft initiative noted how the activities of women related to forest conservation has helped strengthen indigenous women’s identity. As one woman said, “without the forest, I cannot consider myself an indigenous person,” while another woman noted: “Our forest is very important to us because it is the main source of the materials we used to produce our handicrafts. The handicrafts give us so many opportunities, so we realize it is necessary to protect the forests so that our business can sustain… The store is the most important source of income for women here and we dependent on this money to live.” In addition to serving as important source of income for women in these indigenous communities, men in the community are active supporters of these initiatives, collecting coconuts, straw, and other needed materials. One woman said that her husband advertises for the METAREILA store around Cacaol, and is AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 48 also responsible for going to the post office and mailing any items she sells to someone in another part of Brazil. The AIME-PE team found enthusiastic support for women’s livelihood activities by both men and women in the Surui community, particularly as they pertain to income diversification and the preservation and promulgation of the Surui cultural identity beyond the community. Income from handicrafts has had a positive impact on women’s autonomy in the communities visited by the AIME-PE team. As one Surui woman noted in a FGD: “the store [at METAREILA where women are able to sell their handicrafts] is the most important thing they have, and that they depend on this money to live.” Another woman added that: “the store is the only option for many women to earn [an income].” As a result of this income source, women in the communities are able to buy household necessities, food, and clothing and schools supplies for their families— “things that are important to me,” as explained by a different Surui woman. Furthermore, while it is evident that AIME support for the handicraft initiative has empowered Surui women to take on greater leadership roles in their communities and has provided them avenues for greater autonomy, Surui women in villages where FGDs took place indicated they are struggling to encourage other women in other villages to participate because they do not recognize the importance of the handicraft initiative. For example, the METAREILA coordinator of the handicraft imitative said, “some [villages] are not involved” and she is “concerned because they are pursuing other activities not from their culture” and abandoning activities like handicrafts in favor of non-traditional income generating activities such as candy making. In the villages where AIME has provided consistent support, uptake of handicraft activities was nearly universal among women that participated in the FGDs and KIIs. However, as noted, these women have not been effective in engaging in knowledge transfer regarding the importance and creation of handicrafts to women in other villages not formally engaged by the project. The findings suggest that AIME may need to provide continued support for trainings and workshops that are targeted specifically towards women and designed to increase levels of understanding related to opportunities for income generating activities that mitigate climate change. In this way, AIME can also contribute to “training the trainers” that will help spread forest-based handicrafts to women in other areas. BOX 3. CASE STUDY 3— CHIAPAS Chiapas is an important focal jurisdiction for the AIME project that demonstrates project advances regarding community capacity building and inclusion; sub-national capacity and support for inclusive jurisdictional policies and frameworks; and the establishment of relationships between communities, government, and the private sector. This case study showcases how AIME, through the leadership and guidance of Pronatura Sur (PNS), is achieving a breadth and depth of outcomes from activities related to communities, jurisdictions, and dialogues that support community livelihoods and advance the jurisdictional policy process. Communities: At the community level in Chiapas, the AIME activity supports both ongoing training and workshops for community members related to climate change topics, Life Plans, and the development of REDD+-compatible products and activities, such as the production of pine AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 49 resin, cashews, and the conservation and management of mangroves to support productive fisheries. PNS has supported the development of the Life Plan of coastal communities, while also enhancing their organizational capacity. Activities related to mangrove planting and restoration, and the inclusion of these activities in the Life Plan, were central points of conversation during FGDs among community members in Pesqueria Guadalupe Victoria. Workshops focused on key elements of the Life Plan that have provided the community with knowledge and training on climate change, the relationship between mangroves and fisheries, and mangrove planting and restoration, in addition to serving as important platforms for women’s voices in the community of Guadalupe Victoria and in the Life Plan-development process. Community members demonstrated an understanding of the importance of mangroves in the fishery-based livelihoods in their community, instilled in part through training and workshops in the community supported by AIME and held in conjunction with the Life Plan development process. As a woman noted, workshops held by Pronatura in the community have provided understanding on “a little bit of everything.” Discussion participant Martha Guadalupe elaborated on topics covered in workshops taking place in the community: “We learned…about fishing, about mangroves, about apiculture…mangrove types, their benefits, that they [prevent] contamination and produce clean air, and also protect…fish, shrimp, and birds.” Another FGD participant noted that before Pronatura came to the community, “there was not much understanding of the importance of many parts of the Life Plan. The workshops are important for raising consciousness.” Manuel Lopez, another focus group participant, stated that the community is very grateful to Pronatura for their work in “generating more work, more money…and their work on the Life Plan.” Angel, a field technician, noted that Pronatura has been in the community since 2012, and that since Pronatura’s arrival, “Guadalupe is another community,” and that there has been “a very notable change” in the overall vision of the community, resulting in more cooperation that the community would like to be able to extend to other communities. According to Angel, the experience that the community has had with partners like Pronatura has helped the municipality to move forward with mangrove restoration efforts. In particular, Angel noted improved capacity building related to mangroves, including types of mangroves and the places that they grow, establishing a nursery for and transporting mangrove propagules, and preparing propagules for planting. One man, a fisherman, has participated in activities with Pronatura and attended the Life Plan workshop, noted that “the mangrove elements of the Life Plan are important for fishermen in the community.” Another fisherman, also involved in demarcation and monitoring of the mangroves, expressed great appreciation for the support the community has received and the benefits restored mangroves provide: “I’m very thankful because we, as fishermen, we receive a benefit from the mangroves…the products we catch support our families, and [I am] thankful for that opportunity, for the project, because it AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 50 could be another community but you trusted Guadalupe, and I’m thankful for that reason, and we are here for [future] projects.” Women’s participation in mangrove reforestation is viewed as important because now, according to one woman in a focus group, “there aren’t any women in the ocean,” and reforestation represents an opportunity for women to go to work, earn money, and support themselves, building confidence in themselves and others and supporting their household’s economy. Now when catches are low, there are other sources of income to support the family. With regard to women’s involvement in mangrove reforestation efforts, another woman added, “I have been planting [propagules], and I have enjoyed it because…we, as women, are counting.” Mangrove reforestation activities are also important because, according to one woman, “the men say they can’t [do certain things]” and it’s “important that things aren’t for men only.” Another woman agreed: “I think it is very important because we as women learned to realize that many times people say `no, it is hard work, women can’t do it because it is too hard, only the men.’ We say, `no, if you can…we also can.’ And also, it is important because…it is a help to our husbands…and we have extra money.” Jurisdictions: The AIME project benefits from carrying out activities in jurisdictions with varied legal frameworks and policies related to land tenure, which helps deepen understanding of implementation strategies and efficacy of AIME activities in different contexts. It is important to note that in Chiapas, many communities reside in ejidos, or areas of common ownership, typically titled in the names of community leaders (ejidatarios). Agricultural activities take place on individual parcels of land within these communal areas. In Mexico, ejido use rights are recorded in the National Agrarian Registry (RAN), but the nature of these communal holdings can be problematic for marginalized communities who may not be empowered to make their own land claims, fight illegal sales or transfers of land, fight privatization by ejidatarios, or claim communal benefits from land management to which they are partially entitled. AIME and Pronatura have played a key role in advancing jurisdictional policy approaches. As Jose Montero, public policy lead at Pronatura, stated, the AIME project is “very political,” with an emphasis on consolidating REDD mechanisms through the generation of legal and public policy instruments and the creation of benefit sharing and financial mechanisms. One way that PNS is working to achieve their goals related to strengthening policy instruments and benefit sharing, is through its work on improving the frameworks of Chiapas’ climate change and forestry laws, particularly with regard to safeguards and community rights. PNS formally submitted modifications to various articles under the state climate change mitigation and adaptation law of Chiapas. These changes included significant revisions regarding ecosystem services, carbon rights, and the provision of benefits to communities. While state-level implementation of the law is still in progress the government, current budget allocations may not suffice to carry out these legal changes. As a result, the efficacy of certain efforts on behalf of the FBLC may be constrained by what the state budget will allow. For example, there is no budget allocated to create the new institutions required to support the law, such as a state-level territorial governance institution as envisioned by PNS. Despite this, the FBLC is making significant progress with regard to the policy articulation process in Chiapas, and PNS, alongside Red MOCAF, has participated in the dialogues AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 51 of the Chiapas state forestry congress, which is a critical space for interaction between ejido communities and the government. To further advance this work at the state and federal levels, PNS has leveraged its close relationship with the Secretary of Environment and Natural History (SEMAHN), and is heavily involved in national-level discussions around REDD+, intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), and forestry development. In turn, PNS supports some short- to medium￾term objectives for Chiapas and Mexico, as described by Ricardo Hernandez, Sub-Secretary of Forest Development in an interview, these include efforts to support “the implementation and functioning of the state REDD strategy, linked to the national REDD strategy, and Mexico becoming an international leader in this regard.” PNS enjoys a strong reputation with government agencies in Chiapas, and several government stakeholders in the state emphasized the key role PNS plays with regard to capacity building and within various technical working groups. Benefit sharing and financial mechanisms are another central component of PNS’ work under AIME, and the organization is currently in the first year of joint development of a financial mechanism with municipal, state and federal governments, that will contribute to the implementation of payments for ecosystem services (PES). As Camilo Thompson, another member of PNS’ public policy team, explained, “there is not a lot of transparency in the current benefit sharing process, and not a lot of rules,” and so PNS is “[working] to increase capacity around decision-making on common lands for the benefit of all in the ejidos.” Further, they are working to change understanding about benefit sharing with the hope that benefits generated on common lands will eventually, at least in part, contribute to common benefits, such as improved water filtration systems. This work will be “important as a learning experience for the Pacific zone of Chiapas,” according to Thompson. Dialogues: The AIME project supports two REDD+-compatible products in Chiapas: pine resin and cashews. In the island community of Aztlan, Cooperativo El Pelican organizes to produce, market, and sell cashews produced by the community. In the California ejido, Proresina represents the community’s resineros, who tap resin in Chiapas’ mountainous pine forests. Proresina’s experience represents a potential opportunity to target AIME support toward the expansion of the resin initiative to other ejidos, and to potentially transfer this experience to other jurisdictions. Proresina benefits from AIME support, and the California ejido is the first successful resin￾producing ejido that Pronatura has worked with, the first to include women, and the first to produce resin within the Sepultura Biosphere Reserve. Jose Luis Guerrero is Pronatura’s dedicated Resin Production Coordinator. He has worked with resin producers since the initiative’s inception roughly four years ago, and explained how AIME is providing support to resineros: “…institutional networks, community monitoring, support for resource management, problem identification and problem solving…since the beginning, [we have] provided technical support to obtain profitable yields for the community…we developed a work structure, with a general assembly, authorities, and an organigram was made in accordance with the ejido structure. The internal structure AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 52 has a group representative, secretary, and treasurer to produce resin. We worked on the functions of each member, their rights and obligations.” PNS holds workshops through the life of the resin initiative; currently, participatory workshops are held monthly. According to Guerrero, “the idea in this ejido is to have a model for resin production in the state,” and the California ejido does produce more resin at the state level than others; last year, production reached a new high of 42 tons of resin, valued at just under USD $25,000. Guerrero believes the cooperative can produce up to 70 tons per year, and cooperative members hope to eventually produce seven to eight tons per month. Resin production currently employs roughly 50 people in the community, though few work on the resin initiative more than one or two days per week. The resineros have a contract with Alen Del Norte, a Mexican company that uses a resin derivative in a variety of its cleaning products. Alen del Norte entered into a purchase agreement with Proresina, agreeing to buy all resin produced by the resineros at or above an established minimum purchase price. The Alen del Norte agreement also covers production costs, provides technical support, and a market for the product, supporting the entire California resin supply chain. Over time, Alen del Norte has increased the price per kilo from MXN 5.5/kf to MXN 8/kg to encourage greater resin production and the involvement of additional ejidos. However, it is possible that without careful coordination and monitoring by organizations like PNS, such price increases could contribute to over-exploitation of forest resources for resin production, though the wood itself is commercially unattractive. As a result of the agreement, it has been challenging for Guerrero and his team to discern if all impacts on the community have been positive: “Another thing that is happening—I don’t know if it’s good or not—is that the economic value of forest areas have changed. Before, the forest was very cheap; now, one hectare of forest is higher, because now [people] can get income from the forest.” PNS must continue to develop and put in place governance structures, particularly as new resineros enter the market, so that perverse effects on forest resources do not occur. Cross-Cutting Outcomes: The FBLC is advancing all three project elements required to support robust, replicable jurisdictional approaches in Chiapas. Through its work with communities in mangrove reforestation efforts along the coast, AIME is empowering community members with the knowledge and skills they need to understand the impacts of climate change and to mitigate against those impacts in the context of a REDD+ or LED-R program. PNS support for the jurisdictional development process focuses on the inclusion of traditional community interests in the policy process, with strong consideration given to community benefits in the unique context of the ejido system, and setting the stage for the production and expansion of REDD+-compatible products, like pine resin. AIME is positioned to use the California ejido not only as a valuable case study to be replicated in other ejidos in Chiapas and elsewhere in Mexico, but to potentially apply lessons learned, governance structures, and other key outcomes in additional project jurisdictions like Rondonia, where SEDAM hopes to extend the production of pine resin, currently undertaken primarily by large producers, to small farmers through its “planted forests” initiative. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 53 5.0 CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS As a result of the AIME Mid-term Performance Evaluation, the AIME-PE team concludes that: In relation to the overall objective of the AIME activity: • AIME’s advocacy and capacity building efforts at the sub-national and national-levels in Brazil are helping to increase the involvement of indigenous peoples and traditional communities in political activities and discussions related to climate change mitigation and REDD+. • Throughout the first half of the project, AIME’s Monitoring and Evaluation efforts have not produced a sufficient amount of performance reporting data to accurately and effectively measure the outcomes of project activities and directly attribute emission reductions to contributions of the project. In relation to Intermediate Result 1: • AIME’s capacity building efforts in Brazil and Chiapas have increased stakeholders’ knowledge of conservation initiatives and climate change mitigation activities. However, limited understanding among stakeholders in Brazil on the linkages between AIME-supported conservation initiatives and broader concepts of climate change remains a barrier to additional stakeholder participation in AIME supported carbon mitigation activities in Brazil. • AIME’s support for the development of Life Plans in Costa Rica and Chiapas represents great potential to strengthen territorial management and increase environmental protection in these areas in ways that support local culture and livelihoods. However, the challenges faced in Brazil among the Yawanawa and Surui indigenous peoples with respect to the implementation of their existing Life Plans, in part due to tenure insecurity on indigenous lands, highlights the need for continued support for Life Plan implementation in the form of strengthened territorial governance. • AIME is succeeding in strengthening the capacity of communities to effectively engage in REDD+ and carbon mitigation activities by creating spaces for dialogue and fostering the exchange of knowledge among indigenous and traditional communities, members of the FBLC, and project partners. In particular, the dialogues and exchanges have resulted in increased knowledge and awareness of conservation initiatives and climate change mitigation activities among indigenous communities, and increased the exchange of knowledge among members of the FBLC on important topics relevant to the effective implementation of the AIME activity. • AIME’s support for workshops with women on REDD+ compatible income generation opportunities is helping increase the capacity of women in Rondonia and Chiapas to participate in carbon mitigation activities and is further contributing to women’s empowerment by reducing gender disparities in access to income and increasing women’s ability to influence decision making. