Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity Final Evaluation Report This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by The Cloudburst Group. Written and prepared by Stephanie Fenner, Nora Nelson, and Vanessa Retana, with support from Dr. Heather Huntington. 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 Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity Final Evaluation Report OCTOBER 2018 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. i CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................1 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................4 AIME ACTIVITY: OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH.......................................................................................................................4 2.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS ................................................................................6 COMPONENT 1: DESK REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................6 COMPONENT 2: FINAL FIELD ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................6 COMPONENT 3: CASE STUDIES................................................................................................................................................7 COMPONENT 4: GENDER ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................................................8 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................................8 3.0 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................9 3.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: RELEVANT AIME APPROACH.......................................................................................9 3.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................11 3.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: RELEVANT AIME APPROACH....................................................................................14 3.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................16 3.5 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: RELEVANT AIME APPROACH....................................................................................19 3.6 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................21 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................24 ANNEX 1. JURISDICTION & GENDER-SPECIFIC FINDINGS.........................................................28 EVALUATION QUESTION 1:......................................................................................................................................................28 EVALUATION QUESTION 2:......................................................................................................................................................35 EVALUATION QUESTION 3:......................................................................................................................................................40 ANNEX 2. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED.................................................................................47 ANNEX 3. DESK REVIEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION..............................................................51 ANNEX 4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS............................................................................66 LOCAL INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY LEADERS: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL.......................................................................................................................................................................................66 INDIGENOUS CHIEFS AND POLICY ADVOCATES: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL......................69 SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ....................................72 PROJECT BENEFICIARIES: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL.........................................................................75 ANNEX 5. CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................78 ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACODIHUE Asociación de Cooperación al Desarrollo Integral de Huehuetenango AIME Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions AMPB Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos y Bosques APDT Public Agency for Territorial Development ARB Air Resources Board CAC Perene Cooperativa Agraria Cafe Perene COIAB Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Peoples COICA Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca CONAFOR National Forestry Commission CONANP National Commission of Natural Protected Areas ECAM Amazon Conservation Team EDF Environmental Defense Fund EII Earth Innovation Institute EQ Evaluation Question FBLC Forest Based Livelihoods Consortium FGD Focus Group Discussion FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent FUNAI National Indian Foundation of Brazil GCC Global Climate Change GCF Governors’ Climate & Forests Task Force GHG Greenhouse Gas GOREMAD Regional Government of Madre de Dios HFLD High forest cover/low deforestation IDESAM Institute of Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Amazon IMC Instituto de Mundancas Climaticas iii IP Indigenous People IPAM Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia IR Intermediate Result KII Key informant interview LAC/RSD Latin America and the Caribbean Office for Regional Sustainable Development LED-R Low Emission Rural Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MASTA Indigenous Territorial Councils of the Muskitia MOU Memorandum/a of understanding MTF Mesoamerican Territorial Fund NDC Nationally Determined Contributions PE Performance Evaluation PFGTI Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program PFI Indigenous Forestry Protocol 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 REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RIA REDD+ Indígena Amazónico RIBCA Red Indígena Bribri-Cabecar SEDAM Secretary of State for Environmental Development SEDATU Secretary of Agrarian, Land and Urban Development SFCP Surui Forest Carbon Project USAID United States Agency for International Development VCS Verified Carbon Standard (now Verra) ZOFEMAT Federal Maritime Terrestrial Zone AB Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of the Final Performance Evaluation (PE) 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 October 2018 by a team from The Cloudburst Group and included a mid-term and final evaluation. The Mid-term Evaluation Report was submitted to USAID in 2016. AIME was a 5-year USAID cooperative agreement awarded to U.S.-based nonprofit Forest Trends. The overall objective of the AIME activity was to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) 1, and REDD+-compatible activities in ways that improved livelihoods and well-being for traditional communities, while also promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. Forest Trends implemented the project together with nine additional environmental and indigenous organizations that served as members of the Forest-Based Livelihoods Consortium (FBLC). AIME activities started in Fall 2013 and ended in October 2018. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND 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 overall purpose of the AIME PE was to document the efficacy of the AIME activity’s approaches and methodology, and to inform USAID and other stakeholders of opportunities for additional investment related to reducing emissions and conserving carbon stocks. To this end, the Final AIME PE sought to answer the following evaluation questions:2 • Evaluation Question 1 (EQ1): How has AIME helped empower indigenous groups/local communities to engage in territorial governance, buen vivir, the conservation of carbon stocks, and the reduction of emissions?  EQ1 (a): Within these groups, have the benefits been equitable (extended to both sexes)?  EQ1 (b): Have there been any unintended consequences of the activity with respect to vulnerable subgroups of populations? • Evaluation Question 2 (EQ2): How has AIME led governments (national, regional and local) 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+)?  EQ2 (a): How have governments reformed and aligned their jurisdictional policies and markets as a result of AIME action?  EQ2 (b): How has AIME empowered indigenous leaders to influence governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect, and 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 As requested by USAID LAC/RSD, the final evaluation questions were slightly revised in 2017 to reflect changes in AIME programming and outcomes of interest to USAID. These changes are further explained in Section 2. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 2 compensate Indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods (REDD+)?3 • Evaluation Question 3 (EQ3): To what extent has AIME contributed or not to transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support territorial governance, the concept of buen vivir, the conservation of carbon stocks, and emission mitigation?4 • Evaluation Question 4 (EQ4): Is there a different approach that USAID should take in the region to reduce carbon emissions and promote the conservation of existing carbon stocks by working directly with indigenous people/local communities on deforestation and forest degradation resulting from land use change? • Evaluation Question 5 (EQ5): What new technical areas or programming approaches should be considered and possibly adopted for any follow-on sustainable landscapes/REDD+ activity in the region 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 and promote conservation of carbon stocks?5 To answer the evaluation questions and assess the performance of the AIME activity, the evaluation team employed four complementary methods across the Mid-term and Final PEs, including a desk review, field assessments, case studies and a gender assessment. A detailed description of the evaluation methods and limitations is included in Section 2 of this report. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The evaluation team finds mixed results across outcomes related to capacity and engagement in territorial governance, buen vivir, and activities related to conservation and emissions reduction. AIME￾supported processes for the development of Life Plans in Mexico and Saneamiento Plans in Honduras contributed to increased capacity to engage in territorial governance and resource management at the community-level. However, only in Mexico is there evidence that the results of Life Plan development efforts—coupled with direct support for mangrove conservation—increased levels of engagement in conservation activities in ways that contributed to the conservation of carbon stocks within the life of the project. In Brazil and Honduras, tenure insecurity over indigenous lands—largely driven by political and market forces—remains a significant obstacle to improved territorial governance and the reduction of emissions, highlighting the pressing need for continued support for indigenous land rights. The evaluation team finds little evidence that the AIME-supported Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program, Community Content Promoters Training Program, or Cultural Mediators Program motivated increased levels of engagement in activities related to territorial governance, conservation, or the reduction of emissions within the life of the project. Future education and training programs should include follow-on support at the community level focused on better linking the skills and knowledge received to actual changes in relevant practice and policy. We find no evidence of inequitable benefits with respect to men and women or unintended consequences of community-level activities with respect to vulnerable subgroups of populations. However, the findings on tenure insecurity are important to consider in this context, since achieving 3 EQ2 was revised at endline to include EQ2 (a) and EQ2 (b) and examine the outcomes of AIME’s efforts to increase the participation of indigenous and traditional leaders in jurisdictional policies and markets. 4 EQ3 was revised at endline to examine progress towards supporting territorial governance and the conservation of carbon stocks in order to explore the outcomes of AIME activities in indigenous territories with minimal or no deforestation. 5 EQ4 and EQ5 were revised at endline to focus specifically on approaches in Latin American with similar objectives to AIME. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 3 equitable distribution of REDD+ carbon related payments requires both clear tenure rights and clear rules regarding forest resource use.6 The evaluation team finds that AIME had an overall influence on policy reform, though this was impacted by the degree to which jurisdictional approaches had already been advanced in AIME focal jurisdictions prior to program start. In general, the program only catalyzed the initial steps to real reform. Outcomes are most notable in Brazil and Mexico—both of which already had links to jurisdictional processes and international markets prior to the program, including under California AB-32. Support for sub-national governments around REDD+ and benefit sharing also produced outcomes limited to Brazil and Mexico. In terms of empowering indigenous leaders to influence governments, the we find that workshops, as well as support for dialogues within the existing structures of national and sub-national REDD+ policies, have served to give indigenous and local people a place and voice at the negotiating table. However, the outcomes of efforts to develop or implement research and tools in support of aligning policy and markets or compensating indigenous peoples and local communities for their conservation efforts were largely unrealized. There also remains a limited understanding of the conditions in high forest cover/low deforestation (HFLD) jurisdictions, including how best to engage indigenous peoples and local communities living in these areas and the challenges they face. Any future programming that intends to include HFLD jurisdictions will require additional research that generates a deeper understanding of the characteristics of these areas, best practices for conservation and community forest management, how these jurisdictions could theoretically be supported by national and sub-national policy processes and international finance mechanisms, and the challenges related to continued conservation of these areas. The evaluation team finds that AIME contributed most to market transactions between indigenous producers and private sector actors by directly facilitating market interactions and negotiations and strengthening the capacity of indigenous producers to develop and bring REDD+ compatible products to market. Indigenous producer groups often have limited capacity to engage in the market for sustainable products and climate finance in ways that are profitable and equitable. Consequently, the connections facilitated by AIME-supported on-line platforms are likely insufficient to lead to market transactions that contribute to livelihood or conservation outcomes. Future development programming should focus on facilitating deeper levels of engagement between private sector actors and indigenous producers, and community-level efforts to strengthen the capacity of indigenous enterprises. Lastly, we find that AIME support for REDD+ and climate financing mechanisms was largely unsuccessful within the life of the project. AIME activities did not increase access to climate finance among the Yawanawa or Surui indigenous people in Brazil, and efforts to secure funding for the development of an Indigenous Amazon Fund were also unsuccessful. Also in relation to climate finance, the evaluation team finds no evidence of gendered outcomes or unintended consequences with respect to vulnerable populations. However, the AIME approach largely focused on communities as a whole, rather than focusing specifically on women or subgroups as members of communities. Gender and equity concerns relevant to the potential effects of REDD+ and climate finance transactions on the livelihoods of forest￾dependent communities, particularly in relation to social equality and the provision of equitable outcomes, should be considered by USAID and other donors when working with communities to ensure future support for climate finance mechanisms or transactions does not marginalize or disenfranchise women and vulnerable persons. 6 Knox et al. 2011; Larson, 2011; Wunder, 2009. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 4 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AIME ACTIVITY: OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH AIME was a 5-year (2013-2018) USAID cooperative agreement awarded to U.S.-based nonprofit Forest Trends. Forest Trends implemented the project with nine additional environmental and indigenous organizations, together serving as members of the Forest￾Based Livelihoods Consortium (FBLC). 7 The overall objective of AIME was 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 improved livelihoods and well￾being for traditional communities while promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. AIME worked towards this objective by engaging in the following three focus areas: 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. 7 Members of the FBLC included: 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). FIGURE I: FBLC MEMBERS Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 5 Each focus area of the program was intended to generate an Intermediate Result (IR), as specified in the AIME Results Framework below.8 FIGURE 2. AIME ACTIVITY RESULTS FRAMEWORK The AIME activity’s approach involved project activities across seven key jurisdictions.9 These included five sub-national jurisdictions (Acre, Mato Grosso, and Rondonia, Brazil; Chiapas, Mexico and; Gracias a Dios, Honduras) and two national-level jurisdictions (Peru, Colombia). Across these seven jurisdictions, AIME activities were organized and implemented according to the three AIME IRs. It is important to note that many of the project activities were complementary and cross-cutting, and contributed to progress not only across IRs, but also across multiple jurisdictions. This approach is explained and analyzed in further detail in relation to the five evaluation questions throughout this report. 8 The AIME Results Framework was excerpted from the 2014 AIME Year 1 Performance Monitoring Plan and Work Plan and updated based on the Forest Trends, 2015, Monitoring & Evaluation Plan of the AIME Activity. 9 The seven jurisdictions of project focus were finalized in AIME Year 2, Quarter 4. FIGURE 3. AIME ACTIVITY TARGET JURISDICTIONS Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 6 2.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS To answer the evaluation questions and assess the performance of the AIME activity, the evaluation team applied four complementary methods across the Mid-term and Final PEs, including a desk review, final field assessment, case studies and a gender assessment.10 The Mid-term PE (2016) reviewed AIME performance, assessed the ways in which project activities were contributing to the achievement of the AIME objective, and provided recommendations to improve programming in the second half of the project. Findings and recommendations from the Mid-term PE were considered as part of the Final PE analysis to examine progress and achievements throughout the life of AIME. COMPONENT 1: DESK REVIEW The AIME PE team conducted a desk review of key documents and materials related to AIME project activities including an in-depth analysis of quantitative and qualitative AIME monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and performance indicator data collected by FBLC members. Key documents included: annual work plans; quarterly reports; workshop and event summaries; training and outreach materials; and, research reports developed by FBLC members and project partners. The desk review also included publicly available resources such as research reports and journal articles. A complete list of documents reviewed for the evaluation is included in Annex 3. Content analysis of these documents allowed the team to track progress towards project outcomes, link project activities to the evaluation questions, inform the case study and field assessment components of the methodology, and identify and prioritize primary data collection activities. COMPONENT 2: FINAL FIELD ASSESSMENT The AIME PE team conducted the final field assessment in April 2018 and visited project sites in Mato Grosso and Rondonia, Brazil over an eight-day period. 11 The team selected Brazil for the assessment based on guidance from USAID and input from Forest Trends. Since the team visited Brazil during the mid-term field assessment, the team was able to observe and analyze progress made throughout the second half of the project first-hand. The team selected the jurisdictions of Mato Grosso and Rondonia based on the amount of project activity in these sites and their proximity to one another, in consultation from USAID and Forest Trends. This approach allowed the team to optimize the time and funding available for the field assessment. Throughout the field assessment, the team facilitated focus group discussions (FGDs) with 17 project beneficiaries and conducted individual and group interviews with 22 key informants and FBLC staff members. 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 10 The evaluation plan and methodology utilized to carry out the AIME PE was originally developed by the Cloudburst Group in 2014 and detailed in the AIME PE Plan and Timeline Report. In February 2018, the AIME PE Concept Note was developed to update and summarize the final evaluation methodology, plan for the final field assessment, and finalize the data collection instruments used throughout the final field assessment. 11 A mid-term field assessment was conducted in 2016 and included site visits to: Acre, Brazil; Rondonia, Brazil and; Chiapas, Mexico. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 7 informants of interest included local indigenous and traditional community leaders, indigenous chiefs and policy advocates, sub-national government officials, and representatives from organizations partnering with the FBLC. The team used both the FGDs and KIIs to collect detailed information from project participants, stakeholders, and partners on specific topics relevant to the Final AIME PE evaluation questions. The team identified and selected key informants and FGD participants based on the advice of the FBLC and the team’s identification of important stakeholders throughout the desk review. 12 The evaluation team designed and utilized four data collection instruments - included in Annex 4- to guide primary data collection. These instruments were adapted as necessary throughout the field assessment to fit the context of the field site location and stakeholder involvement with AIME activities. The team voice recorded all KIIs and FGDs and translated and transcribed the recordings as necessary throughout the final PE analysis. A deductive approach was used for the qualitative analysis; the evaluation questions and AIME Results Framework guided the analysis of the KII and FGD 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 organization and comparison of related pieces of information to identify key themes across various data sources and inform the evaluation findings. COMPONENT 3: CASE STUDIES The evaluation team also conducted case studies of three AIME focal jurisdictions including Gracias a Dios, Honduras; Peru; and Chiapas, Mexico. Each case study, presented in Annex 5 of this report, includes an assessment of the networks and relationships that the AIME activity facilitated and supported in the given jurisdiction, including partnerships between communities, government officials, and the private sector. The case studies extend 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 team chose the three jurisdictions highlighted in the case studies based on a maximum variation sampling strategy. The logic behind this sampling approach was to sample for heterogeneity (i.e. diverse sites) to better understand the perceptions, performance, and outcomes of the AIME activity in jurisdictions that were not visited during the final field assessments. Since primary data from the final field assessment was not available for these sites, the case studies rely on the desk review, in addition to data collected from secondary resources and remote KIIs with project stakeholders. 12 A detailed list of the FGDs and KIIs conducted by the evaluation team for the Mid-term and Final PEs is included in Annex 2. FIGURE 4. FINAL FIELD ASSESSMENT SITES Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 8 COMPONENT 4: GENDER ASSESSMENT The gender assessment component of the evaluation considers the differential impacts of the AIME activity on men and women with respect to their participation in, and influence of, project activities and their respective ability to access AIME-generated project benefits. The assessment also seeks to understand whether or not project activities generated any unintended positive or negative outcomes on women as compared to men. Guided by the USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy (2012), the gender assessment component is also intended to further USAID’s Automated Directives System gender programming requirements through the integration of gender analysis findings into program evaluation and design. To support the gender assessment, the team designed the data collection tools utilized during site visits to capture the perspectives and experiences of both men and women. Aligned with USAID policy, all data collected by the PE team was sex-disaggregated. Finally, throughout the desk review content analysis, the team paid special attention to sex-disaggregated data and content regarding project activities in relation to women. The team formulated gender-specific programming recommendations based on the findings of the gender assessment, included in Section 4. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The Final PE faced significant limitations with respect to resources, thus requiring a narrow and focused approach to primary data collection and the field assessment component of the methodology. The limited budget and timeframe available for the field assessment coupled with the geographic scope of the AIME activity (interventions focused on seven key jurisdictions across five countries) meant the evaluation team was only able to collect primary data from two jurisdictions of project focus during the final field assessment. In these areas, the evaluation was only able to conduct a limited number of FGDs and KIIs with a small sample of AIME stakeholders. As such, findings from the field assessments are based solely on qualitative data and cannot be generalized across the entire AIME activity. The PE team sought to mitigate the effects of these limitations by employing the multi-component methodology summarized above, and by supplementing in-person data collection with remote interviews focused on FBLC members, local implementing partners, private sector stakeholders, and key collaborators. Nonetheless, the lack of primary data required a heavy reliance on project documentation and reporting data to inform the evaluation findings. The team selected site visit locations based on recommendations from USAID and Forest Trends. Many of the interviewees were identified based on the advice of the FBLC. To reduce potential bias and contribute to an objective assessment of the AIME activity, the AIME PE team independently identified additional stakeholders to interview remotely and during site visits. Another key limitation was the limited amount of M&E reporting data throughout the first half of the AIME activity. More specifically, precise indicator definitions and documented methods of collecting and calculating indicator reporting data remained unspecified until the third quarter of the second year of project, limiting the quantity and quality of quantitative data available for analysis. In addition, verified quarterly reporting data from each member of the FBLC was not consistently available in the reporting materials shared with the team, although the quality and availability of reporting data did improve in the second half of the project. Due to a lack of sex-disaggregated reporting data on participation in AIME-supported activities—such as workshops and training programs—the evaluation team was limited in the extent to which it could consider the differential outcomes of the AIME activity on men and women with respect to their participation in, and influence of, project activities. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 9 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: RELEVANT AIME APPROACH The first focus area of the AIME activity—Communities—centered around creating tools and approaches to increase the capacity of indigenous and traditional communities to engage with and implement resource management and conservation activities. Activities implemented under this focus area were designed to empower indigenous groups and local communities to engage in territorial governance, buen vivir, the conservation of carbon stocks, and the reduction of emissions (IR1) and are, therefore, most relevant to an analysis of EQ1. To address EQ1, the evaluation team assessed the results and performance of IR1 activities related to three main programmatic approaches including: community-level tools and models for effective territorial governance; education and training initiatives; and, community-level support to facilitate the participation and engagement of indigenous communities in activities and policy discussions related to conservation and climate change. A summary of the project activities implemented across these three approaches is provided below followed by an examination of the progress made towards achieving the outcomes of interest in relation to EQ1. COMMUNITY-LEVEL TOOLS AND MODELS Life Plans and Saneamiento Plans13 represent two main tools supported by the project to support community-level capacity to engage in territorial governance. Existing research suggests that creating and implementing a Life Plan—a community-led plan for economic and social development centered around the preservation of indigenous community and culture—may help communities better manage and protect their resources. In theory, Life Plan development also represents 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—such as access and use arrangements with different users that could potentially allow communities to engage in a more equitable, and less conflictual, manner with outside actors.14 A total of five Life Plans were reported as a result of the AIME project. 15 In Costa Rica, the Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó communities developed Life Plans following AIME-supported workshops and trainings—facilitated by PRISMA—with the Bribri-Cabecar Indigenous Network (RIBCA) on the Life Plan process and methodology. In Mexico, AIME helped develop Life Plans 13 AIME supported Saneamiento Plans to enhance legal security among the Miskitu in Honduras. The resulting Saneamiento Plans include territorial management strategies and activities. 14 Van Dam, C. (2011). Indigenous territories and REDD+ in Latin America: Opportunity or threat? Forests, 2(1), 394-414. 15 Reported as progress towards AIME Performance Indicator 1.2: Number of indigenous and/or campesino organizations that have developed Life Plans or other intercultural proposals for REDD+. EQ1: How has AIME helped empower indigenous groups/local communities to engage in territorial governance, buen vivir, the conservation of carbon stocks, and the reduction of emissions? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 10 with three coastal ejidos 16. AIME also supported the implementation of existing Life Plans with the Yawanawa and Surui indigenous people of Brazil and the development of Saneamiento Plans for two Miskitu territorial councils in Honduras. TRAINING AND EDUCATION INITIATIVES AIME supported three main training and education initiatives with local indigenous partners to foster the creation and exchange of indigenous knowledge on topics related to territorial governance and conservation. These included: the Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program (Chiapas, Rondonia, Peru, and Colombia); the Community Content Promoters Training Program (Chiapas and Honduras); and, the Cultural Mediators Program on Forests and Climate Change (Colombia and Rondonia). The Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program was designed to equip indigenous leaders with the knowledge necessary to effectively engage in territorial governance and conservation activities. The Community Content Promoters Training program aimed to increase knowledge of REDD+, emission mitigation, and climate change among community representatives. The Cultural Mediators Program supported indigenous teachers with training and curriculum materials to teach on conservation and climate change. FACILITATING PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT AIME’s approach to facilitate the participation and engagement of indigenous communities in activities related to conservation and climate change varied by jurisdiction. In Chiapas, AIME focused on mangrove conservation and restoration efforts at the community-level. In Honduras, the project encouraged dialogue between Miskitu organizations and state government entities regarding territorial governance and REDD+, and supported a forest management policy reflective of the Miskitu culture. 17 In Rondonia, the AIME approach emphasized workshops and seminars to increase indigenous participation in discussions and policy forums related to REDD+ and climate change. 16 An ejido system is a territory held in common by a group of families. It comprises two kinds of property rights: individual landholdings held in usufruct by families for production purposes, and common lands where all community members have access and use rights often subject to local resource management regulations (Kosoy et al, 2008). 17 The outcomes of these efforts are further discussed in the Honduras Case Study in Annex 5. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 11 3.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: FINDINGS This section includes an analysis of the performance of the three approaches summarized above across outcomes related to capacity and engagement in territorial governance, the concept of buen vivir, conservation, and emissions reduction. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1 and explained below. Subsequent recommendations are discussed in Section 4. TABLE 1. EVALUATION QUESTION 1 RESULTS SUMMARY Overall, the evaluation team finds mixed results in relation to EQ1 across approaches, outcomes, and target sites. The evaluation team finds no evidence that AIME support for Life Plans in Costa Rica directly contributed to improved capacity among the Nairi Awari or Alto Chirripó communities. AIME-supported Saneamiento Plans in Honduras contributed to increased capacity to engage in resource governance and management at the organizational level by equipping territorial councils with sound territorial management strategies. Although capacity to engage in territorial governance was strengthened in Honduras, the evaluation team finds no evidence of impacts related to conservation or the reduction of emissions. In Mexico, the results of Life Plan development efforts coupled with direct support for mangrove conservation provide evidence of AIME’s successful contribution to increased levels of engagement in conservation activities at the community-level, leading to conservation of carbon stocks within the life of the project. In Brazil and Honduras, tenure insecurity over indigenous lands—largely driven by political and market forces—remains a significant obstacle to improved territorial governance and the reduction of emissions, highlighting the pressing need for continued support for indigenous land rights. The evaluation finds no evidence that the AIME intervention minimized the negative impacts of tenure insecurity in Brazil among the Surui. Further, the only quantitative data available on the quantity of GHG emissions reduced or sequestered as a direct result of AIME shows negative progress throughout the life of the project due to increased deforestation in the Surui Territory. Findings on tenure insecurity are important to consider in Outcome Overall assessment Sustainability Gender Acre, Brazil Mato Grosso, Brazil Rondonia, Brazil Chiapas, Mexico Gracias a Dios, Honduras Peru Colombia Tools and models Capacity building Indigenous engagement Data source Improved territorial governance P, S Buen Vivir P, S Conservation of carbon stocks S Reduction of emissions S No Improvement Data Source Some Improvement P = Primary Strong Improvement S = Secondary Sites Approach Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 12 the context of gender, since achieving equitable distribution of REDD+ carbon related payments requires both clear tenure rights and clear rules regarding forest resource use.18 The evaluation team finds some evidence that the AIME-supported Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program (PFGTI), Community Content Promoters Training Program, and Cultural Mediators Program equipped indigenous leaders and teachers with knowledge and tools related to territorial governance, conservation, and the reduction of emissions. These programs reflected indigenous knowledge and culture and were also easily scaled and expanded to a variety of AIME jurisdictions and local contexts. For example, the evaluation team’s review of curriculum materials, reporting documents, and qualitative data obtained from remote interviews with program stakeholders suggests that the PFTGI improved knowledge among program participants on topics related to territorial governance and laid the groundwork for greater participation in territorial governance activities. In Rondonia, the Cultural Mediators Program on Forests and Climate Change advanced the integration of indigenous knowledge into the basic curriculum of the state’s indigenous schools for topics related to climate change science, forestry and territorial management. However, the evaluation team finds no evidence that the improvements in capacity among program participants resulted in increased levels of engagement in territorial governance or conservation activities during the life of the project. Based on this finding, the evaluation team recommends that to achieve these broader effects, future USAID support should focus on better linking the skills received in trainings to changes in relevant practice and policies. AIME facilitated the participation and engagement of traditional and indigenous communities in activities and policy forums to strengthen the capacity of organizations and individuals to engage in territorial governance, conservation, and the reduction of emissions. In Honduras, AIME increased the organizational capacity of the Indigenous Territorial Councils of the Mosquitia (MASTA) to engage with government entities surrounding the saneamiento process and a REDD+ strategy for the Mosquitia territory.19 Capacity-building efforts in Rondonia also increased the participation of indigenous communities in discussions and policy forums related to REDD+ and climate change and resulted in a state-level Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) strategy among indigenous peoples. Through its work on mangrove conservation in Mexico, AIME empowered communities with the knowledge and skills necessary to understand the impacts of climate change and the role of mangroves in providing critical ecosystem services and mitigation benefits in the context of REDD+ and low-emission rural development (LED-R) programs. AIME also strengthened the capacity of communities in Chiapas to engage in territorial governance and conservation by establishing community associations dedicated to mangrove restoration and providing legal support to delineate community concessions within federal maritime reserves. Furthermore, a number of AIME-supported funding proposals increased the financial capacity of communities to participate in mangrove conservation and management. With regard to gender equity, the evaluation team finds no evidence of inequitable benefits with respect to men and women or unintended consequences of the activity with respect to 18 Knox et al. 2011; Larson, 2011; Wunder, 2009. 19 An analysis of these outcomes is further detailed in the Honduras Case Study in Annex 5. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 13 vulnerable subgroups of populations on EQ1. However, sex-disaggregated project monitoring data on participation in activities implemented under IR1is exceptionally limited across AIME sites. There is no reporting data on how, if at all, Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó women were involved in the community-level Life Plan development workshops and meetings in Costa Rica. Similarly, sex-disaggregated data limitations restrict an assessment of whether there was variation in project participation across Miskitu men and women in Honduras. Based on the limited amount of evidence available, the evaluation is unable to conclude if the Saneamiento Plan development process was participatory in nature. The evaluation team finds that women were the main participants and contributors to Life Plan activities in Mexico. AIME reporting data and findings from the mid-term field assessment indicate that AIME’s participatory approach to Life Plans development in Mexico succeeded in creating a space for women to participate in activities related to Life Plans and gender-focused dialogues related to community development. An in-depth assessment of the overall and site level performance in relation to these findings can be found in Annex1 along with assessments of the program approach with respect to women and vulnerable populations. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 14 3.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: RELEVANT AIME APPROACH The second focus area of AIME—Jurisdictions—involved 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+. Activities implemented under this focus area were intended to better recognize and incentivize indigenous and local community contributions to forest conservation through the reform and alignment of jurisdictional policies and markets to support resilient and low emission development (IR2). As such, activities implemented under IR2 are most relevant to an analysis of EQ2. To answer EQ2, the evaluation team assessed the results and performance of IR2 activities related to the following three main programmatic approaches including: the promotion and facilitation of dialogues between governments and indigenous organizations; support for sub￾national governments to design state-level REDD+ legislation and benefit sharing mechanisms; and, the use of research and extension to increase the visibility of the needs and aspirations of indigenous peoples and traditional communities in jurisdictional REDD+ programs. A summary of the project activities implemented across these three approaches is provided below. This is followed by an examination of progress made towards achieving the outcomes of interest in relation to EQ2. PROMOTION AND FACILITATION OF DIALOGUES Workshops were a primary means of advancing dialogues between government and indigenous stakeholders in the pursuit of policy reform under AIME. AIME partners also leveraged the convening power of existing forums supporting national and sub-national REDD+ and climate change policies for discussion on safeguards, adaptation, consultation processes, and other topics. Within indigenous communities, AIME catalyzed the creation of youth groups that meet bi-weekly to hone future leaders, with up to 80 individuals in attendance at each meeting. Nine Surui youth also began or were approved for higher education during Year 4 as a result of these discussion spaces. Program documents indicated that Metareila provided support to the youth groups and enhanced the capacity of Surui communities to engage in effective leadership through dialogue by providing leadership education and training to over 100 youth through Paiter University. AIME worked in Mexico to advance dialogues with federal government representatives, the Chiapas State Forestry Congress, and key national and jurisdictional stakeholders through participation in key discussions related to REDD+, policy and institutional reforms, and participatory aspects of REDD+ at the national and sub-national levels. Unlike other AIME focal jurisdictions, in Colombia, Forest Trends and OPIAC began working to highlight the importance EQ2: How has AIME led governments to reform and align jurisdictional policies and markets so that they recognize, protect, and compensate indigenous and local communities for their contributions to conservation? and REDD+? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 15 and inclusion of indigenous territories with minimal or no deforestation in reaching national emissions reductions goals and as models for forest conservation. The ongoing partnership with the GCF culminated in the first meeting of the GCF Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities Working Group, with participation from, among others, indigenous and community leaders from Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Honduras, Peru, and Indonesia. SUPPORT FOR SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS ON REDD+ LEGISLATION AND BENEFIT SHARING MECHANISMS AIME support to jurisdictional governments was primarily centered in the states of Rondonia, Brazil20 and Chiapas, Mexico, and included continued advancement of work under California AB￾32 in support of the inclusion of indigenous and traditional communities in multiple AIME focal jurisdictions. To develop Chiapas’ Public Agency for Territorial Development (APDT) in Mexico, AIME facilitated exchanges between the governments of Chiapas and Jalisco states. Community understanding of benefit sharing mechanisms was greatly enhanced through workshops and the subsequent implementation of new strategies in Chiapas, which also directly improved participatory mechanisms for decision-making in Conquista Campesina. As a capstone to this engagement with government stakeholders around jurisdictional programs in Mexico, and in support of AIME’s work in Colombia, PNS and PRISMA collaborated with the Interamerican Development Bank to generate analyses related to extending REDD+ benefits to indigenous peoples and traditional communities through jurisdictional approaches. USE OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION A major focus of AIME research was to underscore the role of indigenous peoples in forest management and mitigation initiatives, particularly the contribution of indigenous peoples to meeting emissions reduction targets established under international climate agreements. This included a study conducted by IPAM, which focused on the role of indigenous peoples in the forest landscapes of the Brazilian Amazon in meeting Brazil’s international climate change commitments, including goals established in the country’s nationally determined contributions (NDC). AMPB developed a similar methodology in Mexico focused on the impact of Community Forest Management on mitigating emissions. In Honduras, AIME supported PRISMA’s diagnostic study of the Mosquitia territory, Diagnostico territorial de La Mosquitia, completed in 2016. 20 AIME improved the capacity of government representatives to design and implement Rondonia’s state REDD+ policy by working with the Secretary of State for Environmental Development (SEDAM) to develop technical policy proposals to support key components of the strategy. AIME also worked with the Amazon Conservation Team (ECAM) and the Institute of Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Amazon (IDESAM) to enhance the capacity of these organizations to support the policy development process. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 16 3.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: FINDINGS To examine the progress and achievements of AIME in relation to jurisdictional policies and markets that recognize, protect, and compensate indigenous and local communities for their contributions to public goods, the evaluation team analyzed the performance of the three approaches summarized above across outcomes related to government policy and market reforms, and the empowerment of indigenous leaders. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2. Subsequent recommendations are detailed in Section 4. TABLE 2. EVALUATION QUESTION 2 RESULTS SUMMARY The evaluation finds that AIME had an overall influence on policy reform, though this was impacted by the degree to which jurisdictional approaches had already been advanced in AIME focal jurisdictions prior to program start. In general, the program only catalyzed the initial steps to real reform, due in part to overall program length, differing degrees of progress or “readiness” in AIME focal countries prior to program start, and shifting political climates, particularly in the last couple years of the program in Brazil. Outcomes are most notable in Brazil and Mexico—both of which already had links to jurisdictional processes and international markets prior to program start, including under California AB-32. There was incremental progress in Colombia, and limited outcomes related to advancing policy reform, market alignment, and empowerment of indigenous leaders to influence government in Honduras. However, these are not adequately supported with documented outcomes for inclusion in this analysis. We find no evidence that AIME meaningfully advanced policy reform in Peru directly. While many of the advances under AIME contribute to a greater enabling environment and potential for all jurisdictional approaches and market linkages, both under AIME and globally, they generally did not result in significant policy reform in AIME focal jurisdictions. In terms of empowering indigenous leaders to influence governments, we find that workshops, as well as support for dialogues within the existing structures of national and sub-national REDD+ policies, served to give indigenous and local people a place and voice at the negotiating Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 17 table. It is important to note, however, that these findings rely heavily on AIME reporting data. Political factors beyond the control of AIME partners were also a factor in Brazil, where the National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI) and its state-level bodies have been significantly undermined by the Michel Temer administration. Many of FUNAI’s functions have been transferred to the Ministry of Justice, and the outlook of many indigenous peoples on engagement with the government and respect for territorial rights have suffered setbacks as violent land disputes have increased. Future support for territorial rights and land tenure for indigenous peoples in Brazil will be essential for reestablishing trust among indigenous communities and achieving lasting, good-faith outcomes through dialogues and workshops with government counterparts. Tenure related outcomes may be increasingly challenging to attain in Brazil, however, given the election victory of Jair Bolsonaro whose campaign promises included combining the environment and agriculture ministries and halting recognition of indigenous lands. AIME was somewhat more successful in promoting rights for ejiditarios through dialogues in Mexico, most notably around blue carbon in mangrove systems. Partners in Mexico were able to consolidate Red-MOCAF as a key indigenous player in national-level dialogues. However, there were no meaningful legal or policy reforms resulting from AIME support for dialogues in Mexico during the second half of the program, as interventions were primarily focused on support for community-based initiatives. Support for sub-national governments around REDD+ and benefit sharing produced outcomes only in Brazil and Mexico. In Brazil, AIME partners worked to address the long-standing challenge of emissions quantification in indigenous territories to support their inclusion as part of jurisdictional nested REDD+ approaches, including models for replication across jurisdictions, but ultimately failed to implement any of these advances. In Mato Grosso, AIME support directly improved the state REDD+ policy with regard to benefit sharing mechanisms, inclusive governance, and statewide consultation processes. However, efforts to implement Indigenous Amazonian REDD+ (RIA) to overcome the lack of state REDD+ policy in Rondonia and the general lack of funds flowing directly to indigenous communities were ultimately unsuccessful. This can be attributed in part to a lack of private sector engagement, and the structure of the RIA benefit sharing mechanism that necessitates COICA’s direct involvement, thus limiting the flow of international climate finance. There is also limited capacity on the ground among communities and RIA stakeholders to access RIA funds. In Mexico, AIME directly enhanced the capacity of relevant government agencies to improve inclusion and participation of local communities in mangrove management and sub-national REDD+ by developing policy briefs on key emerging focal areas in Chiapas and similar jurisdictions. AIME support to the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and other organizations resulted in the incorporation of mangroves and “blue carbon” into REDD+ policies and the role of these ecosystems in national emissions reductions commitments. A new area of focus for AIME in Mexico during the second half of the program was on the development of a Public Agency for Territorial Development (APDT) in Chiapas. This was a significant advance in Mexico under AIME, as the APDT is a mandatory institutional mechanism to coordinate public investments in landscape-scale interventions for state REDD+ strategies in Mexico, and provides support for integrated landscape planning as part of REDD+ implementation In an international context, the visibility of indigenous peoples and territories in national and international spaces was also greatly increased with AIME support. For example, AIME advanced the concept of the Indigenous Offset Protocol under California AB-32 by bringing together Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 18 indigenous leaders from Acre, the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and Governor Jerry Brown. These meetings solidified California’s support for the proposed International Offset Provision linking Acre (and potentially other AIME jurisdictions) to California under AB-32 and potentially providing critical financial support for jurisdictional REDD+. These dialogues also continued to make the case to ARB for the inclusion of tropical forests in other international jurisdictions more generally in California’s environmental agenda. A California standard for forest credits would catalyze access to finance for indigenous peoples that only a private market can provide. AIME also contributed to the advancement of frameworks that would meet the increased demand for offsets beginning in 2020 as a result of the global International Civil Aviation Organization agreement and provide co-benefits for biodiversity conservation.21 However, other outcomes that could directly result in the flow of private sector finance to indigenous communities in AIME jurisdictions as a result of AIME support were not found. The research and extension tools developed with AIME assistance contribute to increasing the body of work in support of indigenous inclusion, consideration of indigenous peoples and traditional community issues in the development of national and sub-national REDD+ policy, and generally recognizing the importance of indigenous people in natural resource conservation and climate change mitigation. However, a major shortcoming of the AIME activity was the failure of project partners to actively deploy the research tools and methodologies developed with program support. In many cases, the development of these tools began too late in the program cycle to realistically implement or pilot under AIME. As a result, the evaluation team is unable to draw conclusions about the applicability of these tools and methodologies and is not able to attribute these deliverables to outcomes achieved in relation to EQ2. With regard to gender, it is challenging for any development program to catalyze changes in long-held indigenous and traditional community hierarchies, traditions, and gender roles. There were significant social and technical barriers to women’s participation in national and sub￾national spaces beyond the control of the FBLC and outside the scope of AIME. However, AIME initiated the process of setting women up for meaningful future participation in sub-national, national and international dialogues and policy processes related to jurisdictional approaches by providing educational opportunities for women on REDD+, climate change, and territorial governance, and by supporting innovative spaces for dialogues through platforms such as the monthly meetings facilitated with Surui women in Rondonia and Life Plan development workshops in Chiapas. An in-depth assessment of the jurisdictional-level performance in relation to these findings can be found in Annex 1. 21 Oppenheimer, Michael and Steve Schwartzman. (2018, August 29). “How California Can Save the Amazon.” Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opinion/california-climate-save-amazon.html Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 19 3.5 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: RELEVANT AIME APPROACH The third focus area of AIME—Dialogues—centered around bringing community, government, and private sector representatives together to support REDD+ compatible activities that benefit local communities and promote private sector engagement. Activities implemented under this focus area were intended to generate 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 (IR3) and are, therefore, most relevant to EQ3. To answer EQ3, the evaluation team assessed the results and performance of IR3 activities related to the following three main approaches: facilitating communication and interaction among indigenous producers and private sector actors; supporting the production and commercialization of REDD+-compatible products; and, supporting climate finance mechanisms. A summary of the project activities implemented across these three approaches is provided below. This is followed by an examination of the progress made towards achieving the outcomes of interest in relation to EQ3. FACILITATING COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION AIME facilitated communication and interaction among indigenous producers and private sector actors to support and expand the market for REDD+ compatible products and increase community access to climate finance in two main ways. First, the project supported the establishment and functionality of the Canopy Bridge22 website—an on-line platform designed to connect buyers with indigenous producers of sustainable products- and the Indigenous Atlas—a publicly accessible on-line database aimed to enhance the visibility of their indigenous products and contributions to conservation. AIME also provided on-demand, personalized assistance for private sector actors and facilitated direct trade relationships between buyers and indigenous producer groups. SUPPORT FOR REDD+-COMPATIBLE PRODUCTS AIME worked at the community level to strengthen the capacity of individuals and producer groups to develop and bring REDD+ compatible products to market. More specifically, AIME provided direct support for cashew and pine resin producers in Chiapas and for the production and sale of handicrafts among Surui women. Project efforts related to the Surui handicraft initiative centered on strengthening the commercialization and sale of handicrafts produced by Surui women and establishing a handicraft store in Cacoal, Rondonia during the first half of the project. AIME also worked with the Surui to support the production, processing, and sale of sustainable products such as cacao, Brazil Nuts, coffee, and bananas. These efforts engaged both 22 Canopy Bridge is an easily accessible and open-access directory that allows suppliers to create custom profiles highlighting their capabilities, products, and certifications (such as Fair Trade and Rain Forest Alliance). EQ3: To what extent has AIME contributed or not to transactions (including REDD+ financing) that support territorial governance, the concept of buen vivir, the conservation of carbon stocks, and emission mitigation? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 20 men and women and focused mainly on: training and extension for on-farm improvements; strengthening the organizational capacity of producer groups; and, expanding the market for these products. Lastly, AIME helped develop and launch of two sustainable products from indigenous producers in Peru. The first product is a traditional seasoning sauce made from yuca called aji negro sourced from Bora and Huitoto women in the Ampiyacu watershed. AIME worked with fishing groups in the Pacaya Samiria Reserve to launch the second product, paiche meat—a sliced, smoked fish product geared towards high-end gourmet markets. SUPPORT FOR CLIMATE FINANCE MECHANISMS Throughout the life of the project, AIME supported a variety of approaches and mechanisms designed to enable communities to access and leverage climate finance. In Brazil, AIME assisted the Surui Forest Carbon Project and a mechanism to recognize the Yawanawa territory for their contributions to conservation and fund the Yawanawa Life Plan. AIME also contributed to the development of the Indigenous Amazon Fund or Fondo Indígena Amazónico and the Mesoamerican Territorial Fund (MTF). Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 21 3.6 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: FINDINGS To examine the progress and achievements of AIME in relation to EQ3, the evaluation team analyzed the performance of the three approaches summarized above across outcomes related to market transactions and capacity among indigenous producers to engage with the private sector and access climate finance. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3 and detailed below. Subsequent recommendations are detailed in Section 4. TABLE 3. EVALUATION QUESTION 3 RESULTS SUMMARY Overall, the evaluation team finds mixed results for outcomes associated with EQ3, depending on the approach and sites. AIME achieved some success in promoting community engagement with the private sector and market transactions. We also find some indication that these results are sustainable. AIME’s continual support for the Canopy Bridge website in terms of design and programming created an effective and functional platform. In the final year of the AIME activity, an increase in the number of Canopy Bridge users and on-line traffic generated market interactions and commercial negotiations among buyers and sellers. Moreover, the approach represents a sustainable model, as the platform has the potential to continue to foster connections and market transactions between producers and buyers beyond the life of AIME. The Indigenous Atlas is another important output of the AIME activity. However, this online map and interactive database is not designed to track the number of connections made or any resulting transactions. The evaluation team finds no further evidence that the Atlas directly led to transactions within the life of the project. Existing research highlights the limited capacity of indigenous producer groups and community organizations to engage in the market for products and climate finance in ways that are sustainable, profitable and equitable.23 As such, both 23 TMP Systems. (2018). The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund: An assessment of the prospects for Financing Community-Based Enterprises. Van Dam, C. (2011). Indigenous territories and REDD in Latin America: Opportunity or threat? Forests, 2(1), 394-414. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 22 Canopy Bridge and the Atlas may be based on the flawed assumption that—once connected— producer organizations and/or communities have the capacity to produce market-ready products and engage with private sector actors and donors in ways that will lead to positive conservation and livelihood outcomes. AIME was most successful at facilitating market transactions between indigenous producers and private sector actors by directly assisting market interactions and negotiations at a deeper level. During the second half of the project, targeted assistance through on-demand personalized support for buyers and support for direct trade relationships resulted in eight successful export transactions with a total value of approximately $1.6 million. Personalized assistance for Canopy Bridge buyers interested in exploring sustainable sourcing options led to two successful export transactions from Colombia and Mexico with a total value of approximately $150,000 in 2017. Support for direct trade relationships also represented a viable AIME approach to facilitating market transactions. Three of the six sourcing trips sponsored by the AIME Direct Trade Travel Grants Competition built relationships between buyers and sellers and market transactions of significant value. 24 As one example, representatives from CAC Perene, a cooperative of 400 coffee producers from the Junin region of central Peru, used their Direct Trade Travel Grant to conduct a trip to meet with European coffee buyers. CAC Perene’s coffee—the main source of income for their small-scale producers—comes from agroforestry systems and is Organic and Fairtrade certified. According to AIME reporting documents, CAC Perene’s trip resulted in export contracts valued at approximately $1.3 million through 2020. As one member of the EcoDecision team described: “The trip by Perene to visit buyers in Europe resulted in them getting orders for about 460 to 470 tons of coffee over the next 3 years. It was with a client they had worked with on a small￾scale in the past, but this trip really led to them doing a significant deal… It was clear that going from a relationship that was remote and distant with low volumes of trade, they [Perene] managed to visit their buyer in Europe and really solidify that relationship in a way that led to some significant purchases.” If combined with additional support for capacity building among indigenous producers, these market relationships could continue to contribute to transactions that support indigenous incomes after the completion of AIME. The evaluation team finds mixed evidence of the success of AIME’s community-level efforts to develop and bring REDD+ compatible products to market. In Mexico, AIME successfully contributed to the organizational and technical capacity of resin producers, and this resulted in increased market value of their products and new commercial agreements. In Rondonia, AIME support for the Surui handicraft initiative increased market transactions, provided Surui women with an important source of income, and improved their market connections. Furthermore, targeted support for producers in Peru resulted in the development and market launch of two products sustainably sourced from indigenous producers. Both products have already contributed to over $50,000 in transactions and represent a source of long-term environmentally sustainable livelihoods that support indigenous culture. In contrast, AIME support of the Surui for the production, processing, and sale of agricultural products did not 24 The AIME Direct Trade Travel Grants Competition was launched in 2017 with a focus on awarding targeted travel support to buyers and community-based sellers conducting due diligence or negotiations to support export contracts. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 23 materialize into significant sales or income. Without further support, these activities are unlikely to continue beyond the life of the project. AIME supported a variety of approaches designed to increase REDD+ and climate financing transactions and allow communities to access and leverage climate financing. However, these outcomes were largely unrealized within the life of the project. The evaluation team finds that efforts in Rondonia and Acre did not directly lead to increased access to climate finance for the Yawanawa or the Surui, although the project may have strengthened the capacity of the Yawanawa to engage in climate finance in the future. AIME efforts to secure funding for the development of an Indigenous Amazon Fund or Fondo Indígena Amazónico were also unsuccessful, and transaction outcomes of efforts to support the MTF remain unrealized. Looking specifically at gendered findings related to EQ3, AIME support for the Surui handicraft initiative provided Surui women with an important source of income, avenues for greater autonomy, and improved market connections. However, for other interventions intended to facilitate transactions, there is a need for dedicated outreach to increase the number of women’s producer groups on the Canopy Bridge platform, as well as targeted capacity building activities among women’s producer groups. Gender and equity concerns relevant to the potential effects of REDD+ and climate finance transactions should also be better considered by donors to ensure future climate finance programming does not marginalize or disenfranchise women and vulnerable persons. An in-depth assessment of the overall and site level performance in relation to these findings is included in Annex 1, along with assessments of the program approach in terms of gender. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 24 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The findings presented in Section 3 inform the following recommendations to answer Evaluation Questions 4 and 5. In relation to EQ4, the evaluation team recommends the following for USAID consideration: • Similar to the AIME approach, USAID education and training programs should center around scalable core curriculums that are inclusive of indigenous knowledge and—to the extent possible—institutionalized within educational organizations and policies. Further, education and training programs should include follow-on support at the community-level focused on better linking the skills and knowledge received to actual changes in relevant practice and policy. To inform their approach and results, programs should also incorporate components -such as surveys or course evaluations- that collect data on program results and feedback from participants. This will serve to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities related to territorial governance, conservation, and the reduction of emissions. • Findings from Mexico provide the only evidence of AIME’s successful contribution to increased conservation within the life of the project. This was a result of community￾level initiatives focused on increasing local capacity to engage in territorial governance combined with direct support for increasing the capacity of individuals and organizations to implement conservation activities. As such, USAID support for tools and policies related to territorial governance should be combined with community-level efforts to implement conservation activities in order to ensure the successful and effective achievement of the outcomes these tools and policies are intended to promote. • AIME contributed most to market transactions between indigenous producers and private sector actors by directly facilitating market interactions and negotiations at a deeper level, and by strengthening the capacity of indigenous producers to develop and bring REDD+ compatible products to market. Furthermore, existing research suggesting that indigenous producer groups often have limited capacity to engage in the market for sustainable products and climate finance in ways that are profitable and equitable challenges the assumption that - without additional support- the market connections facilitated by platforms such as Canopy Bridge will lead to market transactions that contribute to livelihood or conservation outcomes. Therefore, USAID should EQ4: Is there a different approach that USAID should take in the region to reduce carbon emissions and promote the conservation of existing carbon stocks by working directly with indigenous people/local communities on deforestation and forest degradation resulting from land use change? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 25 expand support focused on facilitating deeper levels of engagement between private sector actors and indigenous producers and community-level efforts to strengthen the capacity of indigenous enterprises to develop and bring REDD+ compatible products to the market. USAID should also expand dedicated outreach, focused on increasing the number of women’s producer groups on the Canopy Bridge platform, coupled with targeted capacity building support for sustainable commercial products among women’s producer groups, to increase market interactions and negotiations that support women. • In relation to AIME’s support for community climate finance mechanisms, the evaluation team finds no evidence of gendered outcomes or unintended consequences with respect to vulnerable populations. However, the AIME approach focused on communities as a whole, rather than focusing specifically on women or subgroups as members of communities. Concerns relevant to the potential effects of REDD+ and climate finance transactions on the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, particularly in relation to social equality and the provision of equitable outcomes, are widely reflected in existing research. These concerns are primarily related to existing social and power relations influencing the ability of women and marginalized groups to access and use natural resources, participate in decision-making, and access benefits for ecosystem services in the form of REDD+ and PES transactions.25 Such gender and equity concerns should be considered by USAID and private sector actors when working with communities to ensure future support for climate finance mechanisms or transactions does not marginalize or disenfranchise women and vulnerable persons. In response to EQ5, the evaluation team recommends the following: • The need for clear and secure tenure rights to forest lands and resources, including carbon, is widely seen as the first step toward REDD+ readiness, an essential condition for REDD+ success.26 Furthermore, achieving equitable distribution of REDD+ and carbon related payments requires both clear tenure rights and clear rules regarding 25 McDermott et al., 2013; Angelsen et al., 2012; Fry 2008; Corbera et al., 2007. 26 Corbera and Schroeder, 2011; Larson A. M., et al., 2013. EQ5: What new technical areas or programming approaches should be considered and possibly adopted for any follow-on sustainable landscapes/REDD+ activity in the region 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 and promote conservation of carbon stocks? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 26 forest resource use.27 Existing literature also underscores the consensus that where tenure security is weak, REDD+ may pose a risk to sustainable forest management and negatively impact the rights and livelihoods of local forest communities. 28 The evaluation, therefore concludes that USAID approaches intended to increase the participation of marginalized, forest-based communities in activities and negotiations related to climate change mitigation and REDD+ should emphasize support for strengthened land rights—both legally and in practice—among targeted communities. Though a highly contentious and political issue across most of LAC, indigenous land rights simply must be strengthened for any USAID program intended to promote conservation and reduce emissions to succeed. AIME efforts in Honduras represent an important example of programming focused on community-level organizational capacity building for territorial governance combined with state-level advocacy for indigenous land rights. • The evaluation finds evidence that holistic management of forests by indigenous peoples has strengthened their resilience in diverse ecological, political and geographical contexts throughout the Amazon tropics. Coupled with support for indigenous land rights at the community-level, USAID should continue to support state-level policies related to territorial management and conservation that incorporate and reflect indigenous knowledge and management practices and address misunderstandings between state and indigenous institutions regarding access to and management of natural resources. ● One of the historical challenges for jurisdictional REDD+ strategies and benefit sharing to indigenous communities has been carbon accounting to determine the extent of emissions reductions generated and, ultimately, to support the compensation of indigenous communities for their conservation efforts. AIME partners worked to address this challenge through two primary means—the development of a carbon accounting methodology for indigenous territories and revising Acre’s state carbon standard to improve benefit sharing to indigenous communities in a way that is intended to be replicable in other Brazilian jurisdictions. Neither of these approaches were ultimately implemented, however, creating an opportunity for USAID to pilot or ground-truth this methodology. This could be done in conjunction with follow-on work that replicates the revised Acre state carbon standard model in Rondonia and Mato Grosso simultaneously. • There remains a limited understanding of the conditions in high forest cover/low deforestation (HFLD) jurisdictions, including how best to engage indigenous peoples and local communities living in these areas and the challenges they face. Future USAID programming that intends to include HFLD jurisdictions will require additional research that generates a deeper understanding of the characteristics of these areas, best practices for conservation and community forest management, how these jurisdictions could theoretically be supported by national and sub-national policy processes and international 27 Knox et al. 2011; Larson, 2011; Wunder, 2009. 28 Awono et al. 2014; Sunderlin et al 2014; Barbier and Tesfaw, 2012; Corbera et al., 2011. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 27 finance mechanisms, and the challenges to the continued conservation of these areas. The very preliminary exploration Forest Trends and OPIAC began in Colombia alongside WWF and Fundacion Natura is one potential entry point. In addition to research into these HFLD landscapes, future USAID programming should emphasize the development of alternative finance and benefit sharing mechanisms that recognize the unique aspects of these areas where REDD+ or reforestation are generally not applicable. Any intervention that focuses on concepts such as “preventive credits” should also include a diagnostic study of the market potential for these. • The outcomes of AIME support for funds and mechanisms designed to enable communities to access and leverage climate finance remain largely unrealized. It is important to note that this may be due in part to changes in the market for climate finance since the beginning of the AIME activity. More specifically, carbon markets did not live up to expectations regarding carbon pricing or the volume of carbon offsets actually sold. According to the World Bank, overall, 67 jurisdictions representing more than a quarter of global GHG emissions put a price on carbon in 2017.29 However, despite generally low and affordable carbon prices, the overall amount of carbon offsets bought and sold on the voluntary carbon markets dropped 24% in 2016 from the previous year.30 At the same time, organizational capacity among communities to effectively engage in existing mechanisms also appears to be a limiting factor in the success of the project’s efforts in achieving the desired outcomes. USAID should expand community-level efforts to strengthen the capacity of indigenous enterprises to engage in climate finance mechanisms. Furthermore, considering the context of the carbon financial market, USAID efforts should move from supporting climate finance mechanisms and REDD+-compatible products to more broadly supporting sustainable products the contribute to multiple ecosystem services, equitable benefit sharing mechanisms, and alternative indigenous livelihoods. This approach should enhance compatibility when adapting project outcomes to existing Life Plans or other indigenous self-determination instruments. • The focus on carbon emissions reduction and conservation of existing carbon stocks may not be suitable and/or profitable for all indigenous territories' contexts. USAID should support other results-based payments schemes, such as PES, to allow more bargaining space and more appropriate approaches in terms of responsibilities undertaken and benefits granted to IPs, and address further environmental services provided by indigenous territories. Moreover, it would be relevant that cooperation programs consider indigenous and forest dependent communities’ own views on sustainable landscapes at the regional and local levels during the design phase. This would allow a more appropriate design of programs aiming to move forward indigenous peoples’ rights, and sustainable landscapes and market models. 29 World Bank. (2017). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2017. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. 30 Hamrick (K.) & Gallant (M.) (2017). Unlocking Potential—State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2017. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 28 ANNEX 1. JURISDICTION & GENDER-SPECIFIC FINDINGS This Annex includes greater detail on the jurisdictional-level and gender-specific findings in relation to EQs 1-3 reflected in the main body of this report. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: To address EQ1, the evaluation team assessed the results and performance of IR1 activities related to three main programmatic approaches including: the development and implementation of community￾level tools and models for effective territorial governance; education and training initiatives to build capacity among individuals and communities to engage in territorial governance and conservation activities; and, community-level support to facilitate the participation and engagement of indigenous communities in activities and policy discussions related to conservation and climate change. An examination of the jurisdictional-level progress made towards achieving the outcomes of interest in relation to EQ1 across these three approaches is provided below, along with assessments regarding gender and vulnerable populations. COMMUNITY-LEVEL TOOLS AND MODELS FOR TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE COSTA RICA Findings from the AIME Mid-Term PE highlighted the need for continued support for Life Plan development and implementation in Costa Rica to effectively achieve the intended territorial management and conservation outcomes. However, Costa Rica was not chosen as a target AIME jurisdiction, and AIME support for the Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó Life Plans did not extend beyond the first half of the project. Furthermore, in interviews with the PE team, PRISMA described minimal involvement with the Life Plan development process in the first half of the project beyond the workshops and trainings held with RIBCA on the methodology of the Life Plan process (held in 2016). Life Plan development efforts at the community-level were later implemented by RIBCA without direct support from AIME, and there is no reporting data on how various community members—male or female—participated in or contributed to Life Plan development activities. As such, the evaluation team finds no evidence that AIME support for Life Plans in Costa Rica directly contributed improved capacity among the Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó in ways that helped them engage in territorial governance, buen vivir, conservation, or the reduction of emissions within the life of the project. MEXICO The evaluation team finds that, among targeted communities in Mexico, AIME support for the development of Life Plans combined with direct support for mangrove conservation activities strengthened capacity and increased engagement in territorial governance and conservation activities in ways consistent with the concept of buen vivir. This led to improved territorial governance and conservation outcomes within the life of the project. These findings are most evident in data obtained Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 29 from interviews with PNS and discussions with community members during the mid-term field assessment. AIME’s participatory process for Life Plan development in Pesqueria Guadalupe, Aztlan, and Brisas del Huayate—involving interviews, workshops, and discussion spaces—helped facilitate the exchange of conservation and cultural knowledge and improve collective resource decision-making among communities. According to a member of the PNS team, dialogues also served to increase inter￾generational understanding and facilitate a democratic decision-making process. In the case of Pesqueria Guadalupe, participatory Life Plan activities helped organize and better formalize the linkages between existing organizational structures and mangrove ecosystems to support coastal resilience and disaster preparedness. Also resulting from this approach, the targeted coastal communities expanded mangrove restoration efforts and improved territorial governance through the establishment of community organizations dedicated to mangrove restoration and increased patrolling of mangrove forests. These outcomes indicate that AIME-supported Life Plans are indeed being used by communities in Mexico to better manage their resources and promote environmental conservation. Moreover, as detailed in the Mexico Case Study, Life Plan efforts in Mexico complement the governance and decision-making structures inherent to the ejidos and may further support carbon tenure rights for ejiditarios. HONDURAS AIME support for the development of Saneamiento Plans in the Mosquitia territory of eastern Honduras increased the capacity of three Miskitu governance organizations to engage in territorial governance in ways that reflect indigenous knowledge and priorities.31 For over five decades, Miskitu communities have fought for legal title and secure rights over their communal indigenous lands to protect their culture and natural resources. The central force of these efforts is MASTA—the indigenous organization representing the entire Mosquitia territory—along with the twelve Miskitu territorial councils. 32 AIME-supported discussions and workshops with MASTA and the Brus Laguna and Tipi-Auka territories on Saneamiento Plans created important discussion forums. Communities collectively reflected on existing governance structures and discussed strategies to address the challenges they face in relation to territorial management and rapid deforestation. Building from these discussions, AIME then worked with MASTA and two territorial councils to develop strategies for improved territorial management and executing the process of saneamiento to ensure legal security and the effective management of Miskitu land. According to MASTA, by promoting tenure security, the Saneamiento Plans are seen as a first step in their strategy to confront climate change, preserve biodiversity, and promote low-emission development alternatives in the Mosquitia territory.33 Based on a review of the Saneamiento Plans, reports from MASTA, and interviews with PRISMA and AMPB, the evaluation team finds evidence that the Saneamiento Plans provide MASTA and the two targeted territorial councils with sound territorial management strategies. MASTA envisions the Saneamiento Plans as pilot models that may later be replicated with the other ten Miskitu territorial councils. Successful replication and implementation of the Saneamiento Plans could potentially contribute 31 Roughly translated as title clearing, the saneamiento process is necessary to define who can and cannot legally occupy collective Miskitu land. The outcomes of activities relevant to the process of saneamiento at the state level are further detailed in the Honduras Case Study 32 Herlihy, P. H., & Tappan, T. A. Recognizing Indigenous Miskitu Territory in Honduras. Geographical Review. 33 MASTA. (2018). Concejos Territoriales lideran agenda de gobernanza con el apoyo de MASTA y la Fundación PRISMA. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 30 to improved territorial management across the approximate 1.2 million hectares of Miskitu land—the area containing the highest levels of biodiversity and concentration of protected areas in Honduras.34 Beyond strengthened capacity among the three Miskitu organizations directly targeted, the expected outcomes and benefits of these efforts remain theoretical. The Saneamiento Plans were not finalized until the final year of the project, partly due to political challenges in the country. As such, the territorial management strategies have yet to be realized and implemented on the ground. Furthermore, the high degree of tenure insecurity for indigenous and ethnic groups in Honduras raises a significant obstacle to the successful replication and implementation of the Saneamiento Plans. Though the Miskitu have legal title to their communal lands, they continue to face encroachment, expropriation, dispossession, and the use of violence by outside and illicit actors to gain access to their resources.35 Furthermore, the saneamiento process is long, complicated, and inherently political, and the Miskitu will continue to face financial, political, and technical challenges in determining which lands have been illegally occupied and by whom.36 The Saneamiento Plans developed under AIME will, therefore, require additional financial and political support beyond the life of AIME to effectively increase tenure security and improve territorial governance. Relevant programmatic recommendations are discussed in Section 4. BRAZIL Similar to Honduras, findings on AIME’s support for the implementation of existing Life Plans among the Surui in Brazil highlight the pressing need for strengthened indigenous land rights in order to effectively improve territorial governance and conversation outcomes. Throughout the mid-term field assessment in Brazil, challenges related to tenure security were repeatedly expressed in FGDs and KIIs. Multiple indigenous leaders described unoccupied indigenous lands as “open doors” for others to come into their territory and misuse or misappropriate resources. Secondary research on the state of indigenous land rights in Brazil complements the field assessment findings. Land conflict and violence between indigenous people and the extractive industry in Brazil—such as logging, mining, and agribusiness—has expanded and intensified since the writing of the Mid-term Report, in part due to government support for the industry.37 In recent years, citing the potential for economic growth, Brazilian leaders have lessened restrictions for international and domestic companies to expand their operations within the Amazon. Furthermore, the current administration, has been increasingly chastised by the public and indigenous leaders for its rollback on indigenous land rights and protections. Tenure security among the Surui in Rondonia has further deteriorated since the writing of the Mid-term Report, leading to increasing rates of illegal logging and deforestation in the Surui indigenous territory. The only quantitative data available on the quantity of GHG emissions reduced or sequestered as a direct result of AIME shows negative progress throughout the life of the project due to increased deforestation in the Surui Territory, eventually leading to the end of the Surui Forest Carbon Project (SFCP).38 AIME's efforts to support the SFCP and strengthen territorial management—such as workshops to improve local governance capacity, advocacy activities, and support for sustainable income-generating activities—were not sufficient to improve territorial governance among the Surui or to protect Surui land from political and market forces. 34 PRISMA. (2016). Diagnostico territorial de La Mosquita. 35 USAID. (2011). Honduras Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance. Washington, DC. 36 Sylvander, N. (2018). Saneamiento Territorial in Nicaragua, and the Prospects for Resolving Indigenous-Mestizo Land Conflicts. Journal of Latin American Geography, 17(1), 166-194. 37 Humphreys, 2013; Ruggie, 2007. 38 As reported for AIME Overall Performance Indicator 4.8-7: Quantity of GHG emissions, measured in metric tons of CO2e, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG assistance. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 31 GENDER AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS Sex-disaggregated project monitoring data on participation in activities implemented under IR1is exceptionally limited across AIME sites. There is no reporting data on how, if at all, Nairi Awari and Alto Chirripó women were involved in the community-level Life Plan development workshops and meetings in Costa Rica. Similarly, sex-disaggregated data limitations restrict an assessment of whether there was variation in project participation across Miskitu men and women in Honduras. Based on the limited amount of evidence available, the evaluation is unable to conclude if the Saneamiento Plan development process was participatory in nature. The evaluation team finds that women were the main participants and contributors to Life Plan activities in Mexico. AIME reporting data and findings from the mid-term field assessment indicate that AIME’s participatory approach to Life Plans development in Mexico succeeded in creating a space for women to participate in activities related to Life Plans and gender-focused dialogues related to community development. This was highlighted in focus group discussions held with women in Pesqueria Guadalupe during the mid-term field assessments. An illustrative quote from a woman describing her participation in Life Plan activities is included below: “They [Pronatura Sur] 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 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.” In Aztlán and Brisas del Huayate, AIME faced challenges getting men to participate in Life Plan activities due to lack of interest among men. For example, in Aztlán, the participation of men dwindled throughout the Life Plan process, and women were the only participants in the final Life Plan development workshop.39 In Brisas del Huayate, program documents noted that while men were eager to share their opinions at the beginning of the Life Plan process, they showed little interest in the actual development or writing of the Plan. TRAINING AND EDUCATION INITIATIVES THE PFGTI (CHIAPAS, PERU, RONDONIA, COLOMBIA) The Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program (PFGTI) had a total of 110 graduates from over 30 different villages and indigenous territories across Chiapas, Rondonia, Peru, and Colombia. 40 The PFGTI curriculum was made up of six core modules covering a variety of topics related to territorial management and conservation. The evaluation team finds limited data to assess the PFGTI’s impact on capacity and participation indicators, such as changes in stakeholder knowledge or direct participation in territorial governance activities. Furthermore, the evaluation finds no evidence of qualitative evaluations of capacity building 39 The opinions of men were later gathered through separate interviews. 40 It is important to note that the proportion of AIME funding for the PFGTI varied across these four countries. While in Mexico and Brazil the PFGTI was completely dependent on AIME support, the PFGTI was funded primarily by NORAD in Peru and Colombia. Nonetheless, AIME supported nearly every aspect of the PFGTI in each country such as: program and curriculum design; the formation and oversight of local PFGTI Committees; teacher’s training workshops; the recruitment and contracting of facilitators and consultants; and, overall project management. In Peru and Colombia, AIME funding supported the organization of the PFGTI launch workshop and the design and facilitation of teachers' training workshops. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 32 conducted by participants or third parties. The evaluation’s more limited review of curriculum materials, reporting documents, and qualitative data obtained from remote interviews with program stakeholders suggests that the PFTGI improved knowledge among program participants on topics related to territorial governance and laid the groundwork for greater participation in territorial governance activities. Commenting on the outcomes of the program towards strengthening the capacity of its participants, a member of the AIME team noted: “We can see the influence on the capacity of the students. We can see they have more self-confidence and feel more able to play a political role in their territories…and they feel more able to engage in dialogues with government agencies, such as education and environmental agencies.” In Brazil, Peru and Colombia, an important aspect of the PFGTI was the Projetos Formativos or Proyectos Formativos—a community-level project proposed and carried out by students throughout the course of the program to improve territorial governance. For example, PFGTI participants from three native communities in Peru chose to focus their Proyectos Formativos on territorial management and surveillance. Speaking to the importance of this component of the PFGTI, a member of the AIME team said, “These projects are many times important to their communities and they [the students] are recognized because of that. There is a local strengthening too.” If follow-on support is included for the strategies developed, this aspect of the PFGTI curriculum could potentially contribute to not only the capacity of the individual leaders participating in the program, but also their communities. In terms of sustainability of the PFGTI, owing to funding commitments from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the program will continue in Peru and Colombia after the end of AIME, with full results expected by 2020. Furthermore, the academic institutions and indigenous organizations engaged by AIME throughout the development and implementation of the PFGTI are now equipped with curriculum and training materials that can be used to advance knowledge of territorial governance in the future.41 COMMUNITY CONTENT PROMOTERS TRAINING PROGRAM (MEXICO, HONDURAS) The Community Content Promoters training program sought to empower representatives from communities in Mexico and Honduras through knowledge of REDD+, emission mitigation, and climate change. As a direct result of a training facilitated in Mexico with 15 participants, a total of 45 community meetings (three conducted by each newly trained trainer) were later carried out to replicate the content and extend the reach of the knowledge and information received. According to AIME, the Community Content Promoter efforts in Mexico alone, as a result of the train-the-trainer approach, have the potential to raise awareness of REDD+ among 15 million indigenous people in more than 60 villages.42 The training materials prepared for the program in Mexico were later adapted for the Honduran Mosquitia, where efforts expanded in Year 5 of the project. CULTURAL MEDIATORS PROGRAM (COLOMBIA, RONDONIA) In Rondonia, the Cultural Mediators Program on Forests and Climate Change advanced the integration of indigenous knowledge into the basic curriculum of the state’s indigenous schools in 2018 for topics related to climate change science, forestry and territorial management. 41 The PFGTI engaged a total of three academic institutions and six indigenous organizations across Brazil, Peru, and Colombia. 42 AIME. (2017). Year 5 Work Plan. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 33 Describing the program’s approach, a member of the AIME team noted: “Our strategy is to have a more continuous process of following up the work that the teachers are doing to have a direct influence on public policy. To have these tools and publications to understand and have a pedagogical strategy included in the official curriculum in the jurisdiction. We are making political efforts to include indigenous schools to have their own values in their curriculum.” According to project documents, the curriculum approved by the state of Rondonia will soon be presented to the national Ministry of Education and, if approved, will become a part of the educational strategy for all indigenous schools in Brazil. As such, this program represents a significant and sustainable contribution to institutionalizing culturally appropriate curriculum on climate change and conservation in Rondonia and potentially all of Brazil. GENDER AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS The evaluation team finds no evidence of gendered outcomes of the PFGTI on men or women with respect to their participation in PFGTI activities. Forty percent of all graduates of the program were women, and gender was used as a component of the selection criteria for participants across all four jurisdictions where the program was implemented. In Chiapas, after analyzing conditions that may have limited participation in the PFGTI, AIME found that limited resources and income available for travel, in addition to a lack of childcare, were important factors influencing the ability of women to participate. AIME then took steps to address these conditions... The evaluation team was unable to conduct a gender assessment of the Cultural Mediators Program due to a lack of sex-disaggregated reporting data on the number of teachers trained or contributors to curriculum development. Similarly, there is no sex-disaggregated reporting data on participants in the Community Content Promoters program in Mexico or Honduras. FACILITATING PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT MEXICO AIME supported the capacity of mangrove restoration working groups in the communities of Mar Muerto and Encrucijada in Mexico, conducting over two dozen workshops with these groups throughout the second half of the project on topics ranging from the creation of a revolving fund from restoration to addressing key environmental challenges such as fire management. AIME also contributed to the development of a 64-hectare restoration project in the Biosphere Reserve in Encrucijada and worked with the General Directorate of ZOFEMAT on the delineation of a 238-hectare mangrove restoration project in the Poligono Cobacha—the first restoration area adjacent to the community of Guadalupe. The geographically defined nature of these efforts enhanced the ability of communities to better monitor and patrol areas under community conservation, while also providing a stronger baseline for the future compensation of these communities for their conservation-related services. According to interviews with PNS and discussions with community stakeholders during the mid-term evaluation, the evaluation team finds evidence that mangrove-related work with communities in Chiapas led to organizational and technical strengthening for the conservation and restoration of mangroves, as well as local capacity-building and awareness raising. Local agreements for the management of mangroves were developed or renewed as part of project activities. These local agreements strengthened community resource governance by increasing social participation and inclusion in mangrove management, including among vulnerable groups, and strengthened local mechanisms for monitoring and patrolling. Moreover, a diverse range of community actors—including indigenous Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 34 peoples, women, and youth—were successfully trained on mangrove restoration techniques based on specific drivers of degradation. Though the carbon benefits of these activities were not quantified by the program, support for mangrove communities in Chiapas represents an important example of the potential of AIME’s community-level capacity building initiatives to conserve carbon stocks and reduce emissions beyond the life of the project. AIME support for mangrove conservation and restoration also provides carbon sequestration in partial fulfillment of Mexico’s international emission reduction commitments. RONDONIA In Rondonia, the State Secretary of Environment mandated a single public meeting on the state REDD+ program—with no special considerations for indigenous interests—rather than a more thorough public consultation process that explicitly considered the needs and aspirations of indigenous peoples. A state￾level Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) strategy is therefore important for territorial governance and conservation in Rondonia in order to overcome the shortcomings in Rondonia’s state REDD+ and climate change policies. To this end, AIME support for three workshops and one state seminar resulted in the development of a state-level strategy among indigenous people to advocate on the importance of FPIC and indigenous paryicipation in laws related to climate change. According to one member of the AIME team: “The Free, Prior and Informed Consent strategy in Rondonia originated entirely under AIME. An important outcome of this process was a strategy and commitment from about 30 influential indigenous leaders to start an advocacy process close to the state government and state deputies to improve indigenous laws—laws important for indigenous people—and making sure the consultation and consent process will be carried out.” Further efforts in Rondonia to facilitate indigenous engagement on issues related to REDD+ and climate change strengthened the participation of indigenous women and youth in decision-making processes at the municipal, state and federal government levels and increased the number of Surui women and youth participating in meetings with local government officials in the Ministries of Environment, Education, Health and Agriculture. As a result of relevant efforts, 15 women were actively participating in meetings and commissions on health, education and environment by Year 5 of AIME. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 35 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: To answer EQ2, the evaluation team assessed the results and performance of IR2 activities related to the following three main programmatic approaches: the promotion and facilitation of dialogues between governments and indigenous organizations; support for sub-national governments to design state-level REDD+ legislation and benefit sharing mechanisms; and, the use of research and extension to increase the visibility of the needs and aspirations of indigenous peoples and traditional communities in jurisdictional REDD+ programs. An examination of the jurisdictional-level progress made towards achieving the outcomes of interest in relation to EQ2 across these three approaches is provided below. PROMOTION AND FACILITATION OF DIALOGUES BRAZIL In Brazil, AIME successfully facilitated dialogues and participation between governments and indigenous organizations that amplified indigenous voices in state-level dialogues and consideration of indigenous issues in jurisdictional approaches. Project outreach also supported the inclusion of indigenous leaders on national working groups for REDD+ policy development. Project documents point to several concrete examples where AIME motivated the inclusion of indigenous people in climate change dialogues. These outcomes in Brazil, as well as in other AIME focal jurisdictions, are supported by additional achievements related to advancing dialogues under AIME that are “soft” due to the necessity of building rapport and establishing trust among stakeholders over time, and which are challenging to measure using a standard results framework. Additionally, not all dialogues necessarily resulted in concrete deliverables but instead contributed to incremental processes required to support the jurisdictional process. It is also important to consider the impacts of the Michel Temer administration, which took office shortly after the mid-term evaluation field visits in 2016, on these relationships. A more favorable environment for large-scale agribusiness has increasingly embroiled indigenous peoples in land conflicts, and 2017 was the deadliest year for environmental activists globally. Brazil had the most killings of any country ever in a single year at 57; 80% of these were murdered in the Amazon.43 Indigenous communities are also increasingly wary of government support for their rights, as the demarcation process44 has largely ceased under Temer.45 46 Furthermore, according to a key informant interviewed, indigenous peoples in Rondonia view FUNAI as an organization as ineffective or even counterproductive—not only due to a growing lack of resources, but because of FUNAI’s failure to leverage those government structures that are in place that do enable them to carry out their mandate, however limited. Even so, it is clear that AIME support for dialogues in Brazil between indigenous peoples and national and sub-national 43 Global Witness. (2018). At what cost? Irresponsible business and the murder of land and environmental defenders in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/campaigns/environmental-activists/at-what-cost/ 44 The process of demarcation of indigenous territories in Brazil is intended to guarantee indigenous rights to traditional lands and establish the real boundaries of areas under indigenous control. This process was established under Decree No. 1.775/96 in 1996. Among other stipulations, the Decree calls for heavy involvement of national indigenous organization FUNAI in carrying out anthropological studies, approving official reports concerning indigenous peoples, resolving disputes, and other key components of the demarcation process. 45 Under Temer, oversight for the demarcation process has been entirely shifted from FUNAI to the Ministry of Justice. 46 Gonzalez, J. (2017). “Brazil alters indigenous land demarcation process, sparking conflict.” Retrieved from https://amazonwatch.org/news/2017/0202-brazil-alters-indigenous-land-demarcation-process-sparking-conflict Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 36 governments provided more neutral spaces to continue to advance inclusion of indigenous peoples, enabled Brazilian indigenous peoples to participate in international dialogues, and partially mitigated against the influence of interests that do not support the indigenous agenda. The development of the Principles of Collaboration and replication of state-level working groups based on Acre’s model have been two effective activities for promoting indigenous inclusion in policymaking and dialogues with government actors. A particular strength of AIME support was the ability to not only leverage forums facilitated by other organizations, but to use AIME dialogues to engage organizations with complementary scopes and funding streams in support of indigenous inclusion in sub-national and national-level dialogues. In particular, workshops provided a sustainable forum for IPAM, Forest Trends, and EII to promote continued indigenous participation as part of the development of state REDD+ and climate change policies for Acre, Mato Grosso, and Rondonia. Participation by FUNAI in these workshops was particularly important, as it increased FUNAI’s direct indigenous participation at the national level where the organization may have been otherwise unable to do so. Regarding gender, as observed during the mid-term evaluation of AIME, the role of women in jurisdictional policy processes continued to be limited in AIME focal jurisdictions and, to a slightly lesser extent, in indigenous programs within jurisdictions. Outside of Rondonia, there were no AIME interventions targeted specifically at increasing the role of women in jurisdictional policy processes, and the participation of women in AIME activities remained largely limited to activities under IR1 and IR3 throughout the second half of the project. Indigenous and traditional communities have been slower to transition away from gender roles historically held by women, and women are still largely excluded from community leadership and decision-making roles, as well as certain cultural activities and practices. The extent to which women were empowered to take on leadership roles and exercise their voice in national and sub-national spaces varied among different indigenous groups and traditional communities inside AIME focal jurisdictions. While efforts in Rondonia did successfully increase the number of women participating in decision-making meetings at the state and municipal level, for the most part, the advances in the inclusion of indigenous and traditional leaders in the development of REDD+, LED-R, and indigenous programming generated by AIME did not advance women in discussion spaces. MEXICO A key outcome of AIME support was the ability of indigenous organizations to take on important national-level leadership roles in Mexico, most notably the consolidation of Red￾MOCAF as one of the main indigenous organizational stakeholders in rural and forestry policy￾making spaces in Mexico. This outcome is notable among AIME achievements because it demonstrates the extent to which the FBLC was able to secure permanent or semi-permanent leadership roles in national and sub-national forums for indigenous representatives. COLOMBIA AIME’s unique work in support of the Vaupes Indigenous Territory helped make the case to the national government of Colombia that it is worthwhile to provide financing to indigenous territories that have been relatively unaffected by deforestation, through the Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA) mechanism under Colombia’s National REDD+ Strategy, and helped FBLC partners foster new partnerships in Colombia with organizations such as WWF and Fundacion Natura. Specifically, Forest Trends organized a workshop bringing together OPIAC and indigenous leadership to create a concrete proposal and methodology to promote these Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 37 valuable conservation areas, and to support continuity by WWF and Fundacion Natura after the conclusion of AIME; however, reporting on the outcomes of this workshop is not available. Though pilots were being developed for Vaupes and other indigenous territories in Colombia with both high forest cover/low deforestation and high forest cover/high deforestation, there are unique challenges across these landscapes that hindered full implementation and the flow of finance to indigenous communities. These include a poor understanding of the challenges facing these areas and drivers of deforestation, limited potential for different types of landscape-based finance (REDD+, reforestation, and/or other results-based payments) in high forest cover/low deforestation territories, and a general lack of benefit sharing mechanisms. While AIME partners were just able to begin work in support of these types of landscapes, interventions aimed at deepening the understanding of these challenges and furthering inclusion of these landscapes in jurisdictional approaches were not implemented. SUPPORT FOR SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS ON REDD+ LEGISLATION AND BENEFIT SHARING MECHANISMS BRAZIL AIME partners sought to overcome a key historical stumbling block for jurisdictional programs, emissions quantification, which has also had the effect of limiting the distribution of benefits to communities engaged in forest management. Although the emissions reductions components of AIME were phased out earlier in the program, AIME was able to “get around the bottleneck of quantifying emissions in indigenous territories,” according to EII, by developing and advancing a methodology for the attribution of emissions reductions in AIME focal jurisdictions, drawing on the case of Mato Grosso to outline what implementation and operationalization of the methodology might look like. In light of the disintegration of the Surui Forest Carbon Project in Rondonia, which was negatively impacted by deforestation limiting not only the validation and verification of new emissions reductions, but resulting in the reversal of earlier vintages of emissions reductions and other challenges to emissions quantification, this methodology represents a significant contribution from AIME towards not only more robust scientific approaches to jurisdictional strategies, but also towards rightly compensating indigenous communities for the management activities undertaken in their territories. However, because the methodology was only approved in Year 5, there were not opportunities to pilot or otherwise ground-truth the tool. To complement the methodology, EII improved mechanisms for benefit sharing in Acre by working with IMC and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization to refine Acre’s Carbon Standard to maximize benefits to indigenous peoples and create a model to disseminate to other Amazon states. Methodologies for the quantification of indigenous emissions are also essential for inclusion of AIME focal jurisdictions in international offset programs, such as the one supported by California’s cap and trade system. The California ARB has continued to seek rigorous quantification methodologies for international jurisdictions that enhance cost-containment benefits under the program, demonstrate California’s climate leadership, and yield benefits for biodiversity, forest-dependent communities and other key areas related to LED-R in tropical jurisdictions.47 47 California Air Resources Board. (2016). ARB Staff Technical Paper: Evaluation of the Potential for International Sector-Based Offset Credits in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 38 With AIME support, EII also improved Mato Grosso’s state REDD+ program and the potential for jurisdictional nested REDD+ for indigenous communities beyond the development of the methodology. This work by AIME was subsequently leveraged for a feasibility study of Mato Grosso’s REDD+ Early Movers program, which resulted in complementary, rather than duplicative, work on jurisdictional REDD+ and indigenous sub-programs. Improvements were catalyzed, through AIME’s leadership, in the areas of benefit sharing mechanisms, inclusive governance, and statewide consultation processes, with EII enabling the state government to increase capacity and/or leverage existing human and financial resources in order to design and execute the state REDD+ program for the benefit of indigenous peoples. AIME worked to address the lack of a state level REDD+ policy in Rondonia, as well as a lack of REDD+-adjacent policies that consider indigenous peoples, such as state climate policies, by supporting an indigenous-centered alternative in the form of RIA. With local support from indigenous organization Padereehj, AIME established an RIA project in the Igarape Lourdes territory. However, at the time of the final evaluation field visit, the project was at a standstill due to a lack of project finance resulting from a lack of private sector engagement, despite the development of a project on sustainable economic activities for RIA implementation developed by COICA. According to an indigenous leader interviewed, “COICA will not implement RIA, but will continue to facilitate discussions with communities,” and that while the RIA project “still does not exist,” indigenous peoples in Igarape Lourdes will begin to be compensated for reforestation activities. Unfortunately, in its current iteration, the RIA mechanism is reliant on COICA to secure international financial support for full implementation. Due to AIME support, indigenous leaders from Acre were able to participate in exchanges with California’s environmental justice community, as well as California’s Yurok tribe. Through its ongoing participation in workshops with the California ARB, AIME advanced the consideration of indigenous and traditional communities in the California International Sector-Based Offsets Program (CA-REDD+) and has amplified indigenous voices in this international context. The visibility of indigenous peoples and territories in national and international spaces was also greatly increased with AIME support, and meetings between indigenous leaders from Acre and Governor Jerry Brown of California solidified California’s support for the proposed International Offset Provision linking Acre (and potentially other AIME jurisdictions) to California under AB-32 and potentially providing critical financial support for jurisdictional REDD+. These dialogues also continued to make the case to ARB for the inclusion of tropical forests in other international jurisdictions more generally in California’s environmental agenda. A California standard for forest credits would catalyze access to finance for indigenous peoples that only a private market can provide. AIME contributed to the advancement of frameworks that would meet the increased demand for offsets beginning in 2020 as a result of the global International Civil Aviation Organization agreement,48 as well as provide co-benefits for biodiversity conservation. MEXICO AIME directly enhanced the capacity of relevant government agencies to improve inclusion and participation of local communities in mangrove management and sub-national REDD+ by 48 Oppenheimer, Michael and Steve Schwartzman. (2018). “How California Can Save the Amazon.” Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opinion/california-climate-save-amazon.html Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 39 developing policy briefs on key emerging focal areas in Chiapas and similar jurisdictions. AIME support to CONAFOR, SEDATU, SEMANRAT, CONANP, ZOFEMAT, and other organizations resulted in the incorporation of mangroves and “blue carbon” into REDD+ policies and the role of these ecosystems in national emissions reductions commitments. Mangrove ecosystems are increasingly recognized for their vital role in carbon sequestration, with up to 20 gigatonnes stored globally. Without support for conservation, restoration, and patrolling of mangroves by local communities, it is estimated that all unprotected mangroves could be gone within the next 100 years.49 Additional capacity was developed around ecosystem services and climate change resilience provided by mangroves, and AIME supported these agencies in identifying challenges and opportunities for the implementation of carbon sequestration programs in coastal Chiapas and/or Oaxaca. Because Mexico’s existing forestry and related laws do not tie carbon tenure to land tenure, AIME also built capacity and supported consensus-building in these agencies with regard to the recognition of carbon rights in the ejidos. A new area of focus for AIME in Mexico during the second half of the program was on the development of a Public Agency for Territorial Development (APDT) in Chiapas. This was a significant advance in Mexico under AIME, as the APDT is a mandatory institutional mechanism to coordinate public investments in landscape-scale interventions for state REDD+ strategies in Mexico, and provides support for integrated landscape planning as part of REDD+ implementation.50 USE OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION AIME partners began developing a variety of protocols, methodologies, and other research and extension tools in support of indigenous inclusion and increasing the visibility of indigenous concerns over the life of the program. The research and extension tools developed with AIME assistance contribute to increasing the body of work in support of indigenous inclusion, consideration of indigenous peoples and traditional community issues in the development of national and sub-national REDD+ policy, and generally recognizing the importance of indigenous people in natural resource conservation and climate change mitigation. However, at present, there has been limited practical application of these tools due to lengthy approval processes by USAID and consortium partners, consultation periods and other delays. FBLC partners ultimately failed to ground truth, pilot, or otherwise meaningfully operationalize the outcomes of this research. Because of this lack of implementation, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the usefulness, rigor, scalability, or replicability of the tools developed, and whether and how they empower indigenous leaders in policy reform and jurisdictional approaches. Since this research was an important area of collaboration among AIME partners and with organizations outside the FBLC, there is potential for follow-on work that builds on AIME research and tools developed to date. 49 Reber, Florian. (2018). “What is ‘blue carbon,’ and how does it help protect our coastal ecosystems?” Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/blue-carbon-the-key-to-keeping-the-earth-cool/ 50 Another unique outcome of AIME interventions in Chiapas was the ability of the Conquista Campesina community to equitably distribute the remainder of funds received through a matched funds arrangement within the community with support from PNS and AMPB. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 40 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: To answer EQ3, the evaluation team assessed the results and performance of IR3 activities related to the following three main approaches: facilitating communication and interaction among indigenous producers and private sector actors; supporting the production and commercialization of REDD+- compatible products; and, supporting climate finance mechanisms. An examination of the jurisdictional-level progress made towards achieving the outcomes of interest in relation to EQ3 across these three approaches is provided below along with assessments regarding gender and vulnerable populations. FACILITATING COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION CANOPY BRIDGE ON-LINE PLATFORM Canopy Bridge provides a free and easy way for potential buyers to search for and connect with suppliers to explore sustainable sourcing options and direct trade opportunities. Evidence from AIME reporting materials suggests that the increase in number of Canopy Bridge users and on-line traffic achieved in the second half of the project led to market interactions and commercial transactions among buyers and sellers—particularly in the final year of the AIME activity. For example, from January to June 2018, the Canopy Bridge platform originated 69 requests and commercial interactions for products such as coffee, cocoa, and coconut oil. Approximately 43 buyers demonstrated interest in potential suppliers from AIME target jurisdictions, leading to at least six commercial negotiations. Since transactions do not occur on the Canopy Bridge website (i.e., there is no actual buying and selling on the platform), however, it is challenging to track which interactions led to negotiations within the life of the project or the value of any resulting market transactions. Still, it is evident that AIME’s continual support for the Canopy Bridge website in terms of design, programming, and functionality created a sustainable platform with significant potential to foster connections and market transactions between forest-based producers and buyers beyond the life of AIME. Regarding the sustainability of these efforts, a member of the EcoDecision team noted, “The durable, robust platform in Canopy Bridge has now been set up in a way that we [EcoDecision] can maintain and grow the platform after the end of the AIME project... It is set up and structured well enough that with our own resources, even barring outside funding, we can keep it going… It is a robust, one-of-its-kind platform with the broadest coverage of sustainable natural products, certainly in Latin America, probably in the world, that will continue to facilitate transactions beyond the life of AIME.” THE INDIGENOUS ATLAS The Indigenous Atlas is a publicly accessible on-line database and interactive map of communities and indigenous producer organizations designed to enhance the visibility of indigenous products and facilitate market transactions. At the time of this report, the database included 126 indigenous enterprises and projects, encompassing five countries and more than 100 different indigenous peoples or ethnic groups. Of this total, Canopy Bridge confirmed 83 (66%) are located within the boundaries or buffer zones of 33 protected areas and 60 legally recognized indigenous territories, covering approximately 105 million hectares. While it Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 41 cannot be assumed that the economic activities of indigenous peoples near conservation areas invariably contribute to conservation, 25 of these enterprises and projects are involved in some type of voluntary certification system (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council, Rainforest Alliance and others). 51 The Atlas is not designed to track the number of connections, market transactions, or the amount of climate finance distributed as a result of connections made on the website, nor does the evaluation team find any further evidence that Atlas directly led to transactions within the life of the project. FOCUSED ENGAGEMENT The success of AIME’s on-demand, personalized support for private sector actors and for direct trade relationships between buyers and sellers (in the form of small grants to finance sourcing and sales trips) highlights the deeper level of engagement necessary for development programming to effectively lead to market transactions. Explaining the rationale behind this approach, a member of the EcoDecision team noted: “We realized that bringing buyers and sellers directly together and having them interact and cement those relationships was a really cost-effective and powerful lever to actually get to deals being made… we knew getting those commercial relationships needed to be a key priority.” Personalized assistance for Canopy Bridge buyers interested in exploring sustainable sourcing options led to two successful export transactions from Colombia and Mexico with a total value of approximately $150,000 in 2017. Specialty broker Uncommon Cacao contracted $73,200 worth of cocoa from Afro Colombian communities in Bajo Mira and indigenous producers in the Sierra Nevada, with the expectation of more shipments in 2018. AIME also helped connect the Union of Ejidos de la Selva in Chiapas, Mexico with specialty coffee roasters in the United States. As a result, $84,916 worth of coffee was purchased. These two transactions contributed to the incomes of cacao producing communities and established market linkages that lay the groundwork for additional transactions beyond AIME. Support for direct trade relationships also represented a viable AIME approach to facilitating market transactions. Three of the six sourcing trips sponsored by the Direct Trade Travel Grants Competition built relationships between buyers and sellers and market transactions of significant value. 52 As one example, representatives from CAC Perene, a cooperative of 400 coffee producers from the Junin region of central Peru, used their Direct Trade Travel Grant to conduct a trip to meet with European coffee buyers. CAC Perene’s coffee—the main source of income for their small-scale producers—comes from agroforestry systems and is Organic and Fairtrade certified. According to AIME reporting documents, CAC Perene’s resulted in export contracts valued at approximately $1.3 million through 2020. As one member of the EcoDecision team described: “The trip by Perene to visit buyers in Europe resulted in them getting orders for about 460 to 470 tons of coffee over the next 3 years. It was with a client they had worked with on a small-scale in the past, but this trip really led to them doing a significant deal… It was clear that going from a relationship that was remote and distant with low volumes of trade, they [Perene] managed to visit their buyer in Europe and really solidify that relationship in a way that led to some significant purchases.” 51 Canopy Bridge. (2018). Indigenous Enterprises Can Contribute to the Protection of Millions of Hectares of Amazon Rainforest. Retrieved from http://canopybridge.com/indigenous-enterprises-can-contribute-to-the-protection-of-millions-of-hectares-of-amazon-rainforest/ 52 The AIME Direct Trade Travel Grants Competition was launched in 2017 with a focus on awarding targeted travel support to buyers and community-based sellers conducting due diligence or negotiations to support export contracts. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 42 GENDER AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS Under a Direct Trade Travel Grant, California-based specialty coffee company Sedna met with Asociación de Cooperación al Desarrollo Integral de Huehuetenango (ACODIHUE)—an indigenous women’s coffee organization in Guatemala. While this initial visit did not lead to a market transaction within the life of the project, the company provided ACODIHUE with technical guidance and recommendations for improving their processing techniques to meet Sedna’s quality standards. The company plans to review the quality of ACODIHUE’s 2019 harvest and consider potential exports. Speaking to the potential of this partnership to contribute to transactions and the livelihoods of ACODIHUE’s members, the founder of Sedna noted: “The mission of my company is to aim for 100% sourcing from women coffee producers and to ensure they receive the income directly into their hands for the work they do…If ACODIHUE can continue to improve their processing techniques, these women will then have direct access to income that will ensure improvement on their lives and the lives of their families and communities.” The Sedna example highlights the importance of continued support for increasing the capacity of women’s producer groups—in this case coffee processing techniques—to effectively lead to marketable community-based enterprises and transactions. Simply facilitating a market connection will not be effective if female producers are ill-equipped with the technical capacity necessary to develop quality products and the organizational capacity necessary to bring them to market. Dedicated outreach, focused on expanding the number of women’s producer groups on the Canopy Bridge platform, coupled with targeted capacity building support for sustainable commercial products among women’s producer groups, may help increase market interactions and negotiations that support territorial governance, and support buen vivir, conservation of carbon stocks, and emission mitigation among women. For companies such as Sedna looking to source solely from women’s producer groups, it would also be helpful to include this characteristic as one of the search criteria on the Canopy Bridge website. SUPPORT FOR REDD+ COMPATIBLE PRODUCTS CHIAPAS In the second half of the activity, AIME leveraged earlier efforts with cashew producers in Chiapas to facilitate the sale of cashew nuts from ejidos supported by AIME. In addition to generating $3,000 in sales, this transaction represented the first time that cashew producers were able to engage directly with buyers. AIME also strengthened the capacity of cashew producers to engage in market transactions by identifying potential distributors and supporting improved production capacity in ways consistent with market demand. Among pine resin producers in Chiapas, AIME supported organizational development and technical capacity by conducting trainings on laws and regulations, overcoming organizational challenges, the resin supply chain, and the links between climate change and forest management. AIME resources further helped market pine resin by providing producers with information related to the real costs of production as well as deepening their understanding of market characteristics. Another important capacity outcome was increased negotiation power among pine resin producers to engage with the private sector. More specifically, AIME support for the provision of tools and sharpening stones to producers ensured that when contracts concluded with their primary buyer (Alen del Norte), the producers had greater leverage to renegotiate. As a result, pine resin that formerly sold for 5.00- 5.50 pesos per kilo can now be sold for nearly 9.00 pesos/kilo. Producers were further able to Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 43 renegotiate the terms of delivery of the pine resin. During the first half of the project, producers were responsible for getting the barrels of resin to Alen del Norte’s facility before being paid, a significant challenge for producers in the mountains of Chiapas. As a result of AIME, producers are now able to aggregate their resin within their own production facilities, and Alen del Norte pays for and picks up the resin locally. RONDONIA AIME support for the Surui handicraft initiative provided Surui women with an important source of income and improved their market connections. Based on focus group discussions with women involved in these activities, it was clear throughout the mid-term field assessment that the sale of handicrafts served as an important source of income for Surui women participating in the initiative. As one Surui woman noted: “The store is the only option for many women to earn an income.” Reporting materials for the endline analysis indicate some progress towards enhancing the commercialization of Surui artisanal products during the second half of the project. This was namely through facilitating a partnership designed to increase the visibility and promotion of the artisans’ work.53 AIME support among the Surui for the production, processing, and sale of agroforestry and agricultural products—including cacao, Brazil Nuts, coffee, and bananas—did not materialize into significant sales or income within the life of the project. Efforts launched in 2016 to improve the sale of wild cacao have not generated economic returns to the Surui to date. No reporting information on the amount or value of Brazil nuts sold to private sectors actors in 2017 or 2018 is available. Support for producer groups led to the sale of 79 sacks of coffee for export and two tons of bananas in 2017, though the value of these transactions was not reported by the project. The final field assessment suggests that the continuity of these activities beyond the life of the project is unsustainable without additional support. The need for steady and continued agricultural technical assistance was unanimously confirmed by all Surui stakeholders interviewed during the field assessment. PERU AIME technical assistance and capacity-building efforts in the Bora and Huitoto communities of Peru resulted in the development and market launch of two products sourced from indigenous producers and over $50,000 in market transactions. In both cases, we expect a high likelihood of sustainable outcomes.54 The first commercial production runs of the branded aji negro product were rolled out in June 2018, resulting in sales of $1,500 by the end of AIME. Moving forward, producer groups now have a branded and packaged product that can be sold in high-end markets, along with greater capacity for continued production. AIME’s efforts in the Pacaya Samiria Reserve to launch paiche meat resulted in a $50,000 agreement for the sale of sustainably harvested paiche from the 2018 fishing season to the gourmet market— representing a 10% increase in sales to the gourmet market compared to 2017. 53 In 2017, Metareila also reported the first handicraft export of significant value—approximately $4,000, however, this figure was noted by AIME as unverified. 54 These efforts were implemented in partnership with Lima-based Chef Pedro Miguel Schiaffino and the Amaz Restaurant Group and conjunction with other funding sources—including in-kind support and funding from the Amaz Restaurant Group, private donations, and the Moore Foundation. However, according to EcoDecision, AIME support has been a decisive factor in getting these products to the market. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 44 An EcoDecision team member expanded further on the success of these efforts: “On fisheries side, we have been able to increase the volume of sales and the percentage of sales that fishermen made to high-end market from 10% of their total catch going to the high-end market and the rest going to the local low-price market, to almost 50% last year… the groups at this point are now well-positioned in the fresh/frozen fish market in Peru to continue to get a growing percentage of their catch to the high-end market.” With prices for paiche in the gourmet market representing a 400% price premium55 for producers over conventional local markets, these results have the potential to contribute to local livelihoods beyond the life of AIME. GENDER AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS The mid-term evaluation found that the handicraft initiative involving Surui women in Rondonia was particularly successful in relation to gender and support for REDD+-compatible products. As detailed above, AIME support for the Surui handicraft initiative provided Surui women with an important source of income and improved market connections. Further analysis of FGDs with women involved in these activities during the mid-term field assessment suggests the handicraft initiative is also helping change community norms regarding the autonomy of women related to decision-making and household purchases. Relative to conservation outcomes and buen vivir, the initiative was described as strengthening the aspect of the Surui culture focused on forest protection. As one woman said, “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.” At the time of the Mid-term evaluation, Metareila had developed a network of over 150 female handicraft suppliers. Yet evidence from FGDs conducted during the mid-term field assessment revealed challenges related to getting additional women to participate in the initiative outside of the villages where AIME had provided consistent support—mainly due to lack of awareness of the initative. It was clear that project efforts had not effectively encouraged participation in the handicraft initiative among women in Surui villages that were not directly engaged by the project, limiting the potential of opportunities for income generation activities for women across the entire Surui Territory. According to AIME reporting documents, Metareila now has a network of handicraft suppliers exceeding 200 women across five Surui villages. However, findings from the final field assessment suggest that the challenges related to participation were not entirely addressed throughout the second half of the project. Surui women in focus group discussions explained continued challenges to equipping other women with the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in the initiative. Adding to the PE team’s concerns regarding equal opportunities to participate in the initiative, the AIME-supported distribution of 75 “women’s toolkits” in April 2018 with items to support the production of handicrafts were only delivered to artisans in one village. Further, the challenges faced related to women's participation in the handicraft initiative were likely directly relevant to divisions among the Surui regarding participation in the Surui Forest Carbon Project (SFCP). These divisions existed prior to AIME and, according to key 55 AIME Year 4 Quarter 4 Report. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 45 informants, were partially fueled by the fact that individuals engaging in land rental activity with logging or agribusiness companies were not allowed to participate in the SFCP. These divisions were left largely unaddressed by AIME, but those individuals and their villages are perhaps most in need of increased access to alternative livelihoods that create incentives to disengaged with extractive industries. To be more effective, future efforts must work to better address internal divisions driving deforestation among the Surui and further ensure these divisions are not a determination of who is able to participate in or benefit from any resulting market or climate finance transactions. Specific to the handicraft initiative, continued efforts should focus on equipping a greater number of Surui women in additional villages with the skills, materials, and market connections necessary to earn an income from the sale of handicrafts. SUPPORT FOR CLIMATE FINANCE MECHANISMS BRAZIL AIME supported efforts with the Yawanawa people and the Aveda Corporation to structure a mechanism for recognizing the Yawanawa territory for their contributions to REDD+ outcomes. After nearly a year and a half of AIME-led negotiations, a funding mechanism was proposed to the state of Acre. In November 2015, the state of Acre communicated with the FBLC that they would not adopt the mechanism, citing concerns that if the state were to give the Yawanawa the vintage carbon credits56 for their territory, they would be forced to do the same for all other indigenous ethnicities in Acre. AIME subsequently shifted their focus with the Yawanawa towards the developing a mechanism with voluntary private contributions. AIME partnered with Aveda and NativeEnergy—an environmental services company—to structure a payment for performance mechanism. However, in May 2018, after nearly two years of efforts, the Yawanawa Leadership Council decided not to sign the contract that would develop the mechanism. According to staff from Forest Trends, this was mainly due to a “clash of the cultures” between the contracting requirements of Aveda and NativeEnergy and the Yawanawa Leadership Council. A member of the EcoDecision team further explained: “The real stumbling block here was the level of complexity and the legal contracting that was required by the private sector party versus what that Yawanawa were comfortable signing…at the end of the day that bridge was too hard to cross.” While neither of these mechanisms were successful in promoting transactions or access to climate finance, the evaluation team finds some evidence of the Yawanawa governance organizations’ enhanced capacity to engage in FPIC and negotiate with the private sector. Aveda has renewed their commitment to fund the Yawanawa Life Plan in the amount of $100,000 per year. In addition, CASA, the Brazilian Socio-environmental Fund, continues to work with the Yawanawa Leadership Council to establish a trust fund for receiving and channeling investments. AIME support for the Surui Forest Carbon Project (SFCP) in Rondonia, financed by the sale of carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market, was also intended to leverage climate finance57 for Life Plan implementation in Brazil—in this case among the Surui. However, due to the increased deforestation in the Surui, the SFCP was placed on indefinite hold in 2016 and SFCP efforts ceased entirely in 2018. 56 The vintage is the year in which the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) takes place. The more “recent” the carbon credit is, the more expensive it is. 57 AIME Performance Indicator 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. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 46 THE INDIGENOUS AMAZON FUND AIME partners contributed significantly to the design and development of an Indigenous Amazon Fund or Fondo Indígena Amazónico leading up to COP21 Paris in November 2015. As a result, a Concept Note for the Fund was launched at COP21. AIME partners, including EII and COICA, then spent approximately nine months after the launch raising the profile of the fund looking for donor support. Ultimately, they were unable to secure the funding and these efforts did not continue beyond Year 3 of the AIME activity. THE MESOAMERICAN TERRITORIAL FUND The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund (MTF) was borne out of the need for new and innovative sources of finance, including blended finance, for mitigation and adaptation projects in indigenous communities. The Fund is intended to help address the lack of international climate finance flowing directly to indigenous and traditional communities. However, the climate finance outcomes of AIME’s efforts to support the MTF were not realized within the life of the project. Organizational capacity among communities to engage in the mechanism appears to be a limiting factor in the implementation of the Fund. More specifically, the number of existing projects and community-based enterprises that present an adequate business case was not well defined, and there are a number of challenges that may prevent projects from clearing the hurdles of the investment screening process. Of nine project proposals evaluated as part of an MTF feasibility analysis, only three had business models that appeared suitable for potential investment. Proposals unsuited for investment were found to have business models that were financially and/or operationally unviable or were lacking in data to adequately support the proposed business model.58 Therefore, beyond AIME, there is a need for continued support among USAID and other donors for community-based natural resource management projects in order to effectively achieve the Fund’s intended outcomes. GENDER AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS The evaluation found no evidence of gendered outcomes or unintended consequences with respect to vulnerable populations. However, climate finance-related efforts focused on communities as a whole, rather than specifically on women or subgroups as members of communities. It is, therefore, important to note existing research on concerns relevant to the potential effects of REDD+ and climate finance transactions on the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, particularly in relation to social equality and the provision of equitable outcomes. These concerns are primarily related to existing social and power relations influencing the ability of women and marginalized groups to access and use natural resources, participate in decision-making, and access benefits for ecosystem services in the form of REDD+ and PES transactions.59 Such gender and equity concerns should be considered to ensure future programmatic efforts related to climate finance transactions do not marginalize or disenfranchise women and vulnerable persons. 58 TMP Systems. (2018). The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund: An assessment of the prospects for Financing Community-Based Enterprises. 59 McDermott et al., 2013; Angelsen et al., 2012; Fry 2008; Corbera et al., 2007. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 47 ANNEX 2. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED TABLE 5: MID-TERM EVALUATION: KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED 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 01-20-2016 2 Dan Nepstad Male AIME Activity IR2 Lead, EII Remote 01-21-2016 3 Maria Digiano Female AIME Activity Focal Point, EII Remote 01-21-2016 4 Phil Covell Male AIME Activity IR3 Lead, Forest Trends Remote 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 Magaly Medeiro Female President, Institute of Climate Change of Acre Remote 02-11-2016 8 Elsa Mendoza Female Remote 02-12-2016 9 Eufran Amaral Male President, EMBRAPA Acre In-person Brazil 02-12-2016 10 Chief Tashka Yawanawa Male Chief, Yawanawa People In-person Brazil 02-13-2016 11 Yawanawa KI Male Cultural Revival Advocate In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 12 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Village Leader In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 13 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Village Health Agent In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 14 Yawanawa KI Female Teacher In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 15 Yawanawa KI Male Agroforestry Agent, Yawanawa Village Leader In-person Brazil 02-15-2016 16 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Spiritual Leader In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 17 Yawanawa KI Male Student of Spirituality In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 18 Yawanawa KI Male Yawanawa Village Leader, WASH Agent In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 19 Yawanawa KI Male Teacher In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 20 Yawanawa KI Male Teacher In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 21 Yawanawa KI Female Teacher In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 22 Julia Yawanawa Female Yawanawa Leader In-person Brazil 02-16-2016 23 Eliezer de Oliveira Male Technical Assessor, SEDAM, Rondonia In-person Brazil 02-18-2016 24 Edgard Mendes Cardoso Male Coordinator of Floresta Plantada, SEDAM, Rondonia In-person Brazil 02-18-2016 25 Vilson de Salles Machado Male State Secretary, SEDAM, Rondonia In-person Brazil 02-18-2016 26 Delson Gaviao Male Gaviao Indigenous Leader In-person Brazil 02-19-2016 27 Surui KI Male Elder, Leader of Paiter Parliament In-person Brazil 02-20-2016 Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 48 Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 28 Surui KI Male Indigenous Sanitation Agent In-person Brazil 02-20-2016 29 Surui KI Male Member of Paiter Parliament Council, Indigenous Health Agent In-person Brazil 02-20-2016 30 Surui KI Female Vice Representative of Village Artisan In-person Brazil 02-21-2016 31 Arildo Surui Male AIME Activity Focal Point and Project Coordinator, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 32 Kachia Techio Female Anthropologist and Indigenous Technical Advisor, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 33 Almira Surui Female Indigenous Associate, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 34 Alnoke Surui Male Financial Coordinator, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 35 Leonesci Surui Female Handicraft Initiative Leader, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 36 Adlanes Surui Female Financial and Administrative Associate, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 37 Belaton Surui Male Communication and Social Media Associate, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-22-2016 38 Chief Almir Surui Male Chief of the Surui, Executive Director, METAREILA In-person Brazil 02-23-2016 39 Fernanda Bortolotto Female AIME Activity Focal Point, IPAM Remote 02-26-2016 40 Roberto Hernández Male AIME Activity Focal Point, Sub￾director Capacity Development, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 41 Barbara Baltazar Female Sub-director Forest Communities, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 42 Silvia Llamas Female Sub-director Administration, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 43 Cecilia Valencia Female Sub-director Social Management, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 44 Jose Montero Male Public Policy Project Leader, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 45 Camilo Thompson Male Public Policy Project Associate, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 46 Alexser Velazquez Male Director, Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, CONANP In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 47 Edmundo Aguilar Male Director, Encrucijada Biosphere Reserve, CONANP In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 48 Ricardo Hernandez Male Sub-Secretary of Forest Development, SEMAHN In-person Mexico 02-29-2016 49 Jose Luis Guerro Male Resin Production Coordinator, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 03-03-2016 50 Alberto Cruz Salazar Male Forest Management Associate, Pronatura Sur In-person Mexico 03-03-2016 51 Jacob Olander Male AIME Activity Focal Point, Executive Director, EcoDecision Remote 03-18-2016 52 Susan Kandel Female AIME Activity Focal Point, PRISMA Remote 03-30-2016 Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 49 Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 53 Jorge Luis Male Fire Management Technician, Villaflores In-person Mexico 03-03-2016 54 Dr. Colleen Mary Scanlan Lyons Female Project Director, Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) Remote 03-17-2016 TABLE 6: FINAL EVALUATION: KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 1 Isabel Rodrigues de Mesquita Female IPAM Remote 04-04-2018 2 Felisberto de Souza Male Superintendente de Assuntos Indígenas In-person Brazil 4-10-2018 3 Alcilene Freitas Bertholdo de Souza Female Climate Change Department Coordinator, Mato Grosso Secretary of Environment In-person Brazil 4-10-2018 4 Renata Costa Female Climate Change and REDD+ Coordinator, GIZ—Brazil In-person Brazil 4-10-2018 5 Alice Thuault Female Instituto Centro Vida In-person Brazil 4-10-2018 6 Crisanto Rudzo Tseremey'wá Male FEPOIMT, President In-person Brazil 4-10-2018 7 Eliane Limare Female FEPOIMT, Advisor In-person Brazil 4-10-2018 8 Almir Suruì Male Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 9 Arildo Gapame Suruì Male Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 10 Enoque Suruì Male Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 11 Rubens Suruì Male Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 12 Jamiria Suruì Female Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 13 Ubiratan Surui Male Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 14 M. Surui Male Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 15 Rebeca Surui Female Metareilà Association In-person Brazil 4-11-2018 16 Maria Barcellos Female AIME Consultant In-person Brazil 4-12-2018 17 Marcia Gomes Reibeiro Female Regional Coordination of Education, Cacoal In-person Brazil 4-13-2018 18 Maria Leonice Tupari Female Rondonia Indigenous Women’s Association Coordinator In-person Brazil 4-13-2018 19 Carlos Silva Male AIME Consultant In-person Brazil 4-13-2018 20 Delson Gavião Male Indigenous Association Paderéehj In-person Brazil 4-14-2018 21 Savio Gomes Male NGO—Pacto das Águas In-person Brazil 4-14-2018 22 Eliezer Oliveira Male Climate Change Focal Point Special Advisor to the Government of Rondônia In-person Brazil 4-16-2018 23 Heliton Gavião Male Indigenous Peoples Coordinator Government of Rondônia In-person Brazil 4-16-2018 24 Chris Meyer Male EDF Remote 07-16-2018 Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 50 Name Gender Institution, Organization or Constituency Interview Technique Interview Country Interview Date 25 Jacob Olander Male AIME IR3 Lead, EcoDecision Remote 07-18-2018 26 Marcio Halla Male AIME IR1 Lead, Forest Trends Remote 07-19-2018 27 Gemara Gifford Female Trees, Water & People Remote 07-24-2018 28 Gustavo Sanchez Male AMPB Remote 7-25-2018 29 Ossiel Torres Male AMPB Remote 7-25-2018 30 Marvin Sotelo Male AMPB Remote 7-25-2018 31 Maria Digiano Female AIME IR2 Lead, EII Remote 07-26-2018 32 Dan Nepstad Male AIME IR2 Lead, EII Remote 07-26-2018 33 Rosi Quiñones Female Royal Coffee Remote 07-26-2018 34 Mayra Orellana￾Powel Female Royal Coffee Remote 07-26-2018 35 Anders Prien Male Original Beans Remote 07-31-2018 36 Beto Borges Male AIME COP, Forest Trends Remote 08-01-2018 37 Iza Hoyos Female AIME Program Associate, Forest Trends Remote 08-01-2018 38 Silvia Llamas Prado Female Pronatura Sur Remote 08-06-2015 39 Roberto Hernandez Male Pronatura Sur Remote 08-06-2015 40 Cecilia Valencia Female Pronatura Sur Remote 08-06-2015 41 Mery Santos Female Sedna Remote 08-06-2018 42 Susan Kandel Female PRISMA Remote 08-08-2018 43 Roberto Espinoza Male COICA Remote 8-16-2018 44 Claudia Chamorro Female COICA Remote 8-16-2018 TABLE 7: 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 FGD 11 (Final PE) 11 6 Surui Village, Rondonia 04-12-2018 Total: 65 70 118 Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 51 ANNEX 3. DESK REVIEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION DESK REVIEW: AIME DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX AIME PLANNING DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization AIME Year 1 Work Plan and Performance Management Plan 2014 Forest Trends Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the AIME Activity 2015 Forest Trends AIME Year 2 Work Plan 2014 Forest Trends AIME Year 3 Work Plan 2015 Forest Trends AIME Year 4 Work Plan 2016 Forest Trends AIME Year 5 Work Plan 2017 Forest Trends AIME REPORTING DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization AIME Year 1 First Quarterly Report 2014 Forest Trends AIME Year 1 Second Quarterly Report 2014 Forest Trends AIME Year 1 Third Quarterly Report 2014 Forest Trends AIME Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 Forest Trends AIME Baseline Assessment: Proposed Approach for Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Benefit 2014 Forest Trends AIME Year 2 First Quarterly Report 2015 Forest Trends AIME Year 2 Second Quarterly Report 2015 Forest Trends AIME Year 2 Third Quarterly Report 2015 Forest Trends AIME Year 2 Fourth Quarterly Report 2015 Forest Trends AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook 2015 Forest Trends Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 52 AIME Performance Indicator Reference Sheets 2015 Forest Trends AIME Year 3 First Quarterly Report 2016 Forest Trends AIME Year 3 Second Quarterly Report 2016 Forest Trends AIME Year 3 Third Quarterly Report 2016 Forest Trends AIME Year 3 Fourth Quarterly Report 2016 Forest Trends AIME Year 4 First Quarterly Report 2017 Forest Trends AIME Year 4 Second Quarterly Report 2017 Forest Trends AIME Year 4 Third Quarterly Report 2017 Forest Trends AIME Year 4 Fourth Quarterly Report 2017 Forest Trends AIME Year 5 First Quarterly Report 2018 Forest Trends AIME Year 5 Second Quarterly Report 2018 Forest Trends AIME Year 5 Third Quarterly Report 2018 Forest Trends AIME Final Report 2018 Forest Trends DESK REVIEW: COMPLETE LIST OF FBLC DOCUMENTS REVIEWED PRONATURA SUR REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization Pronatura Sur: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2013 Pronatura Sur Pronatura Sur: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 Pronatura Sur Pronatura Sur: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 Pronatura Sur Environmental Mitigation Plan Resina (EMPR) 2016 Pronatura Sur PNS AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 Pronatura Sur PNS AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 Pronatura Sur PNS AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 Pronatura Sur Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 53 Plan Integral de Vida Digna Aztlan 2017 Pronatura Sur Plan Integral de Vida Digna Pesqueria Guadalupe 2017 Pronatura Sur Relatoria Diplomado Moxviquil 2017 Pronatura Sur PNS AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 Pronatura Sur Terminos de referencia para la capacitacion para la emission de comprobantes fiscales y de declaraciones mensuales y anuales ante la Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Publico de Pro Ecosistema de Manglar Sistema Lagunar Mar Muerto A.C. 2018 Pronatura Sur Mediadores Culturales Propuesta Chiapas 2018 Pronatura Sur Necesidades de mercadeo de produccion apicola para Pro Ecosistema del Manglar Sistema Laungar Mar Muerto AC de Pesqueria Guadalupe Victoria 2018 Pronatura Sur Sistematizacion de proceso social, Pesqueria Guadalupe 2018 Pronatura Sur Identificacion de actividades prioritarias para consolidar/impulsar los proyectos productivos en Pesqueria Gaudalupe 2018 Pronatura Sur Relatorias for the second, third, fourth, fifth modules of the diploma in territorial governance 2018 Pronatura Sur USAID Record of Compliance with Activity-Specific Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMPS) 2018 Pronatura Sur Informe: Taller de Capacitacion Pratica a Ejidos Productores de Resina 2018 Pronatura Sur PNS AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 Pronatura Sur PNS AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 Pronatura Sur COICA REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2013 COICA AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 COICA Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 54 Cumarí: Gastronomy for a Sustainable Amazon. FT & Canopy Bridge 2016 COICA Memoria del Encuentro de Saberes sobre Planes de Vida Plena para Pueblos Indígenas. 3 al 5 de marzo 2015. Lima, Perú 2016 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 1 2017 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 3 2017 COICA CMNUCC-COP 23. Propuestas y Acciones. Ambición Climática Indígena ante Negacionismo 2017 COICA Carta No. 86-2017-AIDESEP 2017 COICA Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Participants Committee Meeting. March 24, 2017. Peru’s Request for Additional Funding – AIDESEP 2017 COICA REDD+ Indígena Amazónico (RIA), Salvaguardas y REDD+ (AIDESEP, Selva Centro y Sur). Yarinacocha, 21 y 22 de setiembre 2017 COICA Calificación de proceso de selección de un consultor para la elaboración de la Consultoría: “Análisis de los flujos de Carbono en dos áreas pilotos de REDD+ Indígena Amazónico” 2017 COICA Propuesta de COICA y de los pueblos indígenas amazónicos sobre la política de pueblos indígenas del FVC – GCF 2017 COICA Mujeres amazónicas, semillas de vida y sabiduría, desde los territorios y libre determinación 2017 COICA Joint submission to the UNFCCC, with regard to the Purpose, Content and Structure for the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples platform established by decision 1/CP.21 paragraph 135 of the Paris Agreement. International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical (Prepared by Forests and COICA) 2017 COICA Mandato de Pucallpa. Movilización Amazónica regional. 22 Setiembre 2017 2017 COICA Petición: Amazonía viva, humanidad segura 2017 COICA Resolución Solidaria que defienda los Pueblos y las Selvas y sin Imposiciones de Neocolonialismo – COICA 2017 COICA Progress in Indigenous REDD+ Alternative in Perú: Reserva Comunal Amarakaeri (Marrakech, 11 Nov 2016) 2017 COICA Análisis de flujos de Carbono en dos áreas pilotos de REDD+ Indígena Amazónico 2017 COICA Terms of Reference of the consultancy “Analizar los flujos de Carbono en dos áreas pilotos de REDD+ Indígena Amazónico” 2017 COICA Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 55 Títulación y Agenda Indígena Amazónica [FIP] 2017 COICA Programa de Formación en Gobernanza Territorial Indígena (PFGTI). Informe Semestral. Enero a Junio 2017 2017 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 2 2018 COICA COICA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 COICA Economía de Vida Plena con el Bosque en Pie 2018 COICA Crisis civilizatoria, Ambición Climática y “Laudato Si” 2018 COICA Estrategia de Relacionamiento del RIA Reserva Comunal Amarakaeri con el Sector Privado 2018 COICA Crisis climática y alternativas indígenas. Programa Formación Gobernanza Territorial Indígena 2018 COICA Carta abierta sobre diseño del plan sobre la Fase II del DCI (Declaración Conjunta de Intenciones para reducir deforestación entre Noruega, Alemania y Perú) – AIDESEP 2018 COICA La titulación-manejo-gobernanza territorial - Aporte clave para desarrollo bajo en carbono y los NDC 2018 COICA Minga NDC/CND. Aportes Indígenas a los compromisos climáticos del Perú 2018 COICA Reubicación del RIA en proceso climático global y nacional 2018 COICA Visión regional de RIA. Reubicación del RIA en los procesos climáticos globales y nacionales. Manejo Holístico de Territorios Indígenas 2018 COICA Foro Internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas sobre Cambio Climático. Documento de debate sobre la puesta en funcionamiento de la plataforma de las comunidades locales y los pueblos indígenas 2018 COICA Focalization and adecuation of the climate funds Amazon Indigenous Fund (FIA) for the Titling-Management-Territorial Governance (COP23, 9.11.17) 2018 COICA Convocatoria de insumos públicos para la Política de Pueblos Indígenas sobre el Fondo Verde para el Clima 2018 COICA METAREILA REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 56 Document Name Date Organization METAREILA: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2013 Metareila METAREILA: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 Metareila METAREILA: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 1 2017 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 2 2017 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 3 2017 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 Metareila Metareila AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 Metareila General Meeting of Pater Surui Indigenous Women 2018 Metareila Contract between Pur Project and Metareila 2018 Metareila Invitation to lecture on occupational safety 2018 Metareila Participation list to design the education plan of the Paiter University 2018 Metareila Biomonitoring sheet 2018 Metareila Crafts Registration Form to participate in the 3rd Agroecology and Socio￾Biodiversity Exhibition 2018 Metareila Letter to FUNAI from the Cacique of the Tika Community 2018 Metareila Brief of the coordination meeting between Metareila and indigenous professors of La Petanha 2018 Metareila EII REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 57 EII: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2013 EII EII: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 EII EII: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 EII Consulta indigena para a implementacao da politica de REDD+/MT: Principais resultados do trabalho de diagnostic 2016 EII EII AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 EII EII AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 EII EII AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 4 2016 EII Proposta de Protocolo de Consulta Indigena para a Politica de REDD+ do Estado de Mato Grosso: Principais Resultados da Fase de Diagnostico 2016 EII AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 EII REM- MT: Estudo de viabilidade para um programa de pagamentos por resultados REDD (ex-post e com base no desempenho) no Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil – Componente Indigena 2017 EII EII AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 EII EII AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 EII GCF Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Working Group Workshop materials 2018 EII Workshop Report – GCF Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Working Group 2018 EII Resumo do grupo do Trabalho GCF, Povos Indigenas e Comunidades Locais – Foro dos Governos 2018 EII Negotiating Climate Justice at the Subnational Scale: Challenges and Collaborations between Indigenous Peoples and Subnational Governments 2018 EII Detection and Attribution of Changes in Jurisdiction-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Case of a New Indigenous Peoples Program in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil 2018 EII The Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Working Group two-pager 2018 EII Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 58 Guiding Principles for Collaboration and Partnership between Subnational Governments, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities – Process Description 2018 EII IPAM REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization IPAM: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2013 IPAM IPAM: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 IPAM IPAM: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 IPAM IPAM AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 IPAM IPAM AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 IPAM IPAM AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 IPAM IPAM AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 IPAM Memoria – Quinto Reuniao da Camara Tecnica de Mundancas Climaticas do CG PNGATI 2017 IPAM Documento-sintese de subsidios a implementacao da ENREDD+ 2017 IPAM IPAM AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 2 2018 IPAM IPAM AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 IPAM Camara Tecnica de Mundancas Climaticas – Plano de Trabalho 2018 2018 IPAM EDF REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization EDF: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 EDF EDF: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 EDF EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 EDF Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 59 EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 EDF EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 EDF EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 EDF Acuerdo Sobre el Pilar Indigena de Vision Amazonia 2017 EDF Reporte sobre la COP22 -Marrakech 2017 EDF EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 EDF EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 2 2018 EDF EDF AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 EDF Reporte para el proyecto USAID sobre actividades en la COP23 2018 EDF ECODECISION REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization EcoDecision: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2014 EcoDecision EcoDecision: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2015 EcoDecision Cumarí: Gastronomy for a Sustainable Amazon 2015 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Q.1 2016 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Q.2 2016 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Q.3 2016 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Q.4 2016 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Q.1 2017 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Q.2 2017 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Q.3 2017 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Q.4 2017 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Q.1 2018 EcoDecision EcoDecision AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Q.3 2018 EcoDecision Canopy Bridge Award Visit Report to Guatemala 2018 EcoDecision Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 60 (Prepared by: Mery Santos, Sedna Coffee Roasters) FOREST TRENDS REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization Memoria del Encuentro de Saberes sobre Planes de Vida Plena para Pueblos Indígenas 3 al 5 de marzo 2015 Lima, Perú 2016 Forest Trends PFGTI Informe Semestral Enero a Junio 2017 2017 Forest Trends Reunión de Planificación del Programa AIME Año 5 2017 Forest Trends Taller de Intercambio de Experiencias en la Amazonía sobre Políticas e Incentivos para los Territorios Indígenas con Mínima o Nula Deforestación Leticia (Colombia): del 10 al 12 de octubre de 2017 (Programa Borrador) 2017 Forest Trends PFGTI Copy of Lista de participantes 2018 Forest Trends PRISMA REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization PRISMA: AIME Activity Year 1 Work Plan 2013 PRISMA PRISMA: AIME Activity Year 1 Fourth Quarterly Report 2014 PRISMA PRISMA: AIME Activity Year 2 Work Plan 2014 PRISMA PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 PRISMA PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 PRISMA PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 PRISMA Fotos gira territorial La Mosquitia, Feb 2016 2016 PRISMA Diagnóstico de Gobernanza Territorial parala Muskitia Hondureña 2016 PRISMA REDD+ Jurisdiccional en la Muskitia Hondureña 2016 PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 PRISMA Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 61 Concejos Territoriales lideran agenda de gobernanza con el apoyo de MASTA y la Fundación PRISMA 2017 PRISMA Fuentes de Verificación: Fotos de los talleres y asamblea comunitaria 2017 PRISMA Propuesta Estrategica de Saneamiento Local Territorial de los Concejos Territoriales de “TRUKTSINASTA y WAMAKKLISINASTA” en las Comunidades de Tipi y Auka; La Muskitia 2017 PRISMA PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 PRISMA PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 2 2018 PRISMA PRISMA AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 PRISMA Versión Corta Diagnostico sobre Gobernanza Territorial. 2018 PRISMA Plan de Saneamiento Interno Territorial DIUNAT, La Muskitia 2018 PRISMA AMPB REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS Document Name Date Organization Red-MOCAF. Memoria Taller: “Formación de promotores para el proceso de difusión de la ENAREDD+ y sobre REDD+ Jurisdiccional.” Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, 16,17, 18 de Noviembre de 2015 2015 AMPB Red-MOCAF. AIME Plan de Formación “Desarrollo de Capacidades en Materia de Incidencia y Negociación” México, D.F., Diciembre de 2015. 2015 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 1 2016 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 2 2016 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 3, Quarter 3 2016 AMPB Mesoamerican Territorial Fund Concept Note (2nd Version) Evolving Internal Working Document. May 2016 2016 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 1 2017 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 2 2017 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 3 2017 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 4, Quarter 4 2017 AMPB Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 62 Ayuda Memoria Reunion de Asamblea para la Socializaion de la Investigacion Preliminar Sobre el Tema “GOBERNANZA TERRITORIAL” TIPI. CONCEJO TERRITORIAL DE TRUKSINASTA, Comunidad de Tipi .28 De Abril De 2017. 2017 AMPB Ayuda Memoriadia Logo Para la Construccion Estrategica de Gobernanza del Territorioen Auku y Tipi. 09 DE Septiembre 2017 2017 AMPB Ayuda Memoria de la Reunion con Protepcasa de la Cultura, Puerto Lempira, 17 y 18 De Abril De 2017. 2017 AMPB Ayuda Memoria Taller de Validacion de Diagnostico Sobre Gobernanza Territorial Concejo Territorial Diunatbrus Laguna, Departamento de Gracias a Diosfecha: 24–25 De Abril De 2017 (Prepared by MASTA) 2017 AMPB Breve Informe del Proceso de Gobernanza y Saneamiento Territorial de la Muskitia. (Prepared by MASTA) 2017 AMPB Informe de la Reunion MASTA con el Gabinete de Gobierno. (Prepared by MASTA) 2017 AMPB Listado de Asistencia Auku. 09/09/2017 2017 AMPB Listado de Asistencia Tipi. 05-06/09/2017 2017 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 1 2018 AMPB AMPB AIME Activity Indicator Tracking Workbook. Year 5, Quarter 3 2018 AMPB Red-MOCAF. PROGRAMA DE FORMACION. Formación de Promotores Comunitarios ante la Implementación de ENA-Redd+ y la Iniciativa de Reducción de Emisiones (IRE) Programa: AIME. Ciudad de México, Febrerode 2018 2018 AMPB Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 63 WORKS CITED: Adame, M. F., Brown, C. J., Bejarano, M., Herrera‐Silveira, J. A., Ezcurra, P., Kauffman, J. B., & Birdsey, R. (2018). The undervalued contribution of mangrove protection in Mexico to carbon emission targets. Conservation Letters. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. CIFOR. Awono, A., Somorin, O. A., Atyi, R. E. A., & Levang, P. (2014). Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: Insights from southern Cameroon. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 76-86. Barbier, E.B. and Tesfaw, A.T. (2012). “Can REDD+ Save the Forest?: The Role of Payments and Tenure.” Forests 3: 881-895. Bose, P., Larson, A. M., Lastarria-Cornhiel, S., Radel, C., Schmink, M., Schmook, B., & Vázquez-García, V. (2017). Women's rights to land and communal forest tenure: A way forward for research and policy agenda in Latin America. Women's Studies International Forum, 65, 53-59. California Air Resources Board. 2016. ARB Staff Technical Paper: Evaluation of the Potential for International Sector-Based Offset Credits in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Canopy Bridge. (2018). Direct Trade Grant Winner Announced! Retrieved from http://canopybridge.com/direct-trade-grant-winners-announced/ Canopy Bridge. (2018). Indigenous Enterprises Can Contribute to the Protection of Millions of Hectares of Amazon Rainforest. Retrieved from http://canopybridge.com/indigenous-enterprises-can-contribute-to￾the-protection-of-millions-of-hectares-of-amazon-rainforest/ COICA. (2017). RIA: REDD+ Indígena Amazónico. Contribuciones Nacionalmente Determinadas - La respuesta peruana al cambio climático (2016). Lima: Ministry of the Environment of Peru. http://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/contribuciones￾nacionalmente-determinadas-respuesta-peruana-cambio Corbera, E., Brown, K., & Adger, W. N. (2007). The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and change, 38(4), 587-613. Corbera, E., Estrada, M., May, P., Navarro, G., & Pacheco, P. (2011). Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests, 2(1), 301-342. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2015). REDD+ Annual Country Progress Reporting - Peru. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2015/September/FCPF_August2015_Peru%20upd ated.pdf Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2014). Carbon Fund Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN) - Emission Reductions in The Peruvian Amazon. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/september/PERU_ER￾PIN_Sept.%2012.2014.pdf Fry, I. (2008). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: opportunities and pitfalls in developing a new legal regime. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 17(2), 166-182. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 64 Gamboa & Snoeck (Eds). Análisis Crítico de la Consulta Previa en el Perú. Informes sobre el Proceso de Reglamentación de la Ley de Consulta y del Reglamento. Lima: Grupo de Trabajo sobre Pueblos Indígenas de la Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos. 2012. https://www.servindi.org/pdf/DAR_Consulta_Previa.pdf Global Witness. (2018). At what cost? Irresponsible business and the murder of land and environmental defenders in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/campaigns/environmental￾activists/at-what-cost/ Gobierno Regional de Madre de Dios (2015). Plan de Desarrollo Regional Concertado de Madre de Dios (Actualización) - 2014-2021. http://www.regionmadrededios.gob.pe/portal/archivos/comunicados/PDRC￾MDD.pdf Gonzalez, J. (2017). “Brazil alters indigenous land demarcation process, sparking conflict”. Retrieved from https://amazonwatch.org/news/2017/0202-brazil-alters-indigenous-land-demarcation-process-sparking￾conflict Governors' Climate and Forests Task Force. (2014). The Rio Branco Declaration. Rio Branco, Brazil. Hamrick (K.) & Gallant (M.) (2017). Unlocking Potential – State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2017. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace. Herlihy, P. H., & Tappan, T. A. (2018). Recognizing Indigenous Miskitu Territory in Honduras. Geographical Review. Humphreys, David. "Deforestation." In Global Social Issues: An Encyclopedia, edited by Christopher G. Bates and James Ciment, 232-245. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 2013. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Knox, A., Caron, C., Miner, J., & Goldstein, A. (2011). Land tenure and payment for environmental services. Challenges and opportunities for REDD+. Land Tenure Journal, (2). Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., & Brown, K. (2008). Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum, 39(6), 2073-2083. Larson, A. M. (2011). Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: Lessons for REDD+. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 540-549. Larson, A.M., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Duchelle, A., Babon, A., Dokken, T., Pham, T.T., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Selaya, G., Awono, A. and Huynh, T.B. (2013). Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change, 23(3), 678-689. MASTA. (2018). Concejos Territoriales lideran agenda de gobernanza con el apoyo de MASTA y la Fundación PRISMA. McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 416-427. Oppenheimer, Michael and Steve Schwartzman. (2018). “How California Can Save the Amazon.” Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opinion/california-climate-save-amazon.html Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 65 Pinto & Molera (Eds.). REDD+ Indígena en el Perú: Perspectivas, avances, negociaciones y desafíos desde la mirada de los actores involucrados. Ministry of the Environment of Peru, GiZ. February 2014. https://www.scribd.com/document/232519848/Giz-Redd-Indigena-Peru PRISMA. (2016). Diagnostico territorial de La Mosquita. Reber, Florian. (2018). “What is ‘blue carbon,’ and how does it help protect our coastal ecosystems?” Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/blue-carbon-the-key-to-keeping-the-earth￾cool/ Ruggie, J. G. (2007). Business and human rights: the evolving international agenda. American Journal of International Law, 101(4), 819-840. Sunderlin, W. D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., Resosudarmo, I. A., Huynh, T. B., Awono, A., & Dokken, T. (2014). How are REDD+ Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development, 55, 37-52. Sustainable Tropics Alliance. Chiapas, Mexico: Current Situation. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletropics.org/chiapas-mexico/. Sylvander, N. (2018). Saneamiento Territorial in Nicaragua, and the Prospects for Resolving Indigenous￾Mestizo Land Conflicts. Journal of Latin American Geography, 17(1), 166-194. Terry, Geraldine. "No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the issues." Gender & Development 17.1 (2009): 5-18. TMP Systems. (2018). The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund: An assessment of the prospects for Financing Community-Based Enterprises. Ururumiɨ Aikanã et al (2017). Nossa Terra e as mudanças do clima. Forest Trends. USAID. (2011). Evaluation: Learning from Experience. USAID Evaluation Policy. Washington, DC. USAID. (2012). Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy. Washington, DC. USAID. (2011). Honduras Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance. Washington, DC. Van Dam, C. (2011). Indigenous territories and REDD+ in Latin America: Opportunity or threat?. Forests, 2(1), 394-414. Villalba, U. (2013). Buen Vivir vs Development: a paradigm shift in the Andes?. Third World Quarterly, 34(8), 1427-1442. World Bank. (2017). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2017. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Wunder, S. (2009). “Can payments for environmental services reduce deforestation and forest degradation?” In Angelsen, A (ed.), Realising REDD+: National Strategies and Policy Options. Bogor: CIFOR. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 66 ANNEX 4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS The data collection instruments for the Final AIME PE field assessment are included on the following pages. Note that these instruments were adapted in the field as appropriate according to the field site, respondent(s), and amount of time allotted for the interview or focus group discussion. LOCAL 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: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “The Cloudburst Group is conducting a performance evaluation of the AIME activity being implemented by Forest Trends and members of 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 a maximum of 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, your responses will remain anonymous and we will only include your name in the list of interviewees. No personal 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?” Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 67 SECTION 1: 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 about your role and responsibilities as a leader in your community? How long have you been in this position? How did you come to fill this role? SECTION 2: FOREST USE Enumerator: Next, I would like to ask some questions about how forests in your area are used. 2. How does your community use the forest resources in your area? For example, what are some of the most important forest products collected for consumption and income purposes? 3. Other than members of your community, are there any other groups or actors that use the forest resources in your area? (PROBE for example: other indigenous groups, cattle ranchers, agricultural and/or forestry companies, extractive industries, or other large land-holders, etc.) If yes, who are these other actors? To the best of your knowledge, how are they using the forests? Do they have permission to do so? If yes, who gave them permission? (PROBE each of the actors identified) 4. Do you believe the clearing of forests or the destruction of forest resources are problems facing your community? Please explain. 5. In your opinion, are there any activities taking place in or around your community that you feel are contributing to the clearing of forests or the destruction of forests resources? SECTION 3. TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE Enumerator: Next, I would like to ask some questions about how forests in your area are managed. 6. In your territory, who/what groups regulate the use of and access to forests (PRODE i.e., indigenous, local, state, regional leaders)? 7. What (if any) are your specific roles and responsibilities related to regulating the use of forests? For example, do you make or enforce rules? Do you help make decisions? 8. How (if at all) do you work with other indigenous or government leaders in your area to manage the use and access to forests? 9. Do you believe that indigenous leaders in your area have the power and resources necessary to protect your forests? Why or why not? SECTION 4: AIME Enumerator: Now let’s talk a bit about activities in your area related to protecting your forests. Note that AIME will not be referenced directly in the interviews. The team will reference the relevant implementer and project activities according to the field site. Enumerator Note: It is important to use context-specific details of the field site to guide this portion of the interview. The goal is to elicit enough detail from the respondent to determine the AIME-specific activities and outcomes in the area. Be sure to tailor questions specifically to ask about the implementing activities by FBLC members in each area. 10. Can you please describe any initiatives in your area related specifically to cutting less trees or taking better care of the forests? (PROBE specifically for AIME activities) 11. Turning specifically to {the work of X}, can you please tell me about the activities of X taking place in your area? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 68 12. In what way(s) are you personally involved with the X project? (PROBE participation in trainings, capacity building activities related to territorial governance, agroforestry initiatives, etc.) 13. How are other members of your community involved with the X project? Who are the main members of your community involved? 14. How are women involved in the X project in your community? Have there been any specific efforts to include women in your community in the activities of X? 15. Has the involvement of your community in forest conservation activities changed because of the work completed by X? For example, are there any agriculture, forestry, or other land use activities your community now engages in because of the project? PROBE the following list of activities: production and sale or improved production and sale non-timber forest products such as cocoa, coffee, bananas, Brazil nuts, and handicrafts: restoration degraded lands: engagement in agroforestry, etc. 16. Have the activities of X led to any possibilities of your community working together with the private sector? If yes, please describe the nature of this cooperation. Do you feel your community has benefited from this cooperation? If yes, how? If no, why not? 17. Has the way your community controls the use and access to forests (i.e. territorial governance) changed because of the work of X? If yes, how so? Are these changes effecting the use and protection of forests in your area? Please explain. 18. In your opinion, has the X project helped make your community stronger when: Governing your territories and managing forest resources more effectively and confidently? Mitigating deforestation and forest degradation? If yes, please provide examples. If not, can you please share why you think this has not happened? 19. From your perspective, what have been the most important outcomes of X activities in your community? 20. Has the work of X had any negative or unexpected impacts on your community? If yes, please explain. 21. From what you have observed, what changes could be made to improve the activities of X in your area? SECTION 5: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 22. Do you have any final comments on the activities of X that you wish to share at this time? Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 69 INDIGENOUS CHIEFS AND POLICY ADVOCATES: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Information for Identification/Interview Record Name of Interviewer: Date of Interview: Location of Interview (Field Site, State): Interview Start Time: Interview End Time: Name of Respondent: Title of Respondent: Respondent Affiliation/Relation to AIME: Respondent Sex: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “The Cloudburst Group is conducting a performance evaluation of the AIME activity being implemented by Forest Trends and members of 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 forest conservation in your area and any efforts surrounding REDD+. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. If you decide to participate, the interview will last a maximum of 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, your responses will remain anonymous and we will only include your name in the list of interviewees. No personal 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 1: BACKGROUND ON RESPONDENT AND FOREST CONSERVATION INITIATIVES Enumerator: I’d like to start by asking you a bit about yourself and your role in the indigenous community. 1. Can you please tell us about your role in the indigenous community? How did you come to fill this role? Can you tell me about the tasks you typically perform and are responsible for? 2. Please describe your involvement in efforts to protect and conserve forests in indigenous territories. 3. Who do you work with in these efforts (PROBE i.e. different levels of government, NGO, task forces, indigenous leaders)? SECTION 2: JURISDICTIONAL REDD+ Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 70 Enumerator: Next, I’d like to talk about how you work with government officials to protect and conserve forests. Note that AIME will not be referenced directly in the interviews. The team will reference the relevant implementer and project activities according to the field site. 4. Looking at the state-level, how do government officials work to protect and conserve the forests in indigenous territories? 5. Are you familiar with REDD+? If yes, can you please tell me about the state-level REDD+ or forest conservation activities taking place in your area? (PROBE familiarity with REDD+ initiatives within respondents’ community and/or at state or national levels) 6. How do indigenous leaders work with government officials in your area to support forest protection and reduction of deforestation? For example, how do the different groups coordinate and work with one another? Do you believe you share a common goal? If yes, what is that goal? 7. How are you involved in state-level REDD+ initiatives -or forest protection and reduction of deforestation- if not familiar with the REDD+ concept- in your area? (PROBE participation in planning, decision making groups, etc.) 8. Turning specifically to {the work of X}, can you please tell me about the activities of X taking place in your area? Enumerator Note: In Rondonia, probe specifically about AIME activities implemented by Forest Trends, Metareila, and COICA relevant to the state-level climate change policy and the public policy for rural technical assistance to indigenous peoples. In Mato Grosso, probe specifically about AIME activities implemented by Earth Innovation Institute and IPAM relevant to the state-level REDD+ policy and statewide IP consultation protocol. 9. In what way(s) are you personally involved with the X project? (PROBE participation in trainings, capacity building activities related to territorial governance, agroforestry initiatives, etc.) 10. How, if at all, have the activities of X contributed to your participation in state-level discussions and decision-making related to forest conservation? 11. Do you ever meet with municipal, 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? 12. In your opinion, what challenges do indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities face when willing to contribute to jurisdictional-level forest conservation projects? 13. Do you believe that indigenous leaders in your area have the power and resources necessary to protect your forests? Why or why not? 14. Do you feel that the state supports the work your community is doing to protect your forests and reduction of deforestation? Please explain why or why not. How else could the state government support your community’s efforts? SECTION 3: PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Enumerator: Lastly, I’m going to ask you about the engagement of your community with the private sector. 15. Have the activities of X led to any collaboration between your community and the private sector? If yes, please describe the nature of these collaborations. 16. Are there any specific groups/members of your community that are involved? How are women involved in this partnership? 17. How did this partnership come to be? In other words, who initiated the process (i.e., the company, an NGO, indigenous leaders, etc.)? 18. Does your community receive any benefits as a result of this collaboration? If yes, please describe. (Carefully probe any benefit sharing arrangements) Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 71 19. What role do you think the private sector should take to further engage with indigenous communities on efforts related to forest conservation and reduction of deforestation? SECTION 5: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 20. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of X’s activities in your area so far? 21. From what you have observed, how else could X support your efforts to mitigate deforestation, forest degradation and climate change? 22. Do you have any final comments on the activities of X that you wish to share at this time? Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 72 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: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “The Cloudburst Group is conducting a performance evaluation of the AIME activity being implemented by Forest Trends and members of 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 and climate change mitigation efforts in your area. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. If you decide to participate, the interview will last a maximum of 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, your responses will remain anonymous and we will only include your name in the list of interviewees. No personal 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 1: 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? Please describe your roles and responsibilities as a government official in this area (i.e., district, state, region, depending on informant). 2. What are the specific roles and responsibilities of your office related to forest protection and conservation? SECTION 2: STATE-LEVEL DEFORESTATION, FOREST DEGRADATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 73 Enumerator: Next, I’d like to ask you about deforestation, forest degradation and relevant climate change mitigation initiatives in your area. 3. What are the key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in your area? In your opinion, who are the main actors in your area contributing to deforestation and forest degradation? 4. Can you please describe any government policy initiatives in your area related specifically to mitigating deforestation or climate change (i.e. programs and policies related to forest conservation, reforestation, agroforestry)? (PROBE specifically for REDD+ and AIME-related initiatives) 5. Please explain briefly the methodology you are using to measure emissions reductions in your jurisdiction? 6. Who does your office work with in your efforts to support forest protection and climate change mitigation initiatives? (PROBE i.e. other levels of government, NGO, task forces, indigenous leaders) 7. How does your office work with indigenous leaders in your area to support forest protection and climate change mitigation initiatives? For example, how do the different groups coordinate and work with one another? Do you believe you share a common goal? If yes, what is that goal? SECTION 3: AIME AND JURISDICTIONAL REDD+ Enumerator: Let’s talk some more about the forest conservation initiatives and polices you’re involved in. Note that AIME will not be referenced directly in the interviews. The team will reference the relevant implementer and project activities according to the field site. Enumerator Note: It is important to use context-specific details of the field site to guide this portion of the interview. The goal is to elicit enough detail from the respondent to determine the AIME-specific activities and outcomes in the area. Be sure to tailor questions specifically to ask about the implementing activities by FBLC members in each area. In Rondonia, probe specifically about AIME activities implemented by Forest Trends, Metareila, and COICA relevant to the state-level climate change policy and the public policy for rural technical assistance to indigenous peoples. In Mato Grosso, probe specifically about AIME activities implemented Earth Innovation Institute (EII) and IPAM relevant to the state-level REDD+ policy and statewide IP consultation protocol. 8. Turning specifically to {the work of X}, can you please tell me about the activities of X taking place in your area? How has your office been involved in these activities? 9. How has the involvement of your office in REDD+ or other forest conservation activities and policy initiatives changed because of the work of X? 10. In your opinion, have the activities of X helped your office, or other government offices in your area, to improve REDD+ or forest conservation initiatives? Please explain why or why not. 11. Are there alliances/coalitions between different actors that have formed because of X? Please describe. 12. How has the involvement of the indigenous leaders you work with in REDD+ or forest conservation initiatives changed because of the activities of X? 13. Have the activities of X helped your office to develop any new laws, regulations or reforms designed to support the participation of indigenous communities in REDD+? Please describe any efforts surrounding these laws, regulations, or policies. How has the X project supported these efforts? 14. Do you think indigenous programs can help contribute to state-level climate change mitigation strategies? If so, how? If not, what adjustments would be needed to improve indigenous contribution to forest carbon strategies and programs? 15. In your opinion, what challenges do indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities face when willing to contribute to state-level forest carbon programs and projects? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 74 16. In your opinion, what are some of the biggest challenges different levels of government (i.e. state, national) face in terms of supporting climate change mitigation? SECTION 4: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 17. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of X’s activities in your area so far? 18. From what you have observed, how else could X support your office and other government offices to mitigate deforestation, forest degradation and climate change? 19. Do you have any final comments on the X project or REDD+ that you wish to share at this time? 20. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 75 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 X: 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 and forest degradation in your community. Your participation in this discussion is entirely voluntary. Results of this discussion may be used in AIME performance evaluation reporting. Your responses will remain anonymous and no identifying information will be stored with your discussion. At any time in the discussion, you can decide to stop participating. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 76 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 few 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 no right or wrong answers, so please feel welcome to express yourself freely. I will conduct the discussion and ______ will take notes. If you agree, I will also 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. Does anyone have any concerns with the use of the tape recorder? (Determine if there is agreement to use the tape recorder) 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: First, 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 are most important forest products collected for consumption and income purposes? 2. 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 years? (PROBE: How and why have conditions improved? How and why have conditions worsened?) 3. Do you believe the clearing of forests or the destruction of forest resources are problems facing your community? Please explain. 4. In your opinion, are there any activities taking place in your area that you feel are contributing to the clearing of forests or the destruction of forest resources? SECTION 3: AIME: Enumerator: Now let’s talk a bit about activities in your area related to protecting your forests. Note that AIME will not be referenced in the FGDS. the team will reference the relevant implementer and project activities according to the field site. Enumerator Note: It is important to use context-specific details of the field site to guide this portion of the focus group discussion. The goal is to elicit enough detail from the respondent to determine the AIME-specific activities and outcomes in the area. Be sure to tailor questions specifically to ask about the implementing activities by FBLC members in each area. 5. Can you please describe any initiatives in your area related specifically to cutting less trees or taking better care of the forests? (PROBE specifically for AIME activities) 6. Turning specifically to {the work of X}, can you please tell me about the activities of X taking place in your area? 7. How did you find out about the X project? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 77 8. In what way(s) are you personally involved with the X project? (PROBE participation in trainings, capacity building activities related to territorial governance, agroforestry initiatives, etc.) Enumerator Note: In the Igarape Lourdes Indigenous Territory, probe specifically about the restoration and agroforestry activities implemented by COICA. In the Surui Territory, probe specifically about the following activities implemented by Metareila: Paiter University training modules; the production, processing, and sale of REDD-compatible products and handicrafts; training and extension for on-farm improvements; the network of Surui artisans; and the Surui Forest Carbon Project. The answer to this question should be used to the tailor the remainder of the FGD. 9. Who are the main members in your community involved in the X project activities? 