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 54 In relation to Intermediate Result 2: • AIME’s engagement of governments and indigenous and traditional leaders in dialogues around LED￾R and institutional reform has advanced the inclusion of indigenous peoples in jurisdictional frameworks, national strategic plans and international climate negotiations. Work by the FBLC on advancing indigenous inclusion under California AB-32 represents an important opportunity for indigenous communities to further benefit from climate change mitigating activities. Progress has been incremental, often due to factors outside of the FBLC’s control, and will require continued technical and logistical support during the remainder of the project to maintain momentum. • AIME’s support for jurisdictions at the national and sub-nation levels has enabled FBLC members to influence policy and legal frameworks at the state level in multiple focal jurisdictions, and has promoted continuity with relevant national laws and policies, particularly in Chiapas and Acre. As a result of AIME efforts, Rondonia became a GCF member state in 2015. AIME is outperforming project targets for support to jurisdictional programs, and should continue to extend lessons learned to support additional target jurisdictions as appropriate. • AIME is playing an important advocacy role for jurisdictional approaches more broadly, and indigenous inclusion in these approaches more specifically, in international forums and by advancing collaborations between sub-national governments and key strategic partners. However, it is still necessary to increase the level of support provided by AIME to indigenous communities related to policy articulation and the advancement of policy proposals and demands with jurisdictional governments due to the complexity of the jurisdictional development process. • AIME activities do not appear to have increased knowledge of or participation by women in dialogues on indigenous inclusion or the jurisdictional process. Women were most likely to report that they received training in handicrafts, and it is evident that there are knowledge gaps among women with regard to the broader concepts underpinning AIME activities. As a result, there are hardly any women in positions of leadership that relate to increased inclusion of indigenous peoples, and women lack the context needed to participate in dialogues alongside their male counterparts. In relation to Intermediate Result 3: • AIME’s support for forest-based livelihoods is divided across two areas: development and marketing of carbon credits, and development and marketing of REDD+-compatible products. In addition to work on including indigenous credits under California AB-32, AIME is working to identify and leverage new and existing channels for the sale of indigenous offsets. AIME is also supporting the development of supply chains in multiple jurisdictions for products like cashews, pine resin, and brazil nuts while laying the groundwork required to identify and develop new products like native cacao. • In developing and improving platforms and other methods of monetize carbon products, AIME is working to relate mitigation benefits to agroforestry products in order to drive demand for GHG mitigation. Canopy Bridge is a fairly straightforward platform for facilitating contact between producers with market-ready products and buyers, but it falls short of being able to provide support for transactions from start to finish, or helping producers to get a better picture of the market for their products. A more recent AIME initiative, The Atlas addresses the need for support to get new products market-ready and will eventually be used to direct financing to new initiatives, but support for transactions remains needed. • The FBLC is exploring and developing innovative financing mechanisms that will compensate indigenous communities for their role in REDD+ and conservation outcomes, particularly in Acre, where credits sold by the Yawanawa in the voluntary market can command a higher price due to AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 55 multiple co-benefits. AIME support for the development of the Amazon Indigenous Fund is helping get concept notes and proposals in front of potential investors to reach a first close target of $50 million USD that will support indigenous communities across the Amazon. • One of the most successful ways AIME is working to include women is through support for handicraft initiatives, which are providing women with their own way earning a livelihood from forest products with climate change mitigation benefits. In addition to teaching women core business management skills, handicrafts are contributing to shifting community norms around women’s autonomy and independence. However, while handicrafts are serving to strengthen women’s cultural identities in the villages where initiatives are being implemented, a lack of uptake and support elsewhere is causing concerns about a lack of social and cultural cohesion. RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the evaluation findings and conclusions, the AIME-PE team recommends that the AIME project focus on the following priority recommendations during the final years of project implementation in order to achieve project goals. To improve performance of the AIME activity in relation to the overall project objective, the AIME activity should: • Consider conducting a deeper dive study of the project’s advocacy and capacity building efforts at the sub-national and national levels in Brazil to identify critical lessons learned from this effort and to determine if this model can and should be replicated. • Strengthen efforts in monitoring and evaluation of the AIME activity. More specifically, the project needs to collect and report on data measuring progress towards impact-level project performance indicators. This would allow for effective attribution of project activities to the intended intermediate results. Without improvements in data collection and reporting it will remain difficult to attribute project activities to results. To improve performance of the AIME activity in relation to Intermediate Result 1, the AIME activity should: • Provide additional support for workshops on the linkages between the technical aspects of climate change, AIME-supported conservation and carbon mitigation activities, and REDD+. A valuable example that can be used as a model for additional workshops is the AIME activity’s course for Cultural Mediators in Forest and Climate Change. Increased capacity building efforts through workshops such as this will contribute to furthering stakeholder understanding of the importance of environmental protection for climate change and enhancing their awareness of the potential of AIME-supported REDD+ and REDD+ compatible conservation and carbon mitigation activities to enhance local livelihoods. In particular, stakeholders expressed a strong desire for additional workshops and trainings on the topics of agroforestry and the commercialization of REDD+ compatible products. As a result of this additional support, the AIME activity is more likely to increase levels of participation in AIME-supported REDD+ conservation and carbon mitigation activities among project stakeholders, and strengthen their capacity to participate in ways that contribute to improved livelihoods and local well-being. • In Brazil, increase support for effective territorial surveillance and monitoring on indigenous and traditional territories. This support should focus on workshops employed with indigenous and traditional leadership institutions to increase their institutional capacity to manage natural resource use and increased funding to increase knowledge of and access to the advanced technologies AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 56 necessary for effective territorial surveillance and monitoring on indigenous and traditional territories. As a result of this additional support, the AIME activity will be better positioned to strengthen territorial governance and enhance environmental protection in the targeted jurisdictions. To improve performance in relation to Intermediate Result 2, the AIME activity should: • Use the considerable capacity of the FBLC to take on a more primary role in the development and planning of AIME-supported regional and international dialogues and events focused on jurisdictional approaches. This will benefit the ability of the FBLC to engage in agenda-setting related to jurisdictional approaches and indigenous inclusion. By freeing up the capacity of the GCF Secretariat to convene its member states from around the world and generate maximum participation by various jurisdictions, these forums may serve as an additional platform to share lessons learned as a result of the AIME activity. • In order to garner more support among indigenous peoples for REDD+, the AIME-PE team believes it would be worthwhile for FBLC members to attempt to reach consensus around REDD+ as relevant to AIME objective. It may be helpful for the FBLC to align/coordinate communications and communications strategies on this topic to communities and the ARB. Specifically, the FBLC should consider developing a specific timeline or work plan related to indigenous inclusion under AB-32 (and AIME project objectives related to emission reductions more broadly) that considers all FBLC partners, even if only a few key organizations are the ones leading efforts in California. To improve performance in relation to Intermediate Result 3, the AIME activity should: • Revisit project Indicator 3.2 and develop a strategy to monitor the details of different types and sizes of transactions supported, in part or in whole, by the project in order to more accurately gauge outcomes of the efforts undertaken by AIME to develop and market products with mitigation benefits, including the expansion and development of platforms designed to enable transactions. At present, this indicator is not sufficient to fully capture the scope of activities being undertaken under IR3 at the level of detail required to accurately report on overall progress in securing new investments and sources of finance, and monitoring criteria may not be consistent across all jurisdictions in which transactions are taking place. • Provide additional support for the Canopy Bridge platform so that the site can serve as an e￾commerce platform that facilitates and supports transactions from start to finish, in addition to matching or joining buyers and producers through continued support for the AIME-developed Atlas of Amazon Indigenous Enterprises. In addition to improving QA/QC of entries in the Atlas, the project may use the Atlas to identify additional producers or product lines that the project can support during the remaining years of the project. Gender-specific recommendations significant to enhancing AIME’s performance in relation to project outcomes on women during the remaining implementation period include: • Increase support for the participatory improvement and implementation of Life Plans. This support should focus on workshops with women specifically intended to increase their knowledge of Life Plans and increase their participation in Life Plan-related activities. In addition, the AIME activity should develop new indicators that measure site-specific project performance with respect to female participation in Life Plan development and implementation. This information will help AIME better ensure equitable outcomes among men and women as a result of project activities. • Support additional capacity building workshops and opportunities for REDD+ compatible income generation for women in Chiapas and Rondonia, and expand capacity building workshops and AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 57 REDD+ compatible income generation opportunities for women in the Igarapé Lourdes and Yawanawa indigenous territories. A valuable example that can be used as a model for these expanded efforts is the work with the Surui women in Rondonia where workshops centered on strengthening the commercialization of the handicrafts produced by female artisans for the Paiter￾Surui Store and the Surui Forest Carbon Project have encouraged women more to participate more in handicraft commercial activities. Furthermore, extend support for handicraft initiatives to women in communities that are not currently engaged through two approaches: outreach in the form of workshops and trainings on the production and relevance of handicrafts, and capacity building for women in positions of leadership related to handicrafts and other key artisans to be able to engage in knowledge transfer. • Support participation of women in dialogues on indigenous inclusion and the jurisdictional process through additional workshops and trainings that clarify concepts underpinning jurisdictional approaches, including climate change and forest carbon/REDD+, and how these relate to dialogues taking place. Closing the knowledge gaps that exist between women and men will not only enable women to take part in discussions more readily, but will equip women to take on positions of leadership in their communities and beyond. Additional recommendations to enhance AIME’s performance during the remaining implementation period include: • Further tailor tools and activities to ensure they are meaningful and appropriate for use at the community level. Even when stakeholder feedback was positive, interviewees suggested areas of improvement that included additional tailoring of workshops to participant profiles and enhancing the adaptation of methodologies and tools to local planning priorities and educational demands. Specifically, AIME should work to promote a comparable level of understanding of key topics and processes among targeted stakeholders in a given jurisdiction, including but not limited to: climate change; forest carbon and REDD+/indigenous REDD; REDD+ -compatible products and NTFPs; and jurisdictional processes and regulatory frameworks. AIME should also work to promote an equal level of understanding of these topics between men and women in the same community so that women are better equipped to participate in dialogues and decision making. • The small size and limited resources of the GCF Secretariat makes it difficult for the organization to act as a convener, particularly where AIME is concerned. In future collaborative efforts, it may be more useful for AIME to coordinate meetings and allow GCF to mobilize its member states. • Support locally context-specific action, such as regional workshops through the GCF with working groups for individual states or countries to foster more efficient consensus building within and between GCF member states. • Many stakeholders expressed concern over and a desire for more “face time” or a greater on-the￾ground presence by project partners more generally, and by USAID more specifically. As one participant in a FGD with the Yawanawa stated, “communication depends on proximity,” and community members feel it is particularly important to establish trust around the policy process through more frequent in-person interactions. This sentiment was shared by members of the Yawanawa and Surui communities, institutional stakeholders, and FBLC members. FBLC members also wanted to see more support from USAID beyond the annual meetings, and said there would be a lot of value in USAID observing project activities in the field more directly. • FBLC members felt that there is “down time” during the year between officially planned activities where they could be providing support to or collaborating with more local organizations that are not part of the FBLC. Support for ad hoc activities could enhance local capacity building. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 58 • Provide support to producer groups for market assessments so that producers have adequate information to enable effective marketing of their products based on buyer/consumer preference and demand. • The FBLC should revisit some of the project indicators and enhance standard indicators or develop additional custom indicators to better track progress towards achieving project objectives and to ensure more accurate reporting. Indicators that may need revision include: Indicator 2.1, which does not define what the project considers to be an indigenous organization and Indicator 3.2, which does not adequately capture the details and nuances of transactions and investments catalyzed by the project. Adjusting and/or disaggregating data for Indicator 3.2 in particular would help improve the ability to track and monitor the development of NTFP and other forest-based supply chains. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 59 ANNEX 1. EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for contract AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 can be found on the following pages. ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 13 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 TITLE: MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Identifying Information  Project/Activity Title: Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME)  Award Number: AID-OAA-A-13-00079  Award Dates: September 30, 2013 - September 29, 2018  Project/Activity Funding: DV, GCC-Sustainable Landscapes funds  Implementing Organization: Forest Trends Association  Project/Activity COR/AOR: Elizabeth Cushion, Jessica Rosen (alternate) B. Development Context 1. Problem addressed by the activity being evaluated Deforestation and land use change represent a large percentage (14-20%) of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The Latin America region, and in particular South America (which contains 21 percent of the total world’s forests), experienced a very high annual rate of deforestation – four million hectares from 2000-2010. As a result, the region is responsible for an estimated 47 percent of the total global emissions from deforestation. The principal driver of deforestation in the region is due to the expansion of the agricultural frontier, both for crops and pastureland. At the same time, nearly 25 percent of forests in the Latin American region are under some form of community management. There is a positive correlation between maintaining existing forest cover and indigenous and traditional community management that reflects a historical good stewardship of forest resources. Sustainable forest management often results in benefits that can be enjoyed well beyond indigenous and traditional community territories in the form of biodiversity, climate stability, and maintenance of global hydrological cycles. It is therefore essential for forest communities to participate in negotiations and programs aimed at forest conservation, and for these negotiations and programs to take into account the well-being and aspirations of forest-dependent communities. The participation of these communities in the design and implementation of policies and investments to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) is necessary to address the underlying causes of forest destruction. Important innovations in REDD+ are emerging at the project, market, subnational, and national levels across Latin America that may present opportunities to increase financial and other benefits for traditional and forest-based communities while at the same time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In order to ensure that REDD+ can deliver benefits to communities at scale, successful innovation in community-led REDD+ projects needs to be amplified, jurisdictional approaches to REDD+ need improvement, and barriers to interaction between communities and private sector actors must be overcome. The AIME activity, led by Forest Trends through the Forest-Based Livelihoods (FBL) Consortium seeks to address some of these challenges. AIME brings together eight small, nimble organizations that have ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 14 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 been the sources of many of the principal innovations in REDD+1 in the LAC region. The activity’s success will rely on partner indigenous organizations leading the dialogue on REDD+. AIME will work with forest communities themselves, supporting the development of “Life Plans” for the sustainable management of the communities’ forest and agricultural lands, improving territorial governance, and fostering skills to engage equitably and productively with government and the private sector. Capacity-building in communities will enable pilot mitigation projects in selected locations, which will further improve conservation, communities’ livelihood and well-being. In addition, AIME partners will work with local governments to ensure that jurisdictional, or subnational, policies support community-level work so that indigenous and local community contributions to public good – forest conservation, climate change mitigation as well as local benefits – are recognized, protected, and compensated. Finally, the AIME program will establish a relationship between communities and public- and private￾sector actors in which they can develop trust, share approaches to solutions, and demand mitigation activities and products that are compatible with community aspirations and Life Plans. 2. Target Areas and Groups AIME will work with indigenous and/or campesina organizations throughout the Latin America region including organizations based in Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Central America, and Mexico. In addition, AIME will work with local government officials and representatives from the private sector in order to support the activity results outlined in Section C below. C. Intended results of the activity The overall objective of the AIME project is to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, and REDD+ and REDD+ compatible activities in particular, in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities. AIME has three intended intermediate results: 1. Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir2 , conservation and the reduction of emissions. Theory of change: “If communities have a better understanding of REDD+, an approach and methodology to strengthen capacities, and validated models and experience of territorial management, territorial governance, conservation and the reduction of emissions will be improved.” 2. Indigenous and local community contributions to public goods (including mitigation benefits from sustainable forest management practices) are recognized, protected and compensated through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. 1 Forest Trends, Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICA), Earth Innovation Institute, Environmental Defense Fund, Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA), Pro-Natura Sur, EcoDecision, and Surui Metareilá Association. 2 The concept of buen vivir, which can be loosely translated as “good living” is rooted in the worldview of the Quechua people of the Andes. It refers to a way of living which is focused on living in community, in harmony with nature and others, and in a culturally sensitive manner. ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 15 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 Theory of change: “Improvements in the livelihoods and the rights to land and resources of indigenous and traditional communities will improve most rapidly and sustainably while maintaining and expanding forest carbon stocks through the reform and alignment of public policies, institutions, programs and markets to support these communities. These systemic reforms and alignments are best achieved through a ‘jurisdictional’ approach, operating at the scale of entire states and nations, through multi-sector dialogues and planning processes, in which indigenous and traditional communities' resource rights and contributions to the public good are recognized, protected and compensated within a low emission rural development model.” 3. Greater demand for payments for ecosystem services (including REDD+) and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. Theory of change: “Creating spaces for dialogue between the parties; making available the necessary information about mitigation and sustainability; and improving the level of understanding of each party will result in win-win opportunities and low-cost transaction models, and will generate trust to undertake pilot experiences and create demand for emission reductions and REDD-compatible products. This will create better diversity of resources and specialized financial mechanisms for traditional communities.” D. Approach and implementation Forest Trends and the Forest Based Livelihoods Consortium have identified the following areas of focus under each intermediate result that will help to provide an overarching framework for implementing AIME. These identified areas of focus will help to transform the activity resources into results. They include: 1. IR1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation and the reduction of emissions. a. Building community knowledge through dialogue in order to achieve a greater understanding of REDD+; b. Establishing a conceptual and methodological framework to strengthen community capacity; c. Validating experiences and models; d. Strengthening territorial governance; 2. IR2: Indigenous and local community contributions to public goods (including mitigation benefits from sustainable forest management practices) are recognized, protected and compensated through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. a. Identifying jurisdictional barriers and opportunities and disseminating innovative approaches from other regions; b. Effectively engaging governments on policy and institutional reform; c. Empowering indigenous leaders to implement reform in collaboration with jurisdictional officials; d. Developing support for policy and institutional reform by conducting multi-sector dialogues and; establishing a clear planning process ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 16 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 3. IR3: Greater demand for payments for ecosystem services (including REDD+) and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. a. Creating spaces for dialogue and win/win models and creating new studies and distributing the results in order to provide additional information b. Relating mitigation benefits to agroforestry products c. Raising demand for carbon credits d. Identifying diverse funding sources and mechanisms E. Existing documents  Work Plan  Performance and Management Plan from the activity implementer  Quarterly Reports The evaluation team will gain access to the abovementioned documents via Forest Trends at the start of the task order. Other documents may be useful, as well, and can be discussed during the initial start-up meetings. II. SCOPE OF WORK A. Evaluation purposes The purpose of this performance evaluation (as defined in ADS 203/USAID’s Evaluation Policy) of the AIME activity is to document the efficacy of the activity’s approaches and methodology, and to inform USAID and other stakeholders of opportunities for additional investments. Additionally, as AIME is a new activity that applies a new and untested approach, it warrants an evaluation per USAID’s Evaluation Policy (also ADS 203.3.1.3): “… any activity within a project involving untested hypotheses or demonstrating new approaches that are anticipated to be expanded in scale or scope through US Government foreign assistance or other funding sources will, if feasible, undergo an impact evaluation. If it is not possible to effectively undertake an impact evaluation, operating units may instead undertake a performance evaluation, provided that the final evaluation report includes a concise but detailed statement about why an impact evaluation was not conducted. Regardless of whether an impact or performance evaluation is selected, the evaluation should be integrated into the design of the project. Any activity or project designated as a “pilot” or “proof of concept” will fall under this requirement.” A performance evaluation was deemed appropriate, rather than an impact evaluation, because identification of communities for a control group would be exceedingly difficult. Further, the communities self-selected into in the activity because they desire to participate in REDD+ projects. As such, finding a control group to serve as the counterfactual and effectively control for factors that might cause change is near impossible due to self-selection bias. Generally, the objectives of the midterm and final evaluations are to: ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 17 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011  Document successes and shortcomings of the AIME activity in order to determine its effectiveness in achieving the activity’s goal of increasing the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, and REDD+ and REDD+ compatible activities in particular, in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities.  Provide information about successful approaches and methods to increase participation in and utilization of REDD+ and REDD+ compatible activities by forest-based communities;  Make recommendations for future activities within the REDD + sector;  Validate the approach taken in the activity (the activity’s theory of change), or recommend course corrections during the activity’s lifetime, mindful that the voluntary carbon market is not yet fully viable. The specific purpose of the Midterm Evaluation is to review existing activity and ensure progress is made in the final years of implementation. It is expected that the Midterm Evaluation will provide insight into activity performance and effectiveness, beyond that captured in the activity implementer’s Performance and Management Plan. The specific purpose of the Final Evaluation is to inform activity effectiveness and impact, and provide insight for future programming in the same sector both by USAID and other actors. The intended audience includes LAC/RSD, USAID/LAC Missions and USAID’s Global Climate Change office. The information will be used to both inform current programming and affect future programming in the REDD+ arena. B. Evaluation timeline The Evaluation Plan and Design for both midterm and final evaluations should be delivered by November 30, 2014.  Midterm: Data collection and gathering, the desk review and initial field interview should happen approximately between January and September 2015. The final Mid-term evaluation should be delivered in between October and November 2015.  Final: Data collection and gathering and field visits for the Final evaluation should happen from January-September 2018.The Final evaluation should be delivered by December 2018. C. Evaluation questions For the AIME evaluation, the evaluator must comply with ADS 203/USAID’s Evaluation Policy and corresponding updates. The following evaluation questions, in priority order, must be answered by the evaluation team and clearly presented in logical order in the Midterm and Final Reports. Questions for Midterm Report: 1. How has AIME empowered indigenous groups/local communities to engage in: territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation, and the reduction of carbon emissions? a. Within these groups, have the results been equitable (extended to both sexes)? b. Have there been any unintended consequences of the activity with respect to vulnerable sub￾groups of populations? 2. To what extent has AIME made progress towards enabling local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect and compensate Indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)? ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 18 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 3. What kind of progress has been made towards transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? 4. What changes would enhance the activity’s implementation in the final years of implementation? Questions for Final Report: 1. How has AIME helped empower indigenous groups/local communities to engage in: territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation, and the reduction of emissions? a. Within these groups, have the benefits been equitable (extended to both sexes)? b. Have there been any unintended consequences of the activity with respect to vulnerable sub￾groups of populations? 2. To what extent has AIME led local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect and compensate Indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)? 3. To what extent has AIME contributed or not to transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? 4. Given the status of the voluntary carbon market (including REDD+) in the absence of an internationally negotiated climate change agreement, is there a different approach that USAID should take to reduce carbon emissions by working directly with indigenous people/local communities on deforestation resulting from land use change? 5. What new technical areas or programming approaches should be considered and possibly adopted for any follow-on sustainable landscapes/REDD+ activity in the region? III. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A. Evaluation design It is expected that this will be a performance evaluation. The conceptual approach may include Time series, Cross-sectional, Snap shot, and Before and After approaches, among others. To note, these methods are illustrative and basic. In accordance with ADS 203, for performance evaluations, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods applied in a systematic and structured way is optimal. The evaluation team is expected to include an Evaluation Design in the proposal that includes data collection and analysis methods. After the award, the Evaluation Design will be further developed and shared with and approved by USAID. B. Data collection and analysis methods The data collection plan for this evaluation will include, at a minimum: a desk review of relevant documents; interviews and/or focus groups; and direct observation through site visits. The results of these interviews will be analyzed for content on a qualitative and quantitative basis. The evaluation team must propose its full data collection and analysis methodologies in the Evaluation Plan (which includes both Midterm and Final evaluations). 1. Desk review: USAID will provide the evaluation team with all relevant AIME documents, such as statements of work, reports, etc. The evaluation team should review the documents before meeting with local stakeholders for interviews. The evaluation team will create a Document Review Matrix to be delivered to USAID using the following illustrative format which may be improved by the evaluator: ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 19 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 Document Review Matrix (sample table) Document Name Evaluation Question 1 Evaluation question 2 (etc.) Comments 1. Quarterly report X Further, USAID will provide information on monitoring data and indicators. 2. Key informant interviews in country: The evaluator will interview people through key informant interviews, group interviews and/or focus groups from the institutions and groups listed below, as well as any others deemed relevant for this evaluation. USAID will provide a list of contact information to facilitate selection once the evaluation task order is signed, and the evaluator may propose additional contacts. The selection methodology should be recorded in the Evaluation Plan. 3. List of contacts:  Forest Trends  Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICA)  Earth Innovation Institute  EcoDecision  Environmental Defense Fund  Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA)  Pro-Natura Sur  Surui Metareilá Association  Additional local/indigenous community members to be identified by USAID and Forest Trends Interview and focus group questions must be approved by USAID; the questions should be suggested by the evaluator with the specific purpose of answering questions listed in this statement of work and must be limited in number. A sampling plan for how interviewees will be selected must be explained in the Evaluation Plan and Final Evaluation Report. 4. Site visits: USAID will provide a list of participating organizations and communities, and USAID or Forest Trends will assist the evaluator in communicating with them. The evaluator will make the final determination of which sites to visit and should visit without USAID or other stakeholders (including the activity implementer, other consortia members, among others to be determined) present to the extent possible. The analysis of data is considered equally important as the data collection. The evaluator must triangulate data collected to have sound evidence for the findings and conclusions in the Final Report. Recommendations must be clearly linked to findings and realistic given the context. All data must be disaggregated and analyzed by sex, as well as analyzed for any differences between men and women or male and female participation. This analysis must be noted in the Evaluation Report, as applicable. ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 20 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 IV. EVALUATION PRODUCTS A. Deliverables The evaluator is responsible for the following: 1. Timeline and/or Milestone Plan in Word or Excel in Week 3 after the award. 2. An Evaluation Plan including the Evaluation Design (with data collection and analysis methodology described). in Word with methodologies and limitations in Week 3 after the award. This Plan will include both Midterm and Final evaluations. The Plan and Evaluation Design will be shared with relevant stakeholders in USAID Missions and approved by USAID before implementation can begin. 3. Draft Midterm Report; USAID will provide comments within two calendar weeks. The draft report must be submitted in English. The report must comply with the USAID Evaluation Report How-to Note’s guidelines (which align with the USAID Evaluation Policy and ADS 203) found here. 4. A Final Midterm Report that follows the USAID Evaluation Report How-to Note’s guidelines. 5. Draft Final Report; USAID will provide comments within two calendar weeks. The draft report must be submitted in English. The report must include an Executive Summary no longer than four pages (single spaced, minimum 12 pt font), stating the methodologies, limitations, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. 6. Final Report that follows the USAID Evaluation Report How-to Note’s guidelines. 7. One-page document that summarizes key issues and lessons learned in the evaluations (to be in English and Spanish). This document will serve as a hand out for stakeholders and other interested parties when discussing the activity and any future programming. 8. Any raw data (qualitative of quantitative) collected in electronic form due with Midterm and Final Reports. 9. An in-person presentation, accompanied by PowerPoint slides, provided to USAID after the submission and approval of the Midterm Report by USAID. Logistics can be coordinated with the COR ensuring key USAID attendance (Program Office, RSD/ENV team and RSD Front Office, among other invitees). 10. An in-person presentation, accompanied by PowerPoint slides, provided to USAID after the submission and approval of the Final Report by USAID. Logistics can be coordinated with the COR ensuring key USAID attendance (Program Office, RSD/ENV team and RSD Front Office, among other invitees). All reports and papers will be considered draft until approved by USAID. All reports must be submitted in both Word and PDF. B. Reporting and submission guidelines The Midterm and Final Reports (in English) will become public documents for distribution among project stakeholders and other interested parties. All documents must be in compliance with ADS 203/USAID’s Evaluation Policy. Further, the evaluation will be used to plan for future investments in the sector. The Midterm and Final Reports must include the following sections: ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 21 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 1. Project identification cover page using USAID Evaluation Branding Template 2. Executive Summary 3. Table of Contents 4. List of Acronyms 5. Background 6. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives 7. Methodologies and Limitations 8. Findings 9. Conclusions 10. Recommendations 11. Annexes: a. Copy of final evaluation statement of work b. Copy of final evaluation plan c. Copies of all tools used (checklists, surveys, questionnaires, etc.) d. List of sources e. other annexes, as applicable The Midterm and Final Reports must comply with the quality criteria listed in Appendix 1 of the ADS 203/USAID Evaluation Policy. It is recommended that the evaluators review the How-To Note on preparing Evaluation Draft Reports found here and the Evaluation Report branding template found here. The evaluator will coordinate with the USAID Evaluation Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in the Program Office for all issues related to award and to submit the Midterm and Final Reports to the Development Experience Clearinghouse within one month after final approval. Further, according to USAID ADS 203.3.1.10, evaluation data must be turned over to USAID after completion of the evaluation and should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project/activity or the evaluation. V. TEAM COMPOSITION Each member of the team should have, at a minimum, the following skills and expertise:  An understanding of the regional context  Demonstrated skill in communicating on complex topics; both written and orally  Ability to effectively coordinate with a diverse set of groups The team should include the following: A. REDD+ expert (Key Personnel): Education: Bachelor’s university degree in Natural Resources Management or a related field such as Environment, Climate Change or other discipline related to REDD+. Language proficiency: Must be fluent in both Spanish and English; Portuguese is an advantage. Work experience: At least five years of relevant experience in REDD+ projects/programs or related payment for ecosystem service activities, including an understanding of international and relevant national or regional carbon markets, preferably in Latin America. Must have experience with REDD+ in Latin America. Formal training in monitoring and evaluation. ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT OF WORK Page 22 AID-OAA-I-12-00030/AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 Position description: S/he will be responsible for providing sector expertise and advice to the evaluation team and coordinating all technical analyses with the evaluation team related to REDD+. The REDD+ expert will provide knowledge about the Latin America context, REDD+ and forest carbon markets. This expert will be involved with planning, data collection and analysis, as well as drafting of reports and other tasks as determined by the Team Leaders. B. Indigenous Peoples expert (Key Personnel): Education: Bachelor’s university degree in development or a related field. Language proficiency: Must be fluent in both Spanish and English; Portuguese is an advantage. Work experience: At least five years of relevant experience in indigenous people issues with respect to natural resource management in Latin America; specifically, the forest sector. Must have experience working directly with indigenous communities and have an understanding of the possible positive and negative impacts of REDD + on these groups in the Latin America region. Prior experience working with both the private sector and indigenous groups to resolve issues would also be useful. It is preferred that the incumbent have experience in evaluation of related programs. It is also preferred that this person have experience in working with gender issues in indigenous communities. Position description: S/he will be responsible for providing sector expertise and advice and coordinating all technical analyses with the evaluation team related to indigenous people’s issues. The Indigenous People’s expert will provide knowledge about indigenous groups in Latin America and how REDD+ programs could have an impact on these groups. This expert will be involved with planning, data collection and analysis, as well as drafting of reports and other tasks as determined by the Team Lead. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 70 ANNEX 2. DESK REVIEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Barcellos, Maria do Carmo. (2015). Manual Servicios Amvientais no Corredor Etnoambiental Tupi Monde. Forest Trends. Sao Paulo. Bautista, Karina, Canopy Bridge. (2015). “Rescuing Ancient Superfoods – Changing lives in the process.” Retrieved from: http://canopybridge.com/rescuing-ancient-superfoods-changing-lives-in-the￾process/ Brown, H. Carolyn Peach, et al. "Institutional perceptions of opportunities and challenges of REDD+ in the Congo Basin." The Journal of Environment & Development 20.4 (2011): 381-404. C. Meyer, A. Staggs, D. Miller. (2014). “How one Brazilian state is reducing deforestation while growing its economy.” Retrieved from: http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2014/09/19/how-one-brazilian-state￾is-reducing-deforestation-while-growing-its-economy/ California Environmental Protect Agency. Air Resources Board. (2016) Assembly Bill 32 Overview. Retrieved from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Climate Focus and the Governor’s Climate and Forest Task Force. (2013). Acre, Brazil: Sub-national Leader in REDD+. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/acre_brazil.pdf Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca. (2013). COICA: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. Quito, Ecuador. Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca. (2014). COICA: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. Quito, Ecuador. Cotula, L. and Mayers, J. 2009. Tenure in REDD: Start-point or afterthought? International Institute for Environment and Development. In Natural Resources Issues No. 15, London. Earth Innovation Institute. (2013). EII: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. San Francisco, CA. Earth Innovation Institute. (2014). EII: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. San Francisco, CA. Earth Innovation Institute. (2014). EII: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report. San Francisco, CA. EcoDecision. (2013). EcoDecision: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. Quito, Ecuador. EcoDecision. (2014). EcoDecision: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. Quito, Ecuador. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 71 Ecosystem Marketplace. (2015). Full Circle: REDD and Indigenous People: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4942.pdf. Environmental Defense Fund. (2010). “The Acre State System of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA) Fact Sheet.” Washington, DC. Environmental Defense Fund. (2013). EDF: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. Washington, DC. Environmental Defense Fund. (2014). EDF: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report. Washington, DC. Environmental Defense Fund. (2014). EDF: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. Washington, DC. Equipe de Conservacao sa Amazonia; Forest Trends; FUNBIO; IDESAM; Kaninde; The Katoobma Group . (2014). Surui Forest Carbon Project Implementation Report. Forest Trends. (2014). AIME Baseline Assessment: Proposed Approach for Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Benefit. Washington, DC. Forest Trends. (2015). AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Washington, DC. Forest Trends. (2015). AIME Performance Indicator Reference Sheets. Washington, DC. Goldstein, Allie. (2015). “Six Heads of State Call for Carbon Pricing”. Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/six-heads-of-state-call-for-carbon pricing/ Government of Acre. (2009). Policy for Valuing Forest Environmental Assets. Rio Branco. Government of Acre. (2010). Sistema Estadual de Incentivos a Servicos Ambientais (SISA) – Consulta Publica. Institute of Climate Change and Regulation of Environmental Services. Acre, Brazil. Gurung, Jeannette D., and A. Quesada. "Gender-Differentiated Impacts of REDD to be addressed in REDD Social Standards." Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management and Global Gender and Climate Alliance 13 (2009). Hennink, M., I. Hutter, and A. Bailey. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks and London: Sage Publications. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia. (2013). IPAM: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. Brazil. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia. (2014). IPAM: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report. Brazil. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia. (2014). IPAM: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. Brazil. Knox, A., Caron, C., Miner, J. and Goldstein, A. 2011. “Land Tenure and Payment for Environmental Services: Challenges and Opportunities for REDD+.” Land Tenure Journal 2: 18-55. Larson, A. 2011. “Forest Tenure Reform in the age of Climate Change: Lessons for REDD+.” Global Environmental Change 21: 540-549. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 72 Lee, J., Martin, A., Kristjanson, P., and Wollenberg, E. 2015. “Implications on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: a gendered analysis of access, decision making, and outcomes.” Environment and Planning A 47: 2080-2096. Line, Felicia. (2015). “Linking Community Forest Monitoring Up With Jurisdictional REDD+.” Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/linking-community forest-monitoring-up-with-jurisdictional-redd/ Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks and London: Sage Publications. Mahanty, S., Dressler, W., Milne, S., Filer. C. 2013. “Unravelling property relations around forest carbon.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Ecology 34: 188-205. Metareilá Association for the Paiter-Surui People. (2013). METAREILA: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. Rondonia, Brazil. Metareilá Association for the Paiter-Surui People. (2014). METAREILA: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report. Rondonia, Brazil. Metareilá Association for the Paiter-Surui People. (2014). METAREILA: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. Rondonia, Brazil. Ministry of National Integration and Secretary of Regional Development. (2015). Plano de Desenvolvimento Estadual Sustentavel de Rondonia: 2015-2030.Porto Velho, Rondonia. Nepstad, D., Tepper, D., McGrath, D., Seroa Da Motta, R., Edwards, R., Swette, B., Shimada, J. (2015). Policy Brief: Research and Financial Innovations in Support of Brazil’s INDC Process. Earth Innovation Institute. Forest Trends. Retrieved from: http://earthinnovation.org/wp￾content/uploads/2015/07/brazil-indc-brief_online.pdf. Olander, Jacob. (2015). “Fine Cacao is Booming. Fine Cacao is Vanishing.” Retrieved from Canopy Bridge: http://canopybridge.com/fine-cacao-is-booming-fine-cacao-is-vanishing/. Olander, Jacob. (2015). “Eating The Amazon to Save the Amazon.” Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/eating-the-amazon-to-save-the amazon/. Peters-Stanley, M., Goldstein, A. and Gonzalez, G., 2014. Turning over a new leaf: state of the forest carbon markets 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.forest trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=4770. Pollon, Christopher. (2015). Indigenous People Explore Many Shades of REDD. Forest Trends. Retrieved from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/forest-trends/indigenous-people￾explore_b_7520046.html Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación Sobre Desarrollo y Medio. (2013). PRISMA: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. El Salvador. Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación Sobre Desarrollo y Medio. (2014). PRISMA: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report. El Salvador. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 73 Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación Sobre Desarrollo y Medio. (2014). PRISMA: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. El Salvador. Pronatura Sur. (2013). Pronatura Sur: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan. San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. Pronatura Sur. (2014). Pronatura Sur: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report. San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. Pronatura Sur. (2014). Pronatura Sur: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan. San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. Governors' Climate and Forests Task Force. (2014). The Rio Branco Declaration. Rio Branco, Brazil. Schwartzman, Steve. (2015). “Opinion: Why and How Brazil Should Do More To Stop Deforestation And Climate Change.” Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/opinion-why-and-how- brazil-should-do-more-to stop-deforestation-and-climate-change/ Terry, Geraldine. "No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the issues." Gender & Development 17.1 (2009): 5-18. Tucker, Will. (2015). “For Yawanawá Women, Tradition Meets Entrepreneurship”. Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/from-the-forest-trends blog-for-yawanawa-women-tradition-meets-entrepreneurship/ United Nations. 2015. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Adoption of the Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (last accessed on 28 December 2015) USAID. (2011). Evaluation: Learning from Experience. USAID Evaluation Policy. Washington, DC. USAID. (2012). Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy. Washington, DC. Walker, W., Baccini, A., Schwartzman, S., Ríos, S., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Augusto, C., Ruiz, M.R., Arrasco, C.S., Ricardo, B., Smith, R. and Meyer, C., 2014. Forest carbon in Amazonia: The unrecognized contribution of indigenous territories and protected natural areas. Carbon Management, 5(5-6), pp.479-485. Wunder, S. 2009. “Can payments for environmental services reduce deforestation and forest degradation?” In Angelsen, A (ed.), Realising REDD+: National Strategies and Policy Options. CIFOR: Bogor. Zwick, Steve. (2014). “Indigenous People Call for Scaled Up REDD as Study Highlights Precarious State Of Territorial Forests”. Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/indigenous-people-call-scaled-redd-study￾highlights-precarious-state-territorial-forests/ Zwick, Steve. (2014). “Technical Talks On REDD+ Wrap Up, And INDCs Begin Taking Shape as Climate Talks Enter Second Week”. Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/technical-talks-redd-wrap-indcs-begin-taking￾shape-climate-talks-enter-second-week/ AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 74 Zwick, Steve. (2015). “Brazil’s Rondônia State to Launch System of Payments for Ecosystem Services”. Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/brazils￾rondonia-state-to-launch-system-of-payments-for-ecosystem-services/ Zwick, S., Hamrick, K. (2014). “Millions of Dollars Now Flowing to Indigenous Ecosystem Service Programs in Brazil”. Retrieved from Ecosystem Marketplace: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/millions-of-dollars-now-flowing-to-indigenous￾ecosystem-service-programs-in-brazil/ AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 75 DESK REVIEW: DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX 1. AIME ACTIVITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Org. IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 1 Work Plan and Performance Management Plan 05-08- 2014 Forest Trends Main Year 1 activities planned: Technical assistance and exchanges surrounding RIA and Surui Forest Carbon Project; Training programs, knowledge generation, and research surrounding REDD+ and LED￾R, and compatible livelihood development. Main Year 1 activities planned: Policy analysis and enhanced dialogue surrounding REDD+ and LED-R. Main Year 1 activities planned: Participation in meetings with the GCF; Meetings with government officials, investors, and indigenous leaders surrounding AB32; Support for increased production of, and demand for, agroforestry and carbon mitigation products, including the Launch of Canopy Bridge platform. Document includes AIME Logic Model and Theory of Change. TOC developed collaboratively by FBLC in December 2013; Overall impact of AIME to be measured by: Quantity of GHG emissions, measured in metric tons of CO2, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG assistance. Note that Year 1 Work Plan was approved during 3rd Quarter of project implementati on; PIRSs for indicators are not included; No indicators for Sub-IRs included; States that IR leads with be responsible for reporting and M&E. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 76 Document Name Date Org. IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 2 Work Plan 09-25- 2014 Forest Trends Main Year 2 activities planned: New set of activities focused on territorial governance including: support for the creation of Life Plans in Costa Rica and Chiapas; Institutional strengthening with the Surui; Training and workshops with indigenous leaders and technical staff; Design of a Diploma in Governance of Indigenous Territories; Strengthening the Igarape Lourdes RIA pilot; Develop a training workshop on the concept, approach and requirements of Jurisdictional REDD+. Main Year 2 activities planned: Activities focused on developing the commitments made in the Rio Branco Declaration, and pursuing strategic partnerships with GCF and relevant stakeholders; EII to conduct cross-cutting baseline analyses across jurisdictions developing REDD+ programs; Technical support for the creation of a benefit-sharing mechanism for IPs under the SISA law in Acre, Brazil; Continued support to develop discussions with relevant private and public institutions about jurisdictional REDD. Main Year 2 activities planned: Design and develop an “Indigenous Amazon Fund” to secure climate financing for Indigenous Peoples; Continue to provide support to LAC producers of sustainable and REDD-compatible producers through CanopyBridge.com; Promote the recognition of ecosystem service values delivered by mangroves in Mexico; Marketing of REDD-compatible items produced by the Surui, and Yawanawa; Main Year 2 activities planned: Impact the UNFCCC processes both at COP20 in Lima and in preparation for COP21 in Paris. While activities related to project start￾up somewhat limited Y1 progress, FBLC seems well￾positioned for a productive Y2. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 77 Document Name Date Org. IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 3 Work Plan 09-30- 2015 Forest Trends Main Year 3 activities planned: Produce communication materials and lead additional workshops on “Indigenous Economies”; Develop an AIME gender policy; Finalize design of the Diploma in Governance of Indigenous Territories; Continue capacity-building efforts surrounding territorial governance, including development and implementation of Life Plans. Main Year 3 activities planned: Creation of ‘jurisdictional working groups” Develop a protocol for carrying out consultations with IPs and TCs throughout the design of jurisdictional programs and policies; Engage stakeholders (including gov’ts, indigenous, community and CSOs) in dialogues to increase the visibility of IP and TC role in climate change mitigation; Research and disseminate potential options for jurisdictional approaches; Work with SISA program to design and implement a multi￾stakeholder governance structure for sustainable management of the program; In Mato Grosso, Acre, and Rondonia – support dialogues with state governments as they develop state-level REDD legislation, advocating for the greater inclusion of IP and TC needs; PNS to propose to the gov’t in Chiapas a new form of management concessions for mangrove areas currently designated as federal lands. Main Year 3 activities planned: Facilitate technical and business expertise, contacts, and coaching for community leaders that engage private buyers of REDD￾compatible products; Build out Canopy Bridge, launch the Indigenous Producer Atlas and Database; Help COICA to further define the RIA concept and continue to support the development of the RIA Igarape Lourdes Pilot; Host workshops to train indigenous leaders how to participate in climate-related negotiations; Create specialized financing vehicles, including continuation of work to create a fund for Yawanawa using verified jurisdictional credits from the State of Acre, also a fund to support territorial governance, and the FIA. Main Year 3 activities planned: Year 3 goal is to consolidate AIME’s jurisdictional strategy and direct policy engagement. In July 2015, The FBLC made the decision to focus overall efforts on 6 jurisdictions (Acre, Rondonia, and Mato Grosso in Brazil, Gracias a Dios in Honduras, Madre de Dios in Peru, and Chiapas in Mexico). Also chose the Amazon Region of Colombia as a 7th jurisdiction. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 78 Document Name Date Org. IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the AIME Activity 08-31- 2015 Forest Trends IR1 Indicator adapted Two additional impact indicators were added including: Percentage of compliance with human welfare parameters related to ecosystem services and; Number of communities participating in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, REDD+ activities and activities compatible with REDD+. PIRSs and data collection methodology for these two indicators remains unspecified. Note that M&E Plan was submitted during Year 2, Quarter 4 of project implementati on. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 79 2. AIME ACTIVITY ADMINISTRATIVE AND REPORTING DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 1 First Quarterly Report 01- 30- 2014 Forest Trends Members of Peer Forum of Community Leaders for Forest, Ecosystems Services and Climate Change, (including 12 indigenous and community leaders from Brazil, Coast Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and Nicaragua) met to discuss current Peer Forum activities, prioritize future activities. No activities this quarter. Preliminary Assessment of Inclusion and Mitigation Potential conducted in Honduras FBLC members held work planning meeting in Antigua in December 2013. FBLC Year 1 Work Pans and overall AIME activity Year 1 Work Plan and PMP submitted to USAID. AIME Cooperative Agreement began 9-27- 2013. Project activities this quarter mainly focused on project start￾up, including work planning meetings with the FBLC, and management and administrative tasks. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 80 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 1 Second Quarterly Report 04- 30- 2014 Forest Trends Progress surrounding working with COICA and partners to further develop the concept of RIA and advance RIA pilots, success towards fostering exchange of knowledge: Planning a workshop for next quarter with representatives from RIA pilot sites, the SFCP and Government of Acre to discuss potential for RIA and lessons learned from SISA and SCFP; EDF working with COICA to plan presentation of RIA model at COP20 in Lima; METAREILA launched workshops activities with Surui; 25 community leaders participated in training events and workshops supported by AIME. Brainstorming/planning activities to promote jurisdictional approach to REDD+ during COP20 in Lima; EII, PRISMA and AMPB began to assess opportunities and barriers of jurisdictional REDD+ Currently identifying opportunities to engage with GCF. FBLC members participated in meetings with the GCF this quarter. EDF facilitated meetings with COICA representatives and California government officials regarding AB32 and to discuss need for Indigenous People's participation; PNS launched technical study to examine the expansion of and potential for product of NTFPs in Mexico. FT continues to work on finalizing of AIME Year 1 Work Plan and PMP; Administrative and logistical challenges of managing large Consortium are apparent. All FBLC members began implementing project activities this quarter in accordance with their respective Year 1 Work Plans. Second Consortium￾wide meeting planned for July 2014 AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 81 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 1 Third Quarterly Report 07- 31- 2014 Forest Trends Completion of the first Indigenous Amazonian REDD+ meeting, “REDD+ Indígena Amazónico - Experiencias y Estrategias Proyección en la COP20-CMNUCC”, held in Rio Branco, Acre. Meeting brought together the indigenous leaders of the RIA pilots, AMPB and COICA leaders and technicians, 8 members of FBLC, and donors. Meeting allowed each RIA pilot to plot a strategy leading up to COP20 and discuss and plan how AIME can contribute to development of RIA; Classes and lectures by Almir Surui and METAREILA on the Surui Forest Carbon Project; PNS, Mexico – Launched analysis of legal framework and spaces for social participation and traditional communities, mangrove initiative. EII started a regional baseline analysis, collecting information on the opportunities for and limitations of jurisdictional REDD+ development; Data collection process nearly complete. EII started a regional baseline analysis, collecting information on the opportunities for and limitations of jurisdictional REDD+ development; PRISMA collecting information on the opportunities and limitations of jurisdictional REDD+ in Mesoamerica; FBLC worked on community capacity building through engagement of leaders and technicians from COICA to participate in the UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn, and through ongoing dialogue with indigenous leaders in Rondonia; IPAM and EII continued to work with government of Acre, IPAM made progress on a Brazilian national benefits-sharing mechanism. EII organized and led a three-day Jurisdictional REDD+ workshop in Lima. CanopyBridge.com launched and working, site had its soft launch in April 2014; FBLC facilitated series of discussions and event related to developing jurisdictional programs in Lima; Built support and demand for jurisdictional REDD+ credits under California’s AB 32 regulatory framework, successful meeting with Governor Brown in California. Also conducted a seminar with California state legislators and leading climate scientists. Meetings in July among FBLC led to important discussions and planning opportunities for developing jurisdictional programs and the development of a dedicated REDD+ Indigenous Fund. Nearly all AIME partners participated in the RIA workshop held in Rio Branco, Brazil. Consortium￾wide meetings remain an important opportunity for all members to communicate and refine AIME’s overall strategy. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 82 AIME Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 10- 29- 2014 Forest Trends Metareilá continued hosting workshops and seminars, including for women; Paiter Handicraft shop opened. Exchange of Surui and Yawanawa artisans; Meeting organized in Igarape Lourdes, with COICA, IPAM, Metareilá, and Forest Trends, together with indigenous organizations, and Brazilian NGOs. Event focused on importance of implementing the activities of the Life /Management plan and REDD + as a possible tool for raising funds. Workshop allowed for the airing and resolution of concerns about REDD, clarified potential activities. Partners committed to follow up actions and funding, training, and establishment of a working group. Workshop on Gender and Safeguards in REDD + in the Yucatan Peninsula was held, with the participation of 25 people. An initial diagnosis of the legal and market management tools in federal maritime and coastal environments and federal riparian zone for the conservation of mangroves and fisheries uses was developed. PRISMA supported a training on drones and territorial monitoring with the Comarca Embera Wounaan. EII supported sub-national governments in the months leading up to the GCF Annual Meeting held in August, supporting the drafting of the text of the Rio Branco Declaration. Also helped to facilitate COICA’s participation in the GCF Annual Meeting and helped to facilitate meetings and discussions among indigenous leaders and GCF government representatives. EII continues work on development of comparative baseline analysis of jurisdictional REDD+ development in AIME regions. IPAM advanced the construction of a web-based platform (SOMAI) for examining future scenarios of IT vulnerabilities to climate change. SOMAI, is being discussed with FUNAI, and IPAM considers it to have great potential as a tool in the formation of GATI, as well as locally for monitoring activities in the ITs and the planning of PGTAs. EDF and COICA continued the conceptualization of an indigenous fund for the Amazon; Metareilá completed the monitoring work for CCB verification and sold 75,000 credits in their first voluntary market transaction with a foreign buyer; PNS: Design work continued on a mechanism to support 5000 hectares of mangroves in association with bottling company Bonafont; PNS added another community to those participating in resin supply project, and continued providing technical support to the California and La Paz ejidos. Canopy Bridge - Work this quarter focused on user outreach and support, developing a database of producers and products with a particular focus on REDD-compatible or forest￾friendly producers in Latin America. AB32: EII’s continues two-part strategy of increasing internal political support directly with Governor Brown and his staff while working to address the EJ community’s concerns. The Rio Branco Declaration, issued due in large part to the support of the FBLC, includes the commitment of 13 governors in rainforest nations and provinces to reduce deforestation by 80% by 2020. If met, this commitment alone represents four billion tons of CO2. Important to note that attributing AIME’s specific impact on emissions reductions remains a challenge as FBLC continues to work alongside a number of different organizations to advance the AIME activity’s conservation and carbon mitigation objectives. Significant progress this quarter under all IRs. FT noted that the fourth quarter was very much dedicated to putting together the Year 2 AIME Work Plan (extensive process of planning and consultation with each of member of the FBLC). Participation in the GCF Annual Meeting in Rio Branco represents advancement of FBLC partnership with GCF. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 83 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 2 First Quarterly Report 01- 30- 2015 Forest Trends Under IR1, concept notes were further developed and presented for 7 key activities/work areas; PNS completed first draft of ‘Social Strategy of the Mangroves project’ elaborating specific mechanisms to be developed in the framework of the project. The strategy is based on data obtained from the PNS ‘Diagnostic Study of Perceptions’; PRISMA, AMPB, and EII organized, participated in and presented at a meeting in Panama City in Nov. to discuss the jurisdictional approach and its potential for IPs; Field work to advance the RIA pilots in Colombia (CMARI) and Brazil (Igarapé Lourdes) took place to identify the course of action to develop the pilots. In Brazil, seminars held on "Climate change from the perspective of indigenous peoples of Brazil." EII and STA released baseline report ‘Fostering Low-Emission Rural Development from the Ground-Up’ (work began Y1, Q2). The report was presented at the Global Landscapes Forum at COP20 in Lima; PNS submitted recommendations to the Gov’t of Chiapas for amendments to the State Law of Sustainable Forest Development; IPAM collaborated on two seminars with indigenous representatives from FUNAI, presented the SOMAI monitoring system and concepts of mitigation and adaptation to climate change; In Lima, Agreement signed between IPAM and Acre to develop MRV tools for ISA-Carbon program; MOU signed between CIAM and EII, which will allow for increased collaboration on the development of a jurisdictional REDD+ program for the five states of the Peruvian amazon; COP 20 was especially significant for COICA, invited over 300 indigenous leaders to participate in events, proposed specific mechanism to support Indigenous REDD (Amazon Indigenous Fund); EDF FT, EII supported COICA to advance the Amazon Indigenous Fund proposal during meetings at the COP and by drafting a concept note submitted to NORAD in January; FT and ED continued facilitating communication with potential buyers for Surui credits, and discussions between the Yawanawá and two companies to develop and market a mitigation product based on jurisdictional credits provided by the State of Acre; ED continued to support REDD￾compatible development through the CanopyBridge.com platform; EII continued working towards building support for REDD among key CA policymakers by highlighting the benefits of linking the AB-32’s cap-and-trade market to jurisdictional REDD offset credits. Presentation given on AIME entitled “REDD+ for All: Experiences Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+”; Two measures adopted to improve linkages within the FBLC: the allocation of resources for joint, regional activities, and the development of a document linking the jurisdictional approach and indigenous territories; Work to foster dialogues and partnerships was also undertaken through meetings and discussions with the GCF, COICA, and other FBL Consortium members. FBLC participation in COP 20 in Lima, major milestone for AIME. AIME resources were critical to this level of engagement; Year 1 contracts with sub-awardees were amended and new agreements were drafted for year 2 activities. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 84 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 2 Second Quarterly Report 04- 30- 2015 Forest Trends FT (with ICAA and COICA) successfully implemented the Life Plans workshop in Lima, Peru with the active participation of 30 indigenous leaders from the region and about 15 specialists from different NGOs and other institutions. A workshop to train Cultural Mediators on climate change was carried out in Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. The workshop brought together 23 Indigenous leaders and primary school teachers (9 women and 14 men) from five different indigenous groups from the state of Acre. Workshop participants will in turn replicate the training in their territories in 2015. FT, EII, PRISMA and AMPB met in California to determine the best approach to develop jurisdictional REDD programs in Central America, as well as to identify key states on which to focus in Mexico; In Chiapas, PNS initiated research into the land ownership situation of each restoration site in the mangrove project area; IPAM presented SOMAI platform in a meeting organized by METAREILA, ECAM, Kanindé, Google Earth Outreach, and Avina, with indigenous participants and representatives from NGOs; again to representatives of the Brazilian MoE; IPAM worked with FUNAI to include a section dedicated to indigenous peoples in the Brazilian National Climate Adaptation Plan; PNS facilitated the participation of local leaders from three Mexican states in the GCF capacity building program. Yawanawa nested REDD+ project: During this quarter, legal assessment was begun on potential financial mechanisms for the Yawanawa project. Agreement was reached with the State Government of Acre and the Yawanawa to establish a working group to create the structures, principles and precedents for transfer of emissions reductions units (‘carbon credits’) to the Yawanawa for them to engage with private sector buyers; ED, FT, COICA, and EDF worked to launch data collection for the “Putting the Amazon Indigenous Producers on the Map” project, an online, open-access database of forest-friendly indigenous enterprises and products of the Amazon FT, EII, EDF and COICA continued to engage with donors who might be interested in supporting the creation of FIA. AIME and GCF agreed to collaborate towards establishing a commitment by GCF member states to respect land tenure and traditional rights of local and indigenous communities in the development of jurisdictional REDD+ programs, including efforts to provide for benefit sharing mechanisms with local communities. Continued progress towards the integration of FBLC member work plans into a common AIME vision and strategy. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 85 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 2 Third Quarterly Report 07- 31- 2015 Forest Trends Workshop on Indigenous Economy held in Bogota with the participation of eight consortium members, established an Indigenous Economy working group Initiated design of a framework for an Indigenous Territorial Governance Diploma, through a workshop in Bogota. RIBCA and the coastal communities of Chiapas have begun the development of their life plans with the support of PRISMA and PNS respectively. Several members of AIME’s FBLC participated at GCF’s annual conference in Barcelona to understand the potential of the GCF as a forum for promoting indigenous interests at sub-national levels. At the meeting, COICA and AMPB presented written declarations of support to the GCF and AIME launched the preliminary version of a report recommending how jurisdictional programs should be developed to best engage with IPs. FBLC partners collaborated with international processes (including UNFCCC, FCPF, UN-REDD, UNDP, and GCF) to ensure adequate recognition of and support for IP needs nationally and locally (e.g. EDF’s collaboration with AMPB and COICA at FCPF, UNDP and UNFCCC events, and EII’s collaboration with AMPB, COICA, EDF, FT, PNS, and PRISMA at the GCF meeting). Further progress was made for developing the Indigenous Amazon Fund. COICA consulted with donor governments and third parties about FIA at the UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn. In June, Forest Trends and COICA developed and presented a proposal for NORAD to build capacity within indigenous organizations and to engage with international climate funders. ED continued development of Canopy Bridge and the “Atlas of Indigenous Producers”. Metareila advanced production of REDD compatible products along several front (andicrafts, cocoa plants) PNS continued its training of community producers of pine resin through 10 community visits, 2 workshops, and a meeting of resin producers of southern Mexico. Supporting private sector engagement in mangrove conservation, the water bottler Bonafont extended its financing agreement. After much discussion, the following states were chosen: Acre, Rondonia, Mato Grosso, Madre de Dios (but still considering San Martin, Loreto and Amazonas) Colombia’s Amazon Vision working with CMARI, Gracias a Dios (Honduras), and Chiapas. We still need to make sure that our work in Madre de Dios will be complementary to other USAID work in the region, instead of a conflict of interest. FT hired Mr. Richard Vaca as a short￾term consultant to design a monitoring and evaluation system for the AIME program. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 86 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 2 Fourth Quarterly Report 11- 19- 2015 Forest Trends Several capacity building workshops for IPs and traditional communities were held (i.e., life plans, cultural mediators on climate change, governance diploma, and territorial control and surveillance); IPAM Metareilá and Kanindé partnered to implement a workshop in Cacoal-RO from September 26 to 27 to discuss Environmental Services in Indigenous Lands, life plans, and climate change legislation in the State of Rondônia; Metareila conducted several rounds of dialogue with women about the Surui carbon project, domestic violence, health, and participation in the handicraft business; Life Plan workshops were held in Alto Chirripo and in Nairi Awari in Costa Rica. Life Plans developed by the Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó territories, followed by approval meetings with each territorial government´s Board of Directors. RIBCA is currently finishing the final draft of each territory´s Life Plan. EII made advances in the state of Mato Grosso, facilitating discussions about the MT Deforestation Pact and initiating dialogue regarding an IP consultation protocol as part of the state REDD law development process. EII also working with state governments in Acre, MT and GCF to develop a simplified monitoring and validation system that can be used to demonstrate performance and attract finance for jurisdictional programs; IPAM disseminated results from study analyzing the impacts of PEC215, provided input to Brazil’s MMA and their National Adaptation Plan, (now includes a section on IP). PNS submitted proposals for the state’s forestry law to include provisions for carbon rights, as well as greater safeguards for IP and TC. Surui representatives participated actively in several Municipal Agriculture Council meetings/ AIME received official response from the State Gov’t of Acre on options for the Yawanawa IP to obtain finance rewarding their stewardship of the ecosystem services. The State indicated 3 possibilities: carbon or other ecosystem services private projects outside of SISA, projects within SISA, and participation of the Yawanawa in SISA’s Indigenous Subprogram (currently under development); The number of Surui women producing handicrafts is now 150; EII worked with California’s EPA and ARB, and the Brazilian MoE, state governments, the GCF, and the Norwegian ambassador to Brazil to find a pathway for Brazilian states to sell offsets to the CA cap and trade market. ED neared completion of the first phase of the Atlas of Amazon Indigenous Enterprise. Refined selection of the key jurisdictions where the FBLC will focus its efforts in years 3 to 5. Among these are 4 subnational jurisdictions (Acre, Chiapas, Mato Grosso, and Rondônia), and 3 national jurisdictions (Peru, Colombia and Honduras). Official incorporation of AMPB as a member of the FBLC. Consortium partners remained involved in international climate dialogues, for example, EDF continue to be advocates of IP within UNREDD and FCPF, and EII supported inclusion of AIME FBLC mission in the GCF and COP events. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 87 Document Name Date Organiza tion IR 1: Key project activities and progress made IR 2: Key project activities and progress made IR 3: Key project activities and progress made Overall AIME Objective Comments/ Analysis AIME Year 3 First Quarterly Report 01- 31- 2016 Forest Trends EII and FT, together with partners, organized 2-day workshop on climate change, forests and Amazonian indigenous peoples, with the participation of the Colombian Government and indigenous leaders from Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Peru; In Chiapas, PNS, AMPB, and Red MOCAF trained 10 community promoters on climate change and Jurisdictional REDD +. PNS also continued to support the development of the life plan of coastal communities; Metareila conducted a workshop on REDD, with the participation of indigenous teachers as well as municipal and state government officials in Rondônia. EII and IPAM presented results of research regarding threats and opportunities for Indigenous Peoples, supported by AIME, during COP 21 events; The AIME-GCF Working Group is reviewing a draft document on basic principles and recommendations for GCF member states to adopt benefit￾sharing mechanisms in their LED-R policies, including REDD+ policies; EII completed a scoping study of a potential statewide consultation process with IPs to inform Mato Grosso’s state REDD law and signed a MOU with the state of Acre; PNS worked with TCs and various gov’t ministries to discuss and advance institutional arrangements and benefits distribution mechanisms for the sale of carbon credits in mangrove communities. In addition, AIME members made progress towards greater integration of jurisdictional activities through the creation of Jurisdictional Working Groups during workshop in San Francisco. At COP 21 COICA shared progress made on the development of RIA proposal with the international community. Also at COP 21, COICA leaders provided workshops and press conferences to engage decision makers in the public and private sector; FT and ED held a workshop on sustainable gastronomy in Peru. PNS made progress with the coffee producing community by sponsoring a workshop for 30 coffee harvest technicians on gender and climate change. PNS secured agreements with property owners to conserve 501 hectares of land through a PES scheme funded by the National Forest Commission. PNS and Metareila sustained discussions with buyers for the purchase of sustainably produced cashews, Brazil nuts, and native cocoa; Aveda and FT agreed to support the Yawanawa by providing training opportunities for Y. youth, and conducting a viability assessment for REDD-compatible products from their territory. During this quarter, the UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris was an important and key focal point of AIME activities. COICA, AMPB, EDF, FT, and EII continued to promote new funding mechanisms such as FIA at COP21 AIME had its 2015 annual meeting in Chiapas during which FBLC partners concluded the selection of the six AIME jurisdictions including: Acre, Rondonia, and Mato Grosso Brazil; Madre de Dios (and or San Martin, Loreto and Amazonas), Peru; CMARI, Colombia; Gracias a Dios, Honduras; and Chiapas, Mexico. Further integration of AIME member activities across FBLC and across IRs is evident this quarter. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 88 AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 89 ANNEX 3. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS On the following pages, the data collection instruments used for the performance evaluation have been provided. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 90 INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY LEADERS: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Information for Identification/Interview Record Name of Interviewer: Date of Interview: Location of Interview (Field Site, State, Country): Interview Start Time: Interview End Time: Name of Respondent: Title of Respondent: Respondent Affiliation/Relation to AIME: Respondent Sex: Respondent Age: SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “The Cloudburst Group is conducting a performance evaluation of the AIME) project being implemented by Forest Trends and the Forest-Based Livelihood Consortium (FBLC). We would be very grateful if we could ask you some questions to help us to better understand the general context of land and forest governance in your community and any efforts surrounding forest conservation. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. If you decide to participate, the interview will last about 60 minutes. Your contribution is very important to us and we would appreciate your time and input. Results of this interview may be used in AIME performance evaluation reporting, however depending on your preference, we can either quote your comments directly, only include your name in the list of interviewees, or your responses can remain anonymous. If you wish for your responses to remain anonymous, no identifying information will be stored with your interview. At any time in the interview, you can decide to stop participating. Do you have any questions before we begin?” SECTION 2: BACKGROUND ON RESPONDENT Enumerator: I’d like to start by asking you a bit about yourself and your role as an indigenous leader. 1. Can you please tell us your title/position? For how long have you been in this position? 2. Please describe your roles and responsibilities as an indigenous leader for your community. In other words, can you tell me about the tasks you typically perform and are responsible for? SECTION 3: FOREST USE AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE Enumerator: Next, I would like to ask some questions about how forests in your area are used and managed. 3. How does your community utilize the forests and forest resources in your area? For example, what are most important forest products collected for consumption and/or income? 4. Other than members of your community, are there any other groups/actors that utilize the forests and forest resources in your area? (PROBE for example: other indigenous groups, cattle ranchers, companies, etc.) AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 91 5. Who are the other actors/groups? To the best of your knowledge, please explain how each group uses the forests. (PROBE each of the actors identified) 6. In your area, who/what groups regulate the use and access to forests (i.e., indigenous, local, state, regional leaders)? 7. Do you participate in decision-making regarding forest use and access? If yes, what kinds of decisions do you make/help make? 8. What are your specific roles and responsibilities related to regulating the use and access to forests? For example, do you make or enforce rules? Administer penalties when rules are broken? 9. How (if at all) do you work with other indigenous leaders in your area to manage the use and access to forests? 10. Do you believe that indigenous leaders in your area have the power/influence necessary to protect forests? Why or why not. 11. Do you that indigenous leaders in your area have the resources necessary to protect your forests? Why or why not? 12. Looking specifically at state-level government officials how do they work to protect/conserve the forests in your area? 13. Do you think state-level government officials do a good job protecting/conserving forests in your area? Please explain why or why not. SECTION 4: AIME AND REDD+ Enumerator: Next I’d like to ask you about climate change, deforestation and relevant initiatives in your area. 1. What is climate change? 2. Do you believe climate change is a problem facing your community? Please explain any effects that climate change is having on your community. 3. In your opinion, are there any activities taking place in your area that you feel are contributing to climate change? 4. Do you believe deforestation is a problem facing your community? Please explain any effects that deforestation is having on your community. 5. In your opinion, are there any activities taking place in your area that you feel are contributing to deforestation? 6. Can you please describe any initiatives in your area related specifically to mitigating deforestation and/or climate change? (PROBE specifically for REDD+ and AIME activities) Enumerator Note: Keep mind that AIME activities and other carbon mitigation activities are likely to overlap/complement one another. It is important to use context-specific details of the field site to guide this portion on the interview. The goal is to elicit enough detail from the respondent to determine the AIME-specific activities and outcomes in the area. 7. Can you please tell me about the REDD+ and/or carbon mitigation activities taking place in your area? (Probe familiarity with REDD+ initiatives within respondents’ community and/or at sub-national, regional levels, including Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA), etc.) 8. What are the name(s) of the REDD+ and/or carbon mitigation initiative(s) in your area? When did the project(s) begin? 9. How are you involved in REDD+ initiatives in your area? (PROBE participation in planning, decision making, etc.) AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 92 10. Turning specifically to AIME, can you please tell me about the AIME activities taking place in your area? 11. How did you find out about the AIME project? 12. In what way(s) are you personally involved with the AIME project (i.e., participation in trainings, planning meetings, etc.)? 13. How are members of your community involved with the AIME activity? 14. Who are the main members in your community involved in AIME? What are their roles? 15. How are women involved in AIME in your community? Have there been any specific efforts to include women in your community in the AIME activity? 16. How have the roles and responsibilities of your community with respect to forests changed as a result of AIME activities? 17. How has the involvement of your community in REDD+ and/or carbon mitigation activities changed because of AIME? For example, what agriculture, forestry, and/or other land use activities does your community engage in that contribute to REDD+ objectives? 18. Have AIME activities contributed to knowledge of REDD+ and/or other carbon mitigation initiatives in this community? How so? 19. What would you ideally like your community to gain from participation in AIME? 20. In your opinion, has the AIME project helped to empower your community to: • Govern your territories more effectively? • To conserve your forest resources? • To reduce carbon emissions? • If yes, please provide examples. If no, can you share why this has not happened? 21. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of AIME activities in your community? 22. In general, do you feel AIME activities in your community to date have supported your community’s ability to live in accordance with your values and traditions? 23. Has AIME had any negative effects on your community? If yes, please explain. 24. From what you have observed, what changes could be made to improve AIME activities in your area? SECTION 5: JURISDICTIONAL REDD+ Enumerator: Now I’d like to talk about how you and your community work with and interact with local governments in regards to REDD+. 1. Are you formally involved in any REDD+ decision-making committees or working groups? (PROBE for details on any committees or groups mentioned and their relevance to AIME) 2. Do you ever meet with state or national-level leaders to discuss the climate change related work that you and your community do? If so who do you meet with? How often? Can you tell me a little bit about your last meeting? 3. Do you feel that the local government supports the work your community is doing to protect your forests and mitigate climate change? Please explain why or why not. 4. Does the local government recognize the work as important? Please explain why or why not. 5. In your opinion, how else could the government support your community’s efforts? 6. Has the government made any policies that make it easier for you to generate money from protecting the forest? If so, please give me an example. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 93 SECTION 6: PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Enumerator: Lastly, I’m going to ask you about the engagement of your community with the private sector. 1. Do any members of your community engage in partnerships with the private sector/companies relevant to the production of forest products? If yes, please describe the nature of these partnerships. 2. What is the name of the company involved? What members of your community are involved? 3. Are there any specific groups/members of your community that are involved? How are women involved in this partnership? 4. How did this partnership come to be? In other words, who initiated the process (i.e., the company, an NGO, indigenous leaders, etc.)? 5. Who from your community was involved in negotiating/establishing this partnership? 6. Does your community receive any benefits as a result of this partnership? If yes, please describe. (Carefully probe any benefit sharing arrangements) 7. Do you feel this partnership is helpful for your community? Please explain why or why not. 8. Do you feel this partnership is beneficial to the company? Please explain how so. 9. In your opinion, does this partnership impact your communities’ right to self-determination (i.e., affect your ability to live in accordance with your values and traditions)? How so? 10. What role do you think the private sector should take to further engage with your community on efforts related to forest conservation and climate change mitigation? SECTION 7: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 1. Do you have any final comments on AIME that you wish to share at this time? 2. Do you have any colleagues/contacts/people you can recommend for further interviews? 3. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 94 SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Information for Identification/Interview Record Name of Interviewer: Date of Interview: Location of Interview (Field Site, State, Country): Interview Start Time: Interview End Time: Name of Respondent: Title of Respondent: Respondent Affiliation/Relation to AIME: Respondent Sex: Respondent Age: SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “The Cloudburst Group is conducting a performance evaluation of the Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME) project being implemented by Forest Trends and the Forest-Based Livelihood Consortium (FBLC). We would be very grateful if you could help us to better understand the general context of REDD+ in the (region/district). Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. If you decide to participate, the interview will last about 60 minutes. Your contribution is very important to us and we would appreciate your time and input. Results of this interview may be used in AIME performance evaluation reporting, however depending on your preference, we can either quote your comments directly, only include your name in the list of interviewees, or your responses can remain anonymous. If you wish for your responses to remain anonymous, no identifying information will be stored with your interview. At any time in the interview, you can decide to stop participating. Do you have any questions before we begin?” SECTION 2: BACKGROUND ON RESPONDENT Enumerator: I’d like to start by asking you a bit about yourself and your role as a government official. 1. Can you please tell us your title/position? For how long have you been in this position? 2. Please describe your roles and responsibilities in the government in this area (i.e., district, state, region, depending on informant). In other words, can you tell me about the tasks/duties you typically perform and are responsible for? SECTION 3: FOREST USE AND RESOURCE GOVERNANCE Enumerator: Next, I would like to ask some questions about how forests in your area are used and managed. 1. Who are the main groups/actors that utilize the forests and forest resources in your area? (PROBE for example: other indigenous groups, companies, etc.) 2. What indigenous people and/or traditional communities are present in your jurisdiction? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 95 3. To the best of your knowledge, please explain the primary forest-based livelihood activities in your area. 4. In your area, who/what groups regulate the use and access to forests (i.e. indigenous, local, state, regional leaders)? 5. What are the specific roles and responsibilities of your office related to regulating the use and access to forests? For example, do you make or enforce rules? Administer penalties when rules are broken? 6. What are the specific roles and responsibilities of your office related to forest protection? 7. How does your office work with indigenous leaders in your area to manage the use and access to forests? For example, how do the different groups coordinate and work with one another? Do you believe they share a common goal? If yes, what is that goal? SECTION 4: DEFORESTATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES Enumerator: Next I’d like to ask you about deforestation and relevant initiatives in your area. 1. Do you believe climate change is a problem facing your area? Do you believe deforestation is a problem facing your area? Please explain why or why not. (PROBE specific locations) 2. What are the key drivers of deforestation and/or degradation in your area? 3. In your opinion, who are the main actors in your area contributing to deforestation, forest degradation, and other activities that generate GHG emissions from land use? Please explain why you feel this way. 4. Can you please describe any government initiatives in your area related specifically to mitigating deforestation and/or climate change (i.e. programs and policies related to forest conservation, reforestation, agroforestry)? (PROBE specifically for REDD+ and AIME activities) 5. Are there any other initiatives in your area related specifically to mitigating deforestation and/or climate change that you are aware of? Can you please describe them? (PROBE specifically for REDD+ and AIME activities) 6. Who are the main actors in your region/district involved in climate change initiatives? (PROBE specific groups/communities where AIME activities are taking place, REDD+, and involvement of government) 7. Who does your office work with in your efforts to support forest protection and climate change initiatives (i.e. other levels of government, NGO, task forces, indigenous leaders)? 8. Are there alliances/coalitions between different actors of those you have mentioned (for example, between producer’s associations and NGOs)? 9. In your opinion, what are some of the biggest challenges different levels of government (regional, provincial, district) faces in terms of supporting climate change mitigation? SECTION 5: JURISDICTIONAL REDD+ AND LED-R 1. Are you familiar with the ongoing efforts within the Governors’ Climate & Forest Task Force (GCF)? If yes, how have you engaged with the GCF? 2. What are your opinions of the recent GCF commitment to work with local communities towards a mutual objective of conservation, climate change mitigation, and improved livelihoods? 3. How can the GCF work best together and with governments and local communities to achieve these ends? 4. How has the involvement of your office in REDD+ activities changed because of AIME? 5. How has the involvement of indigenous leaders in REDD+ activities changed because of AIME? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 96 6. In your opinion have AIME activities helped your office or other government offices to improve REDD+ programs? Please explain why or why not. 7. If yes, can you provide specific details on how AIME has helped your office to improve community￾based REDD+ programs? 8. Have AIME activities helped your office or other government offices to develop/implement any new laws, regulations or reforms designed to support/include indigenous and local communities’ participation in REDD+? Please describe any efforts surrounding these laws, regulations, or policies. How has the AIME project supported these efforts? 