10. How are women involved in the X project in your community? Have there been any specific efforts to include women in your community in the activities of X? 11. Do you believe that women are able to take part in these project activities in an equal manner as men? Why or why not? 12. Has the involvement of your community in forest conservation activities changed because of the work completed by X? For example, are there any agriculture, forestry, or other land use activities your community now works with because of the project? PROBE the following list of activities: production and sale or improved production and sale non-timber forest products such as cocoa, coffee, bananas, Brazil nuts, and handicrafts: restoration degraded lands: engagement in agroforestry, etc. 13. Have the activities of X led to any collaborations with members of your community and the private sector or companies? If yes, please describe the nature of these partnerships. Do you feel your community has benefited from these partnerships? If yes, how? 14. What have the activities of X taught you about protecting forest resources? 15. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of X’s activities in your community? 16. In general, do you feel the activities of X in your community have supported your community’s ability to live in accordance with your values and traditions? 17. Has the work of X had any negative effects on your community? If yes, please explain. 18. From what you have observed, what changes could be made to improve the activities of X in your area? SECTION 4: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION 19. Do you have any final comments on X that you wish to share at this time? 20. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 78 ANNEX 5. CASE STUDIES Case Study 1: The AIME Activity in Gracias a Dios, Honduras Background: The Mosquitia area of the Gracias a Dios region in Honduras contains the highest level of biodiversity and concentration of protected areas in the country—mostly notably the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve. The area—home to 18% of the country’s indigenous population—is also known for its enormous cultural wealth associated with the presence and influence of indigenous peoples, such as the Miskitu, who have worked to preserve the natural resources of the region for centuries. However, owing to their social, economic, and political marginalization and their geographic isolation, Miskitu communities face high barriers to access markets and sources of finance. Furthermore, the social and ecological sustainability of the Miskitu is at risk, as their territories and institutions continue to face increasing pressures and growing threats from a variety of factors—such as longstanding challenges in the form of state neglect and discrimination, environmental degradation driven by climate change and increasing pressures on land, and the rise of violence and illegal activity. 60 Though the Miskitu have legal titles for their collective lands, the process of saneamiento is further necessary to define who can and cannot occupy their land legally. Roughly translated as title clearing, the saneamiento process is also seen as essential to stop continued invasions and return third parties illegally occupying Miskitu land to their places of origin. However, the process has received little support from the state and— despite the legal recognition of Miskitu land rights— misunderstandings between state and Miskitu institutions regarding access to and management of natural resources remain.61 Approach: To support territorial management and conservation-related outcomes at the community level, AIME supported the development of Saneamiento Plans to enhance legal security and the effective management of Miskitu land. The Saneamiento Plans resulting from these efforts discuss the organization and training of territorial monitoring groups; equipping these groups with the knowledge, technology, and materials necessary to conduct surveillance; raising awareness of the saneamiento process among third parties; and monitoring and surveillance activities among the territorial councils. In 2018, the program also supported an Indigenous Economy Workshop and brought together representatives from all of the Miskitu territorial councils to discuss and develop economic strategies for their territories. At the jurisdictional level, the project encouraged dialogues between Miskitu organizations and state 60 PRISMA. 2016. Diagnostico territorial de La Mosquita. TMP Systems. 2018. The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund: An assessment of the prospects for Financing Community-Based Enterprises. 61 Herlihy, P. H., & Tappan, T. A. 2018. Recognizing Indigenous Miskitu Territory in Honduras. Geographical Review. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 79 government entities regarding territorial management and supported advocacy and policy efforts related to indigenous land rights and REDD+. Outcomes: As mentioned in Section 4.2, AIME support for the development of Saneamiento Plans increased the capacity of three Miskitu governance organizations to engage in long-term territorial governance in ways that reflect indigenous knowledge and priorities and could potentially improve tenure security and conservation outcomes beyond the life of the project. Further, AIME increased the organizational capacity of MASTA to engage in activities and discussions related to territorial governance, conservation, and the reduction of emissions by assisting them in their dialogues with government entities surrounding the saneamiento process and REDD+ strategy for the Mosquitia territory. For example, the AIME-supported Territorial Governance Plan for the Miskitu is a simple and easy-to-read document that can be used by MASTA for internal discussions and planning processes, and to facilitate dialogues with government and private sector actors. This document includes the most important aspects of PRISMA’s Diagnostico territorial de La Mosquita (completed under AIME in 2016), such as the current conditions of governance in the Mosquitia, the main challenges faced, and the types of support needed to strengthen territorial governance and advance jurisdictional REDD+. In 2018, AIME supported MASTA to prepare a proposal for an executive decree for the creation of an inter-sectoral commission to oversee the saneamiento process of the Muskitia and its respective regulations. MASTA presented the proposal to the central government, though faced challenges regarding its approval due to “lack of support from state institutions.”62 AIME also worked with MASTA to prepare the Indigenous Forestry Protocol, a proposed protocol for Miskitu forest management based on traditional practices and ancestral knowledge. If approved by the central government, the Protocol will enhance the ability of Miskitu institutions to manage their forest resources in ways that are compatible with their culture and indigenous identity, and thus consistent with the concept of buen vivir. Furthermore, the Protocol will help lessen misunderstandings between state and Miskitu institutions regarding forest management. Expanding on the importance of the Protocol in their strategy for territorial governance, MASTA noted: “The greatest obstacle to the advancement of these [territorial governance] initiatives has to do with the ambiguities in the recognition and implementation of the rights of the Miskitu People…In this line, MASTA is supporting the construction of governance regimes that align and articulate more effectively with the state regulation system. From this arises the proposal to establish an Indigenous Forest Protocol to ensure the management of the forest according to the Miskitu’s norms.”63 With AIME support, MASTA also formed multiple agreements with municipal and departmental authorities on the integration of indigenous peoples’ rights in legal frameworks, and was able to harmonize municipal laws with the International Labor Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169 of 1989. The results of these efforts provide a legal underpinning to indigenous land rights’ consolidation in Gracias a Dios and greater clarity between state and Miskitu institutions regarding resource management. 62 AIME. 2016. Year 5, Second Quarterly Report. 63 MASTA. 2018. Concejos Territoriales lideran agenda de gobernanza con el apoyo de MASTA y la Fundación PRISMA. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 80 Though AIME contributed to an enabling environment for jurisdictional REDD+ in the Mosquitia by promoting greater emphasis on, and advocating for, enhanced territorial security and the saneamiento process, efforts intended to advance a jurisdictional REDD+ strategy for the Mosquitia did not lead to concrete outcomes related to REDD+ policy within the life of the project. This finding has important implications for outcomes related to climate finance since, according to PRISMA, the lack of a specific REDD+ strategy for the Mosquitia is an important factor in stalling the negotiation process of the Miskitu with regards to potential opportunities for climate finance.64 Also, in terms of performance related to market transactions that promote conservation, lacking from the AIME approach in Honduras was direct support for alternative and sustainable livelihoods that provide alternatives to the extractive and illegal practices currently exploiting Miskitu lands. However, data obtained from interviews suggests that the Indigenous Economy Workshop did help strengthen the capacity of Miskitu territorial councils to engage with the private sector. Commenting on the outcomes of the workshop, a member of the AIME team noted: “There is a company willing to buy pine resin from the Miskitu, but they don’t know how to start a conversation with the market. During the workshop, they had the opportunity to learn about the documents used as a basis of dialogues with big companies. The last period of the workshop was dedicated to planning activities, and they came out with a local plan defining next-steps for strengthening their indigenous economy strategy.” Future efforts in Honduras should therefore be targeted to better advance REDD+ policies and support the production and commercialization of REDD+ compatible products among indigenous communities. The saneamiento judicial process is long, complicated, and inherently political, and the Miskitu will continue to face financial, political, and technical challenges in determining which lands have been illegally occupied and by whom.65 The Saneamiento Plans developed under AIME will, therefore, require additional financial and political resources beyond the life of AIME to effectively increase tenure security and improve territorial governance. As such, future support should also focus on strengthening land rights—both legally and in practice—among targeted communities. 64 PRISMA. 2016. Diagnostico territorial de La Mosquita. 65 Sylvander, N. (2018). Saneamiento Territorial in Nicaragua, and the Prospects for Resolving Indigenous-Mestizo Land Conflicts. Journal of Latin American Geography, 17(1), 166-194. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 81 Case Study 2: The AIME Activity in Chiapas, Mexico Background: Chiapas is Mexico’s eighth largest state and home to a variety of ecosystems and forest landscapes—from cloud and temperate forests to mangroves, humid, and sub-humid rain forests. Chiapas has 47 protected areas, covering roughly 20% of the state, and is the second richest state for biodiversity in Mexico. The state is also home to the second-largest number of indigenous villages in Mexico. Though agriculture and forestry account for just 8% of economic activity in the state, when combined with fisheries, 60% of total GHG emissions come from agriculture, forestry, and land use.66 Thus, the sustainable management of Chiapas’ montane and coastal forests plays an important role in mitigating emissions. Chiapas’ coastal mangroves particularly represent a valuable carbon sink because carbon sequestered in deep soils is not measured in national carbon inventories. As a result, Mexico has likely undervalued the potential emissions reductions resulting from mangrove conservation and restoration. Chiapas is somewhat unique among AIME jurisdictions in that land is governed under the Mexican ejido system, where agricultural land is used communally, with individual community members tending to designated parcels. Ejidos generally maintain collective community holdings and may employ communal decision￾making and governance processes.67 Ejidos can be found across all of Chiapas’ ecosystems, from the mountains to the coast. In general, the ejido system is considered a successful part of conserving Mexico’s forests and generating economic opportunities for rural communities. However, the financial and ecological sustainability of community forestry activities in the ejidos is closely tied to the enforcement of Mexico’s General Forestry Law, which has been criticized for failing to protect community owned and managed forest landscapes in the ejidos from illegal logging activities. Changes to forestry and biodiversity policy at the national level have also generally failed to fully consider the impacts of these changed on sub-national jurisdictions such as Chiapas. A strong forestry law is essential to protect the ejidos from third parties that may be granted permission to exploit natural resources without consulting the communities that occupy the land. Approach: AIME activities in Chiapas were holistic in nature, providing simultaneous technical support related to REDD+, including: participatory approaches and policy and institutional level reforms; community-level training and workshops on climate change and the development and implementation of Life Plans; and, the development of REDD+-compatible products, including pine resin, cashews and 66 Sustainable Tropics Alliance. Chiapas, Mexico: Current Situation. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletropics.org/chiapas-mexico/. 67 Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., & Brown, K. (2008). Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum, 39(6), 2073-2083. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 82 honey. Community mangrove management and conservation activities were also a focal point in the second half of the program, building on prior restoration work. Outcomes: As a result of the development and implementation of Life Plans among three rural ejidos in Chiapas and Oaxaca, communities demonstrate greater understanding of and capacity to engage in activities related to climate change and the development of non-timber forest products and REDD+- compatible products. These activities are also in line with both the existing communal structure of the eijdos and the concept of buen vivir. The Life Plans further represent an important entry point for women from indigenous and traditional communities in these two jurisdictions to participate in organizational capacity building and community governance, and women were the primary participants in Life Planning activities.68 Life Plan efforts were also an important part of expanding community mangrove conservation and restoration efforts. Through collective reflection processes, AIME empowered communities with the knowledge and skills they need to understand the impacts of climate change and the role of mangroves in providing critical ecosystem services and mitigation benefits in the context of REDD+ and LED-R programs. Though the carbon benefits were not quantified as part of AIME, support for mangrove conservation and restoration also provides carbon sequestration in partial fulfillment of Mexico’s international emission reduction commitments. Relevant local agreements were developed and renewed as part of project activities. These agreements strengthened community resource governance by increasing social participation and inclusion in mangrove management and strengthening local mechanisms for monitoring and patrolling. AIME also played a key role in advancing jurisdictional policy approaches in Chiapas. Activities in support of REDD+ during the first part of the program, however, were hindered by a general decline in public budget allocations for REDD+ projects among relevant government agencies. Despite these setbacks, AIME worked throughout the program to strengthen policy instruments and benefit sharing mechanisms for communities by improving the frameworks of Chiapas’ climate change and forestry laws. In the second half of the project, program implementers also took on significant leadership roles at the national and state levels to advance these objectives and advocate on behalf of Chiapas in the context of national forestry and REDD+/emissions reductions strategies. Additional capacity was developed around ecosystem services and climate change resilience provided by mangroves. AIME supported national-level agencies to identify challenges and opportunities for the implementation of carbon sequestration programs in coastal regions. Because Mexico’s existing forestry and related laws do not tie carbon tenure to land tenure, AIME also built capacity and supported consensus-building within and among these agencies with regard to the recognition of carbon rights in the ejidos. The outcomes of AIME support for pine resin producers in Chiapas—further detailed in Section 4.6— were also significant. The accreditation process of the National Forestry Commission for the establishment of the California ejido as a training center for resin production remains ongoing and is currently in the diagnostic stage, where the strengths and roles of local actors are being identified, as well as their capacity to fulfill the requirements of being a demonstration community. Establishing the California ejido as a model community for territorial governance and the production of pine resin was a longitudinal objective of AIME activities in Chiapas, though use authorizations delayed the process. In 68 The gendered outcomes of Life Plan activities are further discussed in Section 4.2. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 83 addition to being the first successful resin-producing ejido that AIME worked with, it was the first to include women, and the first to produce resin within the Sepultura Biosphere Reserve. The findings highlight many opportunities for follow-on work in Chiapas and Oaxaca, as well as opportunities to replicate successes in other communities. The AIME focal jurisdictions in Mexico were the only places where program support successfully contributed to increased conservation within the life of the project. Successful replication in other communities should combine community-level initiatives to build capacity for territorial governance through Life Plans or similar frameworks for territorial governance with support for individuals and organizations to implement conservation activities successfully and sustainably. Mexico provides success stories from both montane and coastal forests. Other ways to promote community conservation, territorial governance, and livelihoods should include: continued support for the establishment of the California ejido as a demonstration community for resin production; scaling up the development of non-timber forest products/REDD-compatible products, drawing on lessons learned from resin producers in Chiapas in particular; and, applying lessons learned from Chiapas to develop robust consultation processes for sub-national REDD+ strategies. Because the policy process and progress in advancing jurisdictional REDD+ generally moves more slowly than program cycles and is further complicated by public budget shortfalls, supporting the legacy achievements of AIME through future work becomes even more important. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 84 Case Study 3: The AIME Activity in Peru Background: Peru is the third largest country in South America and has around 73 million hectares of tropical forests covering more than 60% of its territory. Peru is also home to 54 identified indigenous peoples whose livelihoods are greatly dependent on the Amazonian forest. Yet, the Peruvian Amazon faces increasing threats of deforestation, largely due to competition for land use by legal and illegal activities, weak governance, an inadequate system of lands rights and weak linkages to markets systems. 69 Peru endorses a REDD+ nested jurisdictional approach, which implies a national recognition of the progress and results of the REDD+ activities and projects that are carried out at the regional and other sub-national levels. However, Peru’s engagement in REDD+ readiness initiatives has slowed down in recent years. In response to the concerns of indigenous peoples related to REDD+, COICA—an organization of over 390 indigenous peoples— promotes the Holistic Management Initiative for Indigenous Territories of Full Life, known as Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA). RIA revolves around the Life Plans and cultural diversity of Amazonian indigenous peoples. The RIA approach is supported by evidence that holistic management of forests by indigenous peoples has strengthened their resilience in diverse ecological, political and geographical contexts throughout the Amazon tropics.70 RIA is officially included in various national plans and strategies in Peru. An RIA pilot project in the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve—in the Madre de Dios Region—was designed to compensate communities for the ecosystem services they provide—in part with AIME support. The economic history of Madre de Dios has been dominated by natural resource extraction and, until recent decades, the region was largely ignored by the central government. Though with political fluctuations and inconsistent engagement, the Regional Government of Madre de Dios (GOREMAD) has participated in several REDD+ initiatives, including the Governor’s Climate and Forests’ Task Force (GCF). Approach: AIME activities in Peru focused in part on the implementation of the Indigenous Territorial Governance Training Program (PFGTI).. AIME funding supported the organization of the PFGTI launch workshop and the design and facilitation of teachers' training workshops in Peru. AIME also worked to 69 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. 2015. REDD+ Annual Country Progress Reporting—Peru. 70 Pinto & Molera (Eds.). REDD+ Indígena en el Perú: Perspectivas, avances, negociaciones y desafíos desde la mirada de los actores involucrados. Ministry of the Environment of Peru, GiZ. February 2014. Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 85 promote the concept and development of RIA and the development and launch of sustainable products sourced from indigenous producers. Outcomes: At the community level in Peru, AIME contributed to indigenous economies through capacity building efforts among indigenous producers, direct support for market relationships, and the development of value-added products. As the winner of the 2016 AIME-sponsored Economía y Bosques competition, ECA-Amarakaeri—the governing body the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve—received technical assistance to create an inventory of Brazil nut trees, and for the first time, secure harvest rights within the Reserve. In conjunction with these efforts, EcoDecision supported the Peruvian company Shiwi to assess the market potential for value-added products for Brazil nuts and engage with Amarakaeri prodcuers. According to Shiwi—due in part to AIME’s efforts to strengthen the harvest rights of the Amarakaeri and establish their business relationship—an export agreement between Shiwi and ECA-Amarakaeri for 20 barrels of Amazonian chestnuts from the 2018 harvest was reached in 2018. As noted in Section 4.6, AIME technical assistance and capacity-building efforts in Peru also contributed to the development and market launch of two products sourced from indigenous producers, both with sustainable potential to contribute to the incomes of indigenous producers beyond the life of AIME. AIME efforts at the national level in Peru helped recognize and incentivize indigenous contributions to forest conservation and reform and align jurisdictional policies with RIA. AIDESEP—COICA’s national level constituency in Peru—engaged in dialogues with the National Program for Forest Conservation and Climate Change Mitigation for the implementation of conditional direct transfers benefiting indigenous peoples. AIDESEP prepared a preliminary participatory design of the ‘Minga Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC)’ proposal as an indigenous contribution to meet and increase Peru's NDCs. Twelve indigenous territories are included under this preliminary proposal. Moreover, the RIA proposal was approved and integrated into the National REDD+ Strategy of Peru during the first half of AIME’s implementation. After this milestone, AIME’s efforts at the national level in Peru focused on the NDC process, which is considered a more convenient approach as it does not focus on carbon alone, provides a better umbrella for other ecosystem services provided by indigenous territories, and is a better space for advancing indigenous peoples’ rights. To incorporate indigenous views and approaches at the regional level in Madre de Dios, AIME supported the promotion of RIA and advancing indigenous peoples’ land rights, including demarcation of their territories. AIDESEP also supported the contribution of indigenous peoples to the Regional Climate Change Strategy of Madre de Dios (Estrategia Regional de Cambio Climático de Madre de Dios, October 2016). The Strategy incorporates the contribution of indigenous peoples to climate change mitigation through environmental management. The influence of indigenous peoples’ organizations on these policy documents was highlighted and disseminated by COICA at COPs 21 and 22. In spite of these outcomes, AIME faced challenges with regard to the RIA pilot in the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve and, to date, there have been no AIME-supported REDD+ financing transactions in Peru that support territorial governance or the conservation of carbon stocks. However, it must be also considered that REDD+ or other carbon-related transactions are not the priority of RIA or COICA. Their approach is oriented towards strengthening indigenous rights to their territories and a more holistic compensation for the ecosystem services provided by indigenous communities, not solely carbon. Simply stated, RIA aims to be Amazon indigenous peoples’ own approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation, which takes into consideration their priorities and concerns particularly regarding land tenure, the nature of financial mechanisms, and holistic management of indigenous Performance Evaluation of the AIME Activity: Final Evaluation Report 86 territories. Tenure security is one of RIA’s salient features and it is conceived as an ‘early safeguard’ and an indicator on REDD+ progress. RIA also endorses a public financial mechanism controlled by indigenous peoples and civil society to which the private sector can contribute but not control.71 However, the RIA methodology still needs further outlining and clarity to define how it differs from classical REDD+ approaches. For instance, the methodology needs to better define the scope of activities that will be included, if payment for performance activities will be allowed in the framework, and—if they will—how accounting will take place. Efforts between FT and COICA to develop a complete RIA methodology were unsuccessful under AIME. Other activities without outcomes during AIME activity included developing a Memorandum of Understanding between COICA and GOREMAD for the implementation of RIA and establishing a dialogue with the government of California to promote jurisdictional REDD+ and offsets with the regional government of Madre de Dios. In the case of the latter, as noted in AIME Year 5 reporting documents, if the current governor of California does not take action on the state’s International Offsets Provision, which could establish an important precedent and model for a jurisdictional program for tropical forest conservation with highest standards of safeguards, it is feared that this proposal will not move forward. These two activities were relevant as designed, as they aimed to attract institutional and financial support towards the recognition of indigenous contributions to forest conservation through jurisdictional approaches. According to key informant interviews with COICA, the RIA approach has moved away from REDD+ and currently endorses other approaches, such as NDCs, considered more holistic. COICA argues NDCs are better tailored for indigenous peoples’ own contexts, rights and priorities. The focus on carbon emissions' reduction and conservation of existing carbon stocks may not be suitable and/or profitable for all indigenous territories' contexts. Other results-based payments schemes, such as PES, may allow more bargaining space and be more appropriate in terms of responsibilities undertaken and benefits granted to IPs, and address further environmental services provided by indigenous territories. Moreover, it would be relevant that cooperation programs consider indigenous and forest dependent communities’ own views on sustainable landscapes at the regional and local levels during the design phase. This would allow a more appropriate design of programs aiming to move forward indigenous peoples’ rights, and sustainable landscapes and market models. 71 COICA. RIA: REDD+ Indígena Amazónico. October 2017.