9. Are there alliances/coalitions between different actors that have formed because of AIME? Please describe. SECTION 6: PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Enumerator: Lastly, I’m going to ask you about the engagement of communities in your area with the private sector. 1. Are you aware of any private sector companies that are partnered with or providing benefits associated with carbon mitigation to indigenous or local communities in this area? Can you describe the nature of these partnerships? 2. What is the name(s) of the company involved? What communities in your area are involved? 3. How did this partnership come to be? In other words, who initiated the process (i.e., the company, an NGO, indigenous leaders, your office, other government officials)? 4. Was anyone from your office was involved in negotiating/establishing this partnership between the company and the community? If yes, please explain how you were involved. 5. Does the community receive any benefits as a result of this partnership? If yes, please describe. (Carefully probe any benefit sharing arrangements) 6. Does the local government receive any benefits as a result of this partnership? If yes, please describe. (Carefully probe any benefit sharing arrangements and the role of the government) 7. Do you feel this partnership is helpful for the community? For your area as a whole? Please explain why or why not. 8. Do you feel this partnership is beneficial to the company? Please explain how so. SECTION 7: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 1. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of AIME activities in your area so far? 2. From what you have observed, how else could AIME support your office and other government offices to mitigate deforestation and climate change? 3. Do you have any final comments on AIME or REDD+ that you wish to share at this time? 4. Do you have any colleagues/contacts/people you can recommend for further interviews? 5. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 97 PROJECT BENEFICIARIES: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL INFORMATION FOR FGD RECORD: Name of Facilitator: Date of FGD: Location of FGD (Field Site, Village, State): FGD Start Time: FGD End Time: PARTICIPANT ROSTER Name of Participant: Make a complete list of all individuals taking part in the focus group. Did the participant consent? All respondents must consent. Gender of participant: Occupation/Role of participant Participant Affiliation/Relation to AIME: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “Hello, my name is ______ and this is _____. We are members of a team from The Cloudburst Group conducting a performance evaluation of the Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigation Emission project. We are here today to ask you some questions to better understand the issues surrounding deforestation in your community. Your participation in this discussion is entirely voluntary. Results of this discussion may be used in AIME performance evaluation reporting, however depending on your preference, we can either quote your comments directly, only include your name in the list of participants, or your responses can be anonymous. If you wish for your responses to remain anonymous, no identifying information will be stored with your discussion. At any time in the discussion, you can decide to stop participating. AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 98 If you agree to participate, our discussion today will last about 60 to 90 minutes. Throughout our discussion, I will start by introducing a topic and then ask you a number of questions related to that topic. For example, I will ask about the types of rules and regulations governing forests in your village, and your use of forest resources. The objective of this group conversation is to gather your opinions and perspectives on the topics we discuss. When answering questions, you are all encouraged to say whatever you think is appropriate. There are not right or wrong answers, so please feel welcome to express yourself freely. I will conduct the discussion and ______ will take notes and tape record our conversation. Remember that the tape recording is only for the purpose of the research, and it will be kept confidential. Also, we will not use your names in preparing any notes or reports and we will make sure that no one can identify who made specific remarks. Any questions or comments before we get started? (Answer any questions as appropriate) Okay, let’s start by introducing ourselves so we can know each other better. Please describe who you are and any other information you want to share. (Facilitate introductions and then proceed) SECTION 2: BACKGROUND ON LOCAL FOREST USE AND CONDITIONS Enumerator: Next, I would like to ask some questions about how forests in your area are used. 1. How does your community utilize the forests and forest resources in your area? For example, what (if any) are most important forest products collected for consumption and/or income? 2. Other than members of your community, are there any other groups/actors that utilize the forests and forest resources in your area? (PROBE for example: other indigenous groups, companies, etc.) 3. If yes, who are the other actors/groups? To the best of your knowledge, please explain how this actor/group uses the forests. (PROBE each of the actors identified) 4. How would you describe the overall condition of the forests in your area? Can you please explain how the condition of the forests in your area has changed over the past 5? (PROBE: How and why have conditions improved? How and why have conditions worsened?) 5. Do you believe deforestation is a problem facing your community? Describe what this looks like in your area and please explain any effects that deforestation is having on your community. 6. In your opinion, what are the key drivers of deforestation in your area? Are there any group(s) in particular you feel are contributing most to deforestation? If yes, please explain your answer. (PROBE: Specific activities taking place, reasons behind them) SECTION 3: FOREST GOVERNANCE 1. In your area, who/what groups regulate the use and access to forests? • Which traditional/indigenous leaders are involved? • Which government offices/people are involved? • What other organizations (community groups/NGOs) are involved? 2. Looking specifically at your local leaders (i.e., IP and TC leaders, local governance structures) how do they work to protect your forests? 3. Are you confident that IP/TC leaders can help protect your forests? Why or why not? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 99 SECTION 4: AIME AND REDD+ Enumerator: Next I’d like to ask you about climate change, deforestation and relevant initiatives in your area. 1. What is climate change? 2. Do you believe climate change is a problem facing your community? Please explain any effects that climate change is having on your community. 3. In your opinion, are there any activities taking place in your area that you feel are contributing to climate change? 4. Do you believe deforestation is a problem facing your community? Please explain any effects that deforestation is having on your community. 5. In your opinion, are there any activities taking place in your area that you feel are contributing to deforestation? 6. Can you please describe any initiatives in your area related specifically to mitigating deforestation and/or climate change? (PROBE specifically for REDD+ and AIME activities) Enumerator Note: Keep mind that AIME activities and other carbon mitigation activities are likely to overlap/complement one another. It is important to use context-specific details of the field site to guide this portion on the interview. The goal is to elicit enough detail from the respondent to determine the AIME-specific activities and outcomes in the area. 7. Can you please tell me about the REDD+ and/or carbon mitigation activities taking place in your area? (Probe familiarity with REDD+ initiatives within respondents’ community and/or at sub-national, regional levels, including Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA), etc.) 8. What are the name(s) of the REDD+ and/or carbon mitigation initiative(s) in your area? When did the project(s) begin? 9. How are you involved in REDD+ initiatives in your area? (PROBE participation in planning, decision making, etc.) 10. Turning specifically to AIME, can you please tell me about the AIME activities taking place in your area? 11. How did you find out about the AIME project? 12. How is information about the AIME project provided? Do you feel you have enough information about the project to participate? 13. How are members of your community involved with the AIME activity? 14. Who are the main members in your community involved in AIME? What are their roles? 15. How are women involved in AIME in your community? Have there been any specific efforts to include women in your community in the AIME activity? 16. Do you believe that women are able to take part in these project activities in an equal manner as men? Why or why not? 17. How have the roles and responsibilities of your community with respect to forests changed as a result of AIME activities? 18. How has the involvement of your community in REDD+ and/or carbon mitigation activities changed because of AIME? For example, what agriculture, forestry, and/or other land use activities does your community engage in that contribute to REDD+ objectives? 19. Have AIME activities contributed to knowledge of REDD+ and/or other carbon mitigation initiatives in this community? How so? 20. What would you ideally like your community to gain from participation in AIME? 21. In your opinion, has the AIME project helped to empower your community to: AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 100 • Govern your territories more effectively? • To conserve your forest resources? • To reduce carbon emissions? • If yes, please provide examples. If no, can you share why this has not happened? 22. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of AIME activities in your community? 23. In general, do you feel AIME activities in your community to date have supported your community’s ability to live in accordance with your values and traditions? 24. Has AIME had any negative effects on your community? If yes, please explain. 25. From what you have observed, what changes could be made to improve AIME activities in your area? SECTION 5: PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Enumerator: Lastly, I’m going to ask you about the engagement of your community with the private sector. 1. Do any members of your community engage in partnerships with the private sector/companies relevant to the production of forest products or forest protection? If yes, please describe the nature of these partnerships. 2. What is the name of the company involved? What members of your community are involved? 3. How did this partnership come to be? In other words, who initiated the process (i.e., the company, an NGO, indigenous leaders, etc.)? When did the process begin? 4. Who from your community was involved in negotiating/establishing this partnership. Were you consulted before this project began operations? 5. Can you describe the consultation process? • Who was involved in the consultation? (company representatives/government officials?) • Was the consultation conducted in your language? • Who participated from the community? • Were women represented at meetings? • Were you asked to approve the project/benefit agreement? 6. Does your community receive any benefits as a result of this partnership? If yes, please describe. (Carefully probe any benefit sharing arrangements) 7. Do you feel this partnership is helpful for your community? Please explain why or why not. 8. Do you feel this partnership is beneficial to the company? Please explain how so. 9. Would you be interested in having other private sector company come to your lands to develop partnerships or benefit sharing agreements? Why or why not? SECTION 6: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 1. Do you have any final comments on AIME that you wish to share at this time? 2. Do you have any colleagues/contacts/people you can recommend for further interviews? 3. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 101 ANNEX 4. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED AIME ACTIVITY AND FBLC MEMBER STAFF Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 1 Chris van Dam Male AIME Activity IR 1 Lead, Forest Trends Remote USA 01-20-2016 2 Dan Nepstad Male AIME Activity IR2 Lead, EII Remote USA 01-21-2016 3 Maria Digiano Female AIME Activity Focal Point, EII Remote USA 01-21-2016 4 Phil Covell Male AIME Activity IR3 Lead, Forest Trends Remote USA 01-22-2016 5 Chris Meyer Male AIME Activity Focal Point, Environmental Defense Fund In-person USA 02-04-2016 6 Marcio Halla Male AIME Activity Consultant In-person Brazil 02-11-2016 7 Arildo Surui Male AIME Activity Focal Point and Project Coordinator, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 8 Kachia Techio Female Anthropologist and Indigenous Technical Advisor, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 9 Almira Surui Female Indigenous Associate, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 10 Alnoke Surui Male Financial Coordinator, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 11 Leonesci Surui Female Handicraft Initiative Leader, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 12 Adlanes Surui Female Financial and Administrative Associate, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 13 Belaton Surui Male Communication and Social Media Associate, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 14 Chief Almir Surui Male Chief of the Surui, Executive Director, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-23-2016 15 Roberto Hernández Male AIME Activity Focal Point, Sub-director Capacity Development, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 16 Barbara Baltazar Female Sub-director Forest Communities, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 17 Silvia Llamas Female Sub-director Administration, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 18 Cecilia Valencia Female Sub-director Social Management, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 19 Jose Montero Male Public Policy Project Leader, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 20 Camilo Thompson Male Public Policy Project Associate, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 21 Fernanda Bortolotto Female AIME Activity Focal Point, IPAM Remote Mexico 02-26-2016 22 Jose Luis Guerro Male Resin Production Coordinator, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 03-03-2016 AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 102 Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 23 Alberto Cruz Salazar Male Forest Management Associate, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 03-03-2016 24 Jacob Olander Male AIME Activity Focal Point, Executive Director, EcoDecision Remote USA 03-18-2016 25 Susan Kandel Female AIME Activity Focal Point, PRISMA Remote USA 03-30-2016 KEY INFORMANTS Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 1 Magaly Medeiro Female President, Institute of Climate Change of Acre Remote Brazil 02-11-2016 2 Elsa Mendoza Female Remote Brazil 02-12-2016 3 Eufran Amaral Male President, EMBRAPA Acre In-person Brazil 02-12-2016 4 Chief Tashka Yawanawa Male Chief, Yawanawa People In-person Brazil 02-13-2016 5 Yawanawa KI Male Cultural Revival Advocate In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 6 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Village Leader In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 7 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Village Health Agent In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 8 Yawanawa KI Female Teacher In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 9 Yawanawa KI Male Agroforestry Agent, Yawanawa Village Leader In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 10 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Spiritual Leader In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 11 Yawanawa KI Male Student of Spirituality In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 12 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Village Leader, WASH Agent In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 13 Yawanawa KI Male Teacher In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 14 Yawanawa KI Male Teacher In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 15 Yawanawa KI Female Teacher In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 16 Julia Yawanawa Female Yawanawa Leader In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 17 Eliezer de Oliveira Male Technical Assessor, SEDAM, Rondonia In-person Brazil 02-18-2016 18 Edgard Mendes Cardoso Male Coordinator of Floresta Plantada, SEDAM, Rondonia In-person Brazil 02-18-2016 19 Vilson de Salles Machado Male State Secretary, SEDAM, Rondonia In-person Brazil 02-18-2016 20 Delson Gaviao Male Gaviao Indigenous Leader In-person Brazil 02-19-2016 21 Surui KI Male Elder, Leader of Paiter Parliament Council, Reforestation Effort Leader In-person Brazil 02-20-2016 22 Surui KI Male Indigenous Sanitation Agent In-person Brazil 02-20-2016 23 Surui KI Male Member of Paiter Parliament Council, Indigenous Health Agent In-person Brazil 02-20-2016 24 Surui KI Female Vice Representative of Village Artisan In-person Brazil 02-21-2016 25 Alexser Velazquez Male Director, Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, CONANP In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 26 Edmundo Aguilar Male Director, Encrucijada Biosphere Reserve, CONANP In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 27 Ricardo Hernandez Male Sub-Secretary of Forest Development, SEMAHN In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 28 Jorge Luis Male Fire Management Technician, Villaflores In-person Mexico 03-03-2016 AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 103 Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 29 Dr. Colleen Mary Scanlan Lyons Female Project Director, Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) Remote USA 03-17-2016 AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 104 ANNEX 5. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The USAID Evaluation Policy requires that evaluation reports include a signed statement by each AIME￾PE team member regarding any conflicts of interest. The disclosure of any conflicts of interest contract AID-OAA-TO-14-00011 can be found on the following pages. ANNEX 5. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The USAID Evaluation Policy requires that evaluation reports include a signed statement by each evaluation team member reg4rding any conflicts of interesc will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumsances change. lf I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprieary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than tiat for which it was furnished. Name: Stephanie Fenner Title: Research Analyst Organization: The Cloudburst Group Evaluation Position: Team member Evaluation Award Number (comroa or other instrument) Prepared under Contract Number AID-OAA-|- 12-00030 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (ndude projea name(s), irnPlementer name(s) ond oword number(s), if opplicoble) Accelerating lnclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME), Forest Trends I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ;Yes KNo lf yes ans,rvered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest moy indude, but ore not limited to: I . Aose family member who is on enryloyee of tfie US4ID operoting unit monoging the proJea$) being evoluoted or the implemendng orgonizotion(s) whose project(s) ore being evoluoted. 2. Finoncial interest thot is direct or is significont though indirea, in the irnplementing orgonizotion(s) whose proj,ects ore being evaluqted or in the outcome of the evoluotion. 3.Gtnent or preious dired, or signiftcantthough indkxt experience with the project(s) being evoluated, induding involvement in the project design or previous iterotions of the projea 4. C.unent or previous wo* experience or seekmg employment with the USAID operodng unit monoging the evaluation or the irnPlementing orgonizotion(s) whose projea(s) are being onluoted. 5. Current or preious work uperience with on organizotion thot moy be seen os on industty competitor with the implementing orgonizaion(s) whose proj,ect(s) ore being evoluoted. 6.Preconceived ideos toword individuols, groups, orgonizotions, or objeaives ofthe Dorticular Droiects andorsonizotionsbelneevoluatedthatcould biosthe evaluotion. (!) and to the best of my ability and (2) that I Name: Nora Nelson Title: ! ndigenous Peoples Expert Organization: l-he Cloudburst Group Evaluation Position: Team member Evaluation Award Number (contaa or other instumem) Prepared under Contract Number AID￾oAA-r-t2-00030 USAID ProieC(s) Evaluated (ndude proiect nome(s), implementer nome(s) ond oword numfur(s), if oDlicoble) Accelerating lnclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AlMB, Forest Trends I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. I Yes ffNo lf yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Reol or potential conflids oFinterest moy indude, bttt ore not limtted to: l. Close fomify member who is on employee of the USAID operoting unit monogingthe proj*(s) being evoluotcd or the implementing organizotion(s) whose proj,ea(s) ore being qoluoted. 2. Finonciol interest thot is direa, or is signifcont thouglt indirxt, in the implementing orgonizotion(s) whose pro.l:eas ore being evoluoted or in the outcome of the evaluotion. 3.Qtrrent or previous direct or significontthough indirea experience with the projea(s) being evoluoted, induding involvement in the proiecl, design or previous iterotions d the projea￾4.C,urrent or previous wo'lr- experience or seehng employment wtth the U94lD operoting unit monaging the evoluotion or the implententing orgonizotion(s) whose prolea(s) ore being evoluotd. 5. Cttrrent or preious work experience with on orgonizotion thot moy be seen os on industry competitor with the implementing organizaion(s) vfiose proiea(s) ore being evoluoted. 6,Preconceived ideos toword individuols, groups, orgonizotions, or obieaives ofthe portiallor projects ond orgonizotions being evoluqtedthot could bios the evoluotion. I certifr (l) that ! have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I wilt update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. lf I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I atree to protect their information from unauthorizd use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any PurPose other than that for which it was furnished. Signaturc: //o-ro lf f7t-4-.t￾Date: q 14 lTcto AIME Mid-Term Evaluation Report: May 2016 107 ANNEX 6. APPROVED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN AND TIMELINE The approved AIME Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline can be found on the following pages. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline NOVEMBER 2014 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. CONTENTS CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 AIME-PE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................ 3 3.0 AIME ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 5 AIME ACTIVITY: Project Objectives....................................................................................................................... 5 AIME ACTIVITY: Intermediate Results................................................................................................................... 7 AIME Activity: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets.................................................................................... 9 4.0 AIME-PE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN........... 10 COMPONENT 1: DESK REVIEW..........................................................................................................................10 COMPONENT 2: FIELD ASSESSMENTS..............................................................................................................12 COMPONENT 3: CASE STUDIES .........................................................................................................................13 COMPONENT 4: GENDER ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................16 APPROACH TO LEARNING and DISSEMINATION.......................................................................................19 APPENDIX 1—EVALUATION TIMELINE .............................................................................. 21 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AIME Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions AIME-PE Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions Performance Evaluation Cloudburst The Cloudburst Consulting Group, Inc. CO Contracting Officer COIAB Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Peoples’ FBLC Forest Based Livelihoods Consortium FUNAI Fundação Nacional do Índio GCC Global Climate Change GHG Greenhouse Gas IR Intermediate Results LAC/RSD Latin America and the Caribbean Office for Regional Sustainable Development LED-R Low Emission Rural Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PNGATI National Program for the Management of Indigenous Territories PNS Pronatura Sur PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RFA Request for Assistance RIA REDD+ Indígena Amazónico SES Socio-ecological system SISA Sistema Estadual de Incentivos a Serviços Ambientais TOC Theory of Change MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION EVALUATION BACKGROUND On September 5, 2014, the Cloudburst Consulting Group was awarded a 52-month contract to monitor and conduct a performance evaluation of the Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions (AIME) activity. The overall purpose of the AIME-PErformance evaluation (abbreviated as AIME-PE) is to document the efficacy of the AIME activity’s approaches and methodology, and to inform USAID and other stakeholders of opportunities for additional investment. The AIME-PE contract Purpose, Objectives, and Evaluation Questions are described in detail in Section 2. AIME is a 5-year USAID cooperative agreement awarded to Forest Trends, a U.S.-based nonprofit. The Forest-Based Livelihoods Consortium (FBLC), a partnership of nine environmental and indigenous organizations implements the project, as led by Forest Trends. Program activities started in Fall 2013, and are currently underway. The overarching objective of the AIME program is to increase the participation of marginalized, forest￾based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, REDD+ and REDD+-compatible activities, in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities, while promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. As specified in the AIME-Performance Management Plan1 (PMP), this objective will be achieved by work in three focus areas including: • Communities: creating tools and approaches that increase the capacity of local communities to engage with the private and public sectors more confidently and productively on resource management in general and carbon credits in particular; • Jurisdictions: improving the capacity of sub-national governments to play a critical role in community-based REDD+ programs, with a focus on developing legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks to support fair inclusion of indigenous and Afro-descendent communities in REDD+; and, • Dialogues: bringing community, local and regional government and private sector representatives together to develop new approaches to negotiate REDD+ contracts and/or support REDD+ compatible activities (e.g. agroforestry community micro-enterprises, etc.) that benefit local communities and promote private sector engagement. The AIME-PE will examine project progress under each of these three focus areas to determine what contribution each has made towards achieving the aforementioned overall project objectives, and to provide lessons-learned and recommendations for future USAID programs. 1 The AIME-PErformance Monitoring Plan (PMP), the basis of this Evaluation Plan, was approved by USAID in May, 2014. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW The AIME-PE methodology, presented in Section 4, is comprised of four complementary components that will in combination fulfill the AIME-PE contract requirements. The components are: • Desk Review: the evaluation team will conduct ongoing performance monitoring of the full range of AIME program activities, drawing on materials produced by Forest Trends and FBLC members; • Field Assessments: the evaluation team will travel to select AIME project sites to assess AIME implementation progress at the mid-term and at the end of the project. Field assessments will also serve to guide and validate ongoing performance monitoring and preliminary and final findings of the case studies; • Case Studies: the evaluation team will create three case studies primarily based on pre-existing project documents, and selected with guidance from USAID and Forest Trends. The cases studies will examine AIME’s three areas of focus in-depth and specifically address the mid-term and final evaluation questions list (Section 2). The case studies, through careful examination of project documents and complemented with data collected during field assessments, will assess the longer￾term AIME outcomes, determine the underlying changes that lead to them, and inform the development of best practices; and • Gender: the evaluation team recognizes the importance of considering differential impacts of the project on men and women and will include a gender assessment component as part of the desk review, field assessments, and case studies. In order to comply with the USAID Gender Equity Policy (2012), the AIME-PE team assumes that Forest Trends and FBLC will collect disaggregated data so that the evaluation can assess the extent to which the project includes men and women and elicits male and female participation. To support the AIME-PE activities, Cloudburst will provide two key personnel, a Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Expert and an Indigenous Peoples Expert. They will conduct a midterm and a final evaluation using the desk review, field assessment visits, and case studies as the primary sources of information. In addition to these two experts, Cloudburst has retained a Research Assistant and a Socio-ecologist to provide support to the key personnel. 2 Appendix 1—Evaluation Timeline displays our implementation schedule and deliverables. While this is based on the requirements of our contract, modifications to the timeline have been made based on conversations with the Contracting Officer (CO) of the AIME-PE activity. At the request of USAID we are moving the date of the midterm evaluation back a quarter and it will be completed in the second quarter of FY 2016. We also propose to advance the timing of the final evaluation’s field assessment to the fourth quarter of FY 18 when the AIME project is still active. 2 AIME-PE staff are: John Michael Kramer, REDD+ expert and team leader; Dr. Denise Humphreys Bebbington, Indigenous Peoples expert; Dr. Cynthia Caron, socio-ecologist expert; Ms. Stephanie Fenner, Research Assistant. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 3 2.0 AIME-PE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of AIME-PE is to document the efficacy of the AIME project’s approaches and methodology, and to inform USAID and other stakeholders of opportunities for additional investments. Overall, the objectives of the midterm and final evaluations are to: • Document successes and shortcomings of the AIME project to determine its effectiveness in achieving the project’s goal of increasing the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, and REDD+ and REDD+ compatible activities in particular, in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities; • Provide information about successful approaches and methods to increase participation in and utilization of REDD+ and REDD+ compatible activities by forest-based communities; • Make recommendations for future investment within the REDD+ sector; and • Validate the AIME TOC, or recommend course corrections during the project’s lifetime, mindful that the voluntary carbon market is not yet fully viable. More specifically, the purpose of the Midterm Evaluation is to review key project activities that contribute to the achievement of AIME’s program goal and objectives and to ensure progress is made in the final years of implementation. It is also expected that the Midterm Evaluation will provide insight into project performance and effectiveness beyond what is captured in the AIME PMP. USAID poses the questions listed below for the evaluation to address in the Midterm Evaluations. Note that questions one, two and three directly align with the three intermediate results of the AIME activity (communities, jurisdictions, and dialogues) Mid-Term Evaluation Questions The Mid-Term Evaluation Report will answer the following questions: • How has AIME empowered indigenous groups/local communities to engage in: territorial governance; buen vivir;3 conservation; and the reduction of carbon emissions? a. Within these groups, have the results been equitable (extended to both sexes)? b. Have there been any unintended consequences of the project with respect to vulnerable subgroups of populations? 3 The concept of buen vivir, which can be loosely translated as “good living” is rooted in the worldview of the Quechua and Aymara people of the Andes. It refers to a way of living which is focused on living in community, in harmony with nature and others, and in a culturally sensitive manner. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 4 • To what extent has AIME made progress towards enabling local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect and compensate Indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)? • What kind of progress has been made towards transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? • What changes would enhance the project’s implementation in the final years of implementation? Final Evaluation Questions The specific purpose of the Final Evaluation is to inform project effectiveness and impact, and provide insight for future programming in the same sector both by USAID and other actors. USAID poses the questions listed below for the evaluation to address in the Final Evaluations: • How has AIME helped empower indigenous groups/local communities to engage in: territorial governance; buen vivir; conservation; and the reduction of emissions? a. Within these groups, have the benefits been equitable (extended to both sexes)? b. Have there been any unintended consequences of the project with respect to vulnerable subgroups of populations? • To what extent has AIME led local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect and compensate Indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)? • To what extent has AIME contributed or not to transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? • Given the status of the voluntary carbon market (including REDD+) in the absence of an internationally negotiated climate change agreement, is there a different approach that USAID should take to reduce carbon emissions by working directly with indigenous people/local communities on deforestation resulting from land use change? • What new technical areas or programming approaches should be considered and possibly adopted for any follow-on sustainable landscapes/REDD+ activity in the region? Intended Audience The intended audience of the AIME-PE includes Latin America and the Caribbean Office for Regional Sustainable Development (LAC/RSD), USAID/LAC Missions, and USAID’s Global Climate Change office. The information will be used to both inform current programming and affect future programming in the REDD+ arena. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 5 3.0 AIME ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AIME ACTIVITY: Project Objectives The overall objective of the AIME program is to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation and REDD+ and REDD+- compatible activities in particular in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities while promoting conservation. FBLC has developed a Theory of Chance (TOC) using the three main focus areas of the AIME program related to communities, jurisdictions, and dialogues Each focus area of the program is intended to generate an intermediate result (IR), measured by a series of indicators specified in the AIME Results Framework4 included on the following page. AIME’s three IRs are: • Intermediate Result 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation, and the reduction of emissions • Intermediate Result 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development • Intermediate Result 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions Each of these three IRs also has a number of sub-IRs, described in greater detail below. Please note that Forest Trends has not listed any indicators specific to the sub-IRs, only intended activities. 4 The AIME Logic Model is based on a Theory of Change developed collaboratively by members of the FBLC (in Antigua Guatemala, 4-6 December 2013). MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 6 Figure 1: AIME Results Framework Overall Indicator: (4.8-7) Quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in metric tons of CO2e, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG assistance Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions Program Overall result: Increased participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD+) deals in order to mitigate global climate change (GCC) emissions. IR 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation and the reduction of emissions Indicators: 1.1 (4.8.2-6) Number of people receiving training in global climate change as a result of USG assistance 1.2 Number of indigenous and/or campesino organizations that have developed Life Plans or other intercultural proposals for REDD+ IR 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. Indicators: 2.1 Number of indigenous organizations working with AIME form part of new multi-lateral spaces in their municipality or other sub￾national governments and have had their proposals or demands adopted, taken into account or resolved by the governments. 2.2 Number of jurisdictions supported in the AIME program. 2.3 (4.8.2-28) Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation) and/or biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance. IR 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. Indicators: 3.1 (4.8.2-14) Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance 3.2 (4.8.2-10) Amount of investment leveraged in USD from private and public sources, for climate change as a result of USG assistance MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 7 AIME ACTIVITY: Intermediate Results5 Intermediate Result 1: Communities are empowered for territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation, and the reduction of emissions. The key outcome of IR 1 is that local communities will be further empowered to participate in jurisdictional policymaking and to negotiate with the private sector, in order to strengthen their territorial governance, enhanced conservation, and livelihoods. This will involve efforts to increase the capacity of local communities, through their legitimate representative organizations, to engage equitably and productively with government and the private sector for influencing the evolving regulatory environment and promoting the sustainable management of their forest and agricultural lands, typically through the development and implementation of Life Plans. Theory of Change for IR 1: “If communities have a better understanding of REDD+, an approach and methodology to strengthen capacities, and validated models and experience of territorial management, then territorial governance, conservation, and the reduction of emissions will be improved.” Indicators for IR 1: • Number of people receiving training in global climate change as a result of USG assistance • Number of indigenous and/or campesino organizations that have developed Life Plans or other intercultural proposals for REDD Sub-Intermediate Results for IR 1: • IR 1.1 Greater understanding of REDD+ with a body of community knowledge, constructed from dialogue • IR 1.2 Conceptual and methodological framework established for strengthening community capacities • IR 1.3 Experiences and models validated • IR 1.4 Territorial Governance Strengthened Intermediate Result 2: Indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation are recognized and incentivized through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development. The principal outcomes of IR 2 are increased recognition and integration of resource management rights of traditional communities within jurisdictional REDD+ and Low Emission Rural Development (LED-R) programs, policies and institutions; reduced costs and risks related to isolated indigenous REDD+ projects; and establishing links to sustainable supply chain processes and international REDD+ commitments. This component will emphasize the identification of jurisdictional barriers and opportunities, as well as the implementation of innovative approaches with bottom-up support for policy and institutional reform. 5 Excerpted from Forest Trends, 2014, AIME Year 1 Performance Monitoring Plan and Work Plan and PMP. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 8 Theory of Change for IR 2: “Improvements in the livelihoods and the rights to land and resources of indigenous and traditional communities will improve most rapidly and sustainably while maintaining and expanding forest carbon stocks through the reform and alignment of public policies, institutions, programs, and markets to support these communities. These systemic reforms and alignments are best achieved through a – ‘jurisdictional’ approach, operating at the scale of entire states and nations, through multi-sector dialogues and planning processes, in which indigenous and traditional communities' resource rights and contributions to the public good are recognized, protected, and compensated within a low emission rural development model.” Indicators for IR 2: • 2.1 Number of indigenous organizations working with AIME form part of new multi-lateral spaces in their municipality or other sub-national governments and have had their proposals or demands adopted, taken into account or resolved by the governments • 2.2 Number of jurisdictions supported in the AIME program • 2.3 Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation) and/or biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance Sub-Intermediate Results for IR 2: • IR 2.1 Jurisdictional barriers and opportunities identified and innovative approaches disseminated • IR 2.2 Governments effectively engaged to discuss policies and institutional reform • IR 2.3 Indigenous leaders empowered and committed to implement reform and alignment together with jurisdictional officials • IR 2.4 Policy and institutional reforms gain support through multi-sector dialogues and planning processes IR 3: Greater demand for products with mitigation benefits and greater trust between actors, leading to transactions which support the concept of buen vivir and the mitigation of emissions. IR 3 promotes interaction between key stakeholders to develop shared approaches and to build support/demand for REDD+-compatible activities and products, as well as for carbon credits. This interaction will be fostered through AIME’s activities seeking greater understanding and trust between forest communities and representatives of public institutions and private enterprises, as well as greater demand for community based products with climate mitigation attributes. Theory of Change for IR 3: “If we create spaces for dialogue between the parties, if we make available the necessary information about mitigation and sustainability, and if we improve the level of understanding of each party, we will find win-win opportunities and low-cost transaction models, and we will generate trust to undertake pilot experiences and create demand for emission reductions and REDD+-compatible products. This will create better diversity of resources and specialized financial mechanisms for traditional communities.” MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 9 Indicators for IR3: • 3.1Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance • 3.2 Amount of investment leveraged in USD from private and public sources, for climate change as a result of USG assistance The Sub-Intermediate Results for IR 3: • IR 3.1 Spaces for dialogue and win/win models created • IR 3.2 Information created • IR 3.3 Relate mitigation benefits to agroforestry products • IR 3.4 Demand for carbon mitigation products created • IR 3.5 Diverse funding sources and mechanisms AIME Activity: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets Please note that currently, the AIME PMP lacks Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS). The AIME PMP states, “Indicators and data collection plans will be comprehensively documented in the PIRS. The PIRS are critical to the PMP as they outline the definition of the indicator, how it will be measured, with what methodology, by whom, when, where, and why--all important specifications for ensuring data consistency and quality. The PIRS also details data limitations, data storage, data acquisition, and individuals responsible for ensuring sound and rigorous data quality. The PIRS will be completed when the Indicators are validated by FBLC members and agreed by USAID.” The lack of PIRS is of particular concern to the AIME-PE team, as we believe they are essential to our success. At this point, it is unclear if FBLC members have a data collection mechanism in place that they will use to track progress towards the stated indicators. How Forest Trends plans to measure indicators, collect data, analyze progress towards indicators, and report the data is, as a result, currently unclear. This information, or lack thereof, will have critical implications for the AIME-PE team and the validity of the PE results and hence should be addressed as expeditiously as possible. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 10 4.0 AIME-PE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN To assess the performance of the AIME project and the progress made towards the aforementioned Intermediate Results, the AIME-PE team will employ a four-tiered evaluation approach that provides analytic breadth and depth. • Desk Review • Field Assessments • Case Studies • Gender Assessment COMPONENT 1: DESK REVIEW Under this component the evaluation team will conduct ongoing performance monitoring of the full range of AIME program activities, drawing on annual planning documents and periodic progress and monitoring reports routinely produced by Forest Trends and FBLC members, as well as diagnostic and baseline studies, commissioned papers and research, technical reports, FBLC meeting agendas and minutes, and web blogs and online platforms. This component will also include consultations with key stakeholders to refine further the evaluation approach, and coordination with USAID/Forest Trends to identify/prioritize primary data collection where gaps remain. The main objectives of the desk review are to: • Track progress toward expected project outcomes • Link project activities to performance evaluation questions • Inform the case studies and field assessment components • Prioritize countries and projects for AIME-PE analysis • Identify key substantive issues, pilot project sites, and data gaps to be focused on during country visits The AIME-PE team expects that Forest Trends and FBLC members will produce a diverse array of information for the desk review. For example, the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Section of the AIME PMP specifies that data collection will be accomplished through published reports, site visits, interviews, and review of records of partners and sub award recipients, in addition to monitoring reports prepared by FBLC members on a quarterly basis. The M&E Section of the AIME PMP also notes that, “for certain indicators, structured surveys will be designed and implemented. Field notes and activity reports will supplement these methods and provide for triangulation to better interpret the significance and quality of the results achieved. Data summaries will include tabulation of disaggregated data as well as graphs and diagrams, when appropriate.” These M&E materials will be incorporated by the AIME-PE team into the desk review, and supplemented with other sources of data, such as on-line platforms, to make for a MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 11 rich set of data for discursive and content analysis. The AIME-PE team again assumes that, where appropriate, data will be sex-disaggregated. The potential sources of data identified for the desk review include: • Periodic progress and monitoring reports routinely produced by Forest Trends* • Annual planning documents produced by Forest Trends* • Results of diagnostic and baselines studies, implemented by Forest Trends and FBLC members, including studies by EDF, IPAM, and COICA* • Published articles from Forest Trends and sub-awardees* • Commissioned papers and research published by Forest Trends and sub-awardees* • Presentations given as a part of AIME project activities at local, regional and national workshops. A sampling of presentations will be requested during the field assessments.* • Minutes and attendance sheets from meetings with consortia members, private sector representatives, capacity building exercises with government officials, indigenous leaders and general community meetings. A sampling of these documents will be requested during the field assessments, * • Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (completed by Forest Trends, as specified in AIME PMP) and reports based on these. * • Technical reports and tools* • Training materials created for indigenous groups about REDD+ and related financial mechanisms* • Informational materials created for companies and buyers about agroforestry products* • White papers and plans (i.e., building on Rio Branco Declaration)* • Life plans* • Draft and signed agreements including tripartite agreements* • Access to discussions that take place in Spanish and English as part of FBLC web blogs and online platforms such as Canopy Bridge* In order for the desk review to commence, the AIME-PE team will need access to the above-mentioned documents. While some are publicly available (i.e., on-line platforms), sources indicated with an asterisk will need to be provided to the AIME-PE team, either directly from Forest Trends or via USAID. The more materials provided the more thorough and therefore more valid the performance evaluation will be. The AIME-PE research assistant will collate the material for conducting the desk review, beginning with the FY 15 Quarter 1 Report. The research assistant will focus on collecting the secondary data and documents described above, collating, analyzing, and presenting the data in a Document Review Matrix, to be submitted to USAID along with the midterm and final reports. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 12 TABLE 1: SAMPLE OF DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX Document Name Midterm Evaluation Question: To what extent has AIME made progress towards enabling local governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets? Midterm Evaluation Question 2: What kind of progress has been made towards transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support the concept of buen vivir and emission mitigation? Comments/Analysis Quarterly Report 1 No relevant activities this quarter. No relevant activities this quarter. The entire AIME-PE team will assist in interpreting the tabulated data analysis, each focusing on elements relevant to their specialties. Prior to the midterm and final evaluation fieldwork, and in collaboration with USAID, the evaluation team will utilize the desk review analysis to help prioritize countries and projects for primary data collection during field assessments, as well as the most appropriate projects for case studies. The desk review will shed light on which sites and partners are better at documentation and reporting, and which countries and sites at the desk review stage provide the richest information to assess AIME￾Performance and learn from it. The evaluation team will also draw from the desk review findings to refine interview questions to be conducted during the field assessment. With the completion of the desk review, the AIME-PE team will be able to assess which AIME projects sites are further along in terms of achieving the 3 IRs. COMPONENT 2: FIELD ASSESSMENTS The AIME-PE Team Leader/REDD+ Expert and Indigenous Peoples Expert will conduct field assessments as a part of the mid-term and final evaluations. These assessments will include in-person interviews with individuals, group interviews and direct observation of program activities with program implementing partners, beneficiary communities and organizations, and informed observers. USAID and Forest Trends will provide to the AIME-PE team an initial list of persons/organizations to be interviewed. The AIME-PE tam will develop the final interview list in collaboration with Forest Trends6 Project site visits will allow the evaluation team to meet with and interview direct program participants/beneficiaries, verify activities and outcomes, and observe first-hand progress towards program goals and objectives. The field assessment component will focus on filling informational gaps identified during the desk review. 6 We will conduct the mid-term fieldwork during the second quarter of FY 16 and the final fieldwork during the fourth quarter of FY 18. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 13 SITE SELECTION As AIME-PE evaluation questions are descriptive, we will utilize a purposeful, criterion sampling approach. Together with USAID, we will choose a set of criteria that all site visit locations must possess. Suggested site selection criteria include but are not limited to: • Sites receiving higher amounts of USAID funding and/or conducting larger number of AIME activities, whether successful or not; • Sites that are exemplars of success and best practice and might be most suitable for information-rich case studies; and • Proximity to case study sites. Given the dispersed and often remote locations of AIME sub-projects, the AIME-PE team will carefully balance the mix of labor and travel to optimize cost effectiveness. Where possible, we will use remote modalities of data collection (e.g., Skype meetings) to reduce travel time and costs and to maximize the labor available to conduct the evaluation tasks. After sites for field assessment are selected, well in advance of the field trips, we will closely examine available data and conduct interviews with Forest Trends staff to determine which data collection methodologies are best suited to a given site. Suggested data collection methods include: • Key informant interviews in person and over Skype with various FBLC partner organizations both in the USA and in Central and South America; • In-person interviews with project beneficiaries and collaborators; • Short, self-administered questionnaires and in-person administered questionnaires to indigenous community leaders and individuals, government officials, NGO leaders, private sector actors, and other relevant stakeholders; • In-person focus group interviews with project beneficiaries; and • Direct observation. The Research Assistant will collect and analyze site relevant secondary data to inform the field assessment planning, though it is expected that USAID and Forest Trends will help make the logistical arrangements for the field assessment component in conjunction with the evaluation team. The team leader will review the site-specific data collection plans with USAID and receive USAID’s approval before the field assessments. COMPONENT 3: CASE STUDIES The AIME-PE team will conduct three case studies to examine AIME’s Theories of Change and the progress towards each of the 3 IRs, and to address the mid-term and final evaluation questions. The mid-term and final evaluation questions are ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions that necessitate careful review of documents and also discussions with the representatives of the AIME projects’ diverse set of stakeholders. The case studies will focus on how AIME implemented the project in order to increase understanding of its performance as experienced by a variety of stakeholders. While the AIME-PE team suggests three in￾depth cases studies one from Brazil, one from the Andean Amazonand one from Meso-America, the case study locations will be chosen in consultation with Forest Trends. The case studies serve as in￾depth studies and will use the socio-ecological system (SES) approach to investigate the relationship between the social and institutional changes that the AIME projects promotes and what, if any, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 14 environmental outcomes or changes result from these changes (specifically how carbon mitigation agreements that deliver social inclusion achieved that outcome). By focusing on three different project sites and comparing the progress and achievements across them, the case studies will help demonstrate: • Accomplishment of AIME IRs and outcomes (there is no unit of measure per se, the case studies focus on the process and how well each IR is progressing in each case study location); • Why stakeholders across the project hierarchy made the decisions that they did; • The longer-term AIME outcomes, and determine the underlying changes that lead to them; • How and why AIME implementation activities lead to or did not lead to the expected outcomes; and • How best practices can develop and the potential for future investments by USAID and others. Data for these case studies will be drawn from the ongoing performance monitoring documents and other sources used during the desk review, and supplemented with data collection including remote interviews and direct observation during the field assessments. The case study is, therefore, created primarily from pre-existing documents and supplemented with information gathered through the field assessments, from interviews with buyers and investors who participate in mitigation-product development clinics, individuals who are active in the Canopy Bridge or other forums (Tropical Forestry Alliance and Consumer Goods Forum), company representative from Bonafont, Livelihood Funds and others. In many cases, potential interviewees from the latter groups are not located in AIME project sites, but in various locations across the world. The AIME-PE team, with assistance with Forest Trends, will reach out to investors and buyers who can shed insights on their relationship to the AIME project and its activities via Skype. CASE STUDY METHOD In collaboration with USAID and Forest Trends, the evaluation team will choose three project locations as case studies to examine the AIME implementation process and progress made towards achieving the three AIME IRs. The case studies will produce a more detailed and nuanced account of what is happening in each location and why, thereby honing in on the relationship between FBLC activities and AIME outcomes (in particular social inclusion, institutional change, and ecological outcomes). While each case study will focus on one site of AIME project implementation, the case study site is not geographically bounded unit (i.e., the indigenous forest territory) but also includes the networks and relationships that the AIME project facilitates and supports in that territory in order to create carbon mitigation agreements and partnerships between indigenous groups and investors. These networks and relationships lead to social inclusion and enabling new financial arrangements. Therefore, each case study extends ‘down’ to the indigenous territory and its people and ‘through and up to’ the arenas of government that provide the policy environment that support these agreements (the jurisdiction / examination of jurisdictional arrangements as part of the larger institutional structure or enabling environment). For example, interviews at the micro level with indigenous communities in a given project site may be analyzed along with interviews with local government officials, and then representatives from the private sector. The case studies will allow the AIME-PE team to analyze the project’s progress across all three intermediate results in a given project area, and examine the relationships between communities, jurisdictions, and dialogues and other spaces that attract and support the inclusion of investors and buyers. Given the centrality of the indigenous territory to the AIME project, the case studies will employ the socio-ecological system (SES) approach to investigate the relationship between the social and institutional changes that the AIME projects promote and the environmental outcomes that result (or at MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 15 least, within the limited span of the AIME project, the direction of environmental outcomes). We will use the SES framework to examine the relationship between the social and the ecological factors that are central to successful AIME project delivery (see Figure 2).7,8 SITE SELECTION As noted, Cloudburst will work collaboratively with USAID and Forest Trends to choose the most appropriate project sites to conduct the case studies. As a first step in site selection these parties will need to agree on selection criteria. The evaluation team recognizes FBLC’s extensive knowledge of the communities and local ecosystems and the relative importance (or weight) of these potential criteria. We also recognize that an important driver of the case study site selection process is what AIME and USAID want to learn from them. TABLE 3: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA Social Country Jurisdictional legal, policy, and administrative structure Stage in reformulating the jurisdictional structure Indigenous group political structure and history Traditional livelihood activities of the Indigenous group Definition of buen vivir Local land tenure dynamics of landlessness FBLC Activities Relevance to an IR TOC Amount and importance of activities Accomplishment towards Work Plan goals Ecological Size of the indigenous territory Status of the ecological composition of the territory Direction and pace of the change in status of the ecological composition of the territory Just as with the field assessment activities, the evaluation team will work with USAID and Forest Trends to develop appropriate site selection criteria for the three locations. Examples of the selection criteria are shown in Table 3. 7 Ostrom, E. 2007. A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas. PNAS 104(39) (September 25): 15181-15187. 8 Ostrom, E. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science (324) 419-422. Figure 2: A multi-tier framework for analyzing an SES MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 16 The evaluation team will facilitate the site selection process and the final case study sites will be approved by USAID. A final case study selection matrix will document the logic behind the case study selection. SAMPLING STRATEGY There are a number of options available to choose the three case study locations. The methods described below could be used by the AIME-PE team, USAID and Forest Trends to select information￾rich cases within the overall project portfolio in order to evaluate what works, what does not work, and why. For example: • Extreme or deviant case sampling: The logic behind this strategy is to select three cases that are information-rich either because they are outstanding successes or notable failures. The key question to ask is “which cases could we learn the most from?” • Maximum variation sampling: The logic behind this strategy is to capture and describe the challenges and successes that cut across all cases. Using this strategy, we would intentionally choose cases that are all very different from one another (in different countries with their different jurisdictional arrangements, for example). By focusing on themes and issues that emerge from the documents reviewed during the desk review process and from field assessments, we will be able to construct a model that illuminates important shared patterns that cut across the three sites.”9 CASE STUDY DATA Primary data collection will include: • Key informant interviews across the project hierarchy in each case study site (indigenous group leaders and members, government officials and investor representatives); • Separate focus groups discussion with men and women from indigenous communities (separately from the leaders’ interviews); • Direct observation of the implementation of project activities such as any meetings taking place in a territory or a workshop with investors and buyers; • In-depth analysis and focus group discussion about the produced life plans; • Interviews with or direct observation of activities with government officials active in institutional reform; • At least one interview with an active governor of the GCF; • Interviews with investors and buyers about the products that indigenous communities produce and their overall satisfaction with the AIME process; and • Interviews with company representative such as Bonafont, Alan del Norte, or any of the other 200 companies active in Canopy Bridge or the Consumer Goods Forum. COMPONENT 4: GENDER ASSESSMENT The AIME-PE team recognizes the importance of considering differential impacts of the project on men and women and will add a gender element to each of the three evaluation components. Table 4 below outlines the analytical framework the team will utilize to examine various dimensions of gender equity. 9 Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications, p. 236. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 17 TABLE 4: GENDER EQUITY DIMENSIONS Gender Equity Dimensions Potential Questions Means of Verification Distributional Equity How do benefit sharing schemes (compensation, incentives, benefits, and revenues) operate? What are opportunities and constraints for women? • Who makes important decisions about how to use resources in your community? Are these decisions implemented? • Are women included/excluded from participating in activities related to the allocation/management of resources? Do women have control over resources? • Is there a gender sensitive monitoring system in place to follow the distribution and allocation of revenues and benefits? Secondary data sources: • AIME progress reports • Partners reports • Meeting minutes • Maps (PRA & Aerial) • Print / electronic media • Reports by human rights and civil society groups • Surveys and other data collection conducted by AIME partners with design assistance, training, and guidance, from AIME-PE staff. Primary Data Collection: • With partners staff, government, NGO, private sector entities and indigenous leaders, women and men: • Focus group discussions • Key informant interviews • Sample field check of AIME partner reports. Procedural equity Is there a full and effective participation, consultation, and decision-making of men and women? • Are women recognized as stakeholders? • Do women participate in the consultation/ informational and project design processes? • Do both men and women actively participate in negotiations related to REDD+? Are there meetings, activities, and decisions from which women are excluded? • Do men and women have equal access to information? Are women involved in MRV activities? • Is there a grievance mechanism in place? Contextual equity Identify existing inequities. • What are the gaps in skills and knowledge of women? • Is there a gender sensitive information system in place? • Are there training opportunities in place to build the capacity of men and women to participate fully? MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 18 Field Assessments and Case Studies: The AIME-PE contract specifies that all data collected by the AIME-PE team must be aggregated and analyzed by sex, as well as analyzed for any difference between men and women or male and female participation. This analysis must be posted in the Midterm and Final Evaluation Reports, as applicable. The AIME PMP also specifies that all people-level indicators will be disaggregated and reported by gender. The evaluation team will prepare a gender assessment component for the case studies and the mid-term and final field assessments/evaluations. We will use a mixed methods10 approach to analyzing project performance from a gender perspective as well as to understand project outcomes as they affect men and women. The analysis will draw upon the Equity Framework presented in Table 5 below for understanding how men and women have participated in and benefitted from AIME interventions. Our analysis of data from secondary and primary sources and will use the following analytical methodologies: • Examination of outliers (explain differences in performance among project sites) • Variance analysis (actual versus what was proposed) • Identification of successes and best practices • Assessment of factors leading to limited/unsatisfactory performance • Process and methodological limitations to evaluation of gender TABLE 5: GENDER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR MID-TERM AND FINAL EVALUATIONS Gender Equity Dimensions Potential Questions Means of Verification To what extent has AIME contributed to the mainstreaming of gender in policy related to REDD+? • Are there safeguards/policies in place to ensure women’s rights to an equitable distribution of benefits? • Are there safeguards in place to ensure women’s access to land and natural resources? Secondary data sources: • AIME progress reports • Partners reports • MSC stories; Meeting minutes; Maps (PRA & Aerial); print and electronic media; reports by human rights and civil society groups; surveys and other 10 USAID. 2010 Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS Number 16: Conducting Mixed Method Evaluations. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 19 TABLE 5: GENDER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR MID-TERM AND FINAL EVALUATIONS Gender Equity Dimensions Potential Questions Means of Verification To what extent has AIME successfully incorporated a gender perspective? • What AIME tasks & resources are assigned to men? to women? • When in the field & interacting with partners, who delivers which AIME messages? • In the documents and final project designs, how is the sex and consequently gendered influence of AIME project staff noticeable? data collection conducted by FBLC, training reports. Primary Data Collection • With partners staff, government, NGO, private sector entities and indigenous leaders, women and men; focus group discussions; key informant interviews; sample field check of AIME partner reports. What changes would enhance the activity's implementation in the final years of implementation? • How could gender concerns be better incorporated into the process? • What are the opportunities to increase gender equity? (i.e. foster and support gender REDD+ plus alliances & networks) • Do certain stakeholders feel left out of the process? What can be done to improve their inclusion in the next 2 years? APPROACH TO LEARNING AND DISSEMINATION The evaluation team recognizes that the full value of AIME-PE will only be realized if the learning achieved during the implementation of AIME is properly documented and disseminated. We will use the following activities to support this: • Validate AIME-PE findings with AIME partners incorporating their comments and concerns (in cases where there are unresolved differences the evaluation team will identify them separately and set them apart from the AIME-PE teams findings); • Present all draft case-studies and evaluations to USAID, incorporate USAID review in second draft; • Document AIME-PE activities in STARR IQC Reports. Submission of quarterly reports are a regular reporting requirement for most Task Orders issued under the STARR IQC. The reports contain information relevant to program activities, as identified in the project work plan, over a 3 month period, as well as provide a means for providing information and content to the Division on a regular basis; and MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 20 • Make results of all case-studies and evaluations accessible to USAID at large, AIME partners and other interested parties through AIME partners’ meetings and websites, USAID’s FRAMEWeb and RM Portal, PowerPoint presentations, and a short key issues and lesson learned briefing paper. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE AIME ACTIVITY: Performance Evaluation Plan and Timeline 21 APPENDIX 1—EVALUATION TIMELINE Note: The light blue background and asterisks indicate a milestone/deliverable. Year FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 Activity and Milestones Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 Prepare timeline/milestone plan Prepare evaluation plan and design Assist AIME with monitoring indicators Evaluation Plan/Design * Timeline/Milestone plan * Desk review data collection/analysis Design case studies Conduct CS special data collection Ongoing CS data analysis CS annual and final reports * * * * Select sites for field assessment Prepare site specific data collection plan Conduct midterm field assessment Draft & final midterm evaluation * PowerPoint presentation * Issues/Lessons Learned one pager * Data collection for final evaluation Conduct final field assessment Draft & final, Final Evaluation * Quarterly STARR IQC Reports * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Prepare final report and presentation Draft & final Contract Report * U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov