1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ACCELERATING INCLUSION AND MITIGATING EMISSIONS (AIME) ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINDINGS, DECEMBER 4th, 2018 2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Evaluation Background • AIME Activity: Objective and Approach • Evaluation Methods and Limitations • Evaluation Questions: Relevant Approach, Findings, and Recommendations • Questions and Discussion 3 EVALUATION BACKGROUND • Performance Evaluation (PE) the AIME activity – Conducted from September 2014 to October 2018 – Included a Mid-term and Final PE • Overall PE Objective: Document the efficacy of the AIME activity’s approach and to inform USAID of opportunities for additional investment related to reducing emissions and conserving carbon stocks. 4 AIME ACTIVITY: OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH • AIME Activity (2013-2018) Objective: 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 while promoting conservation and carbon mitigation. • Three focus areas: – Communities – Jurisdictions – Dialogues 5 FOREST-BASED LIVELIHOODS CONSORTIUM 6 AIME ACTIVITY: OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH 7 AIME ACTIVITY: JURISDICTIONS 8 EVALUATION METHODS • Four component methodology: – Desk review – Mid-term and final field assessments – Case studies – Gender assessment 9 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS • Limited resources for travel available coupled with geographic scope of AIME required a narrow and focused approach to primary data collection and field assessments • Lack of primary data required heavy reliance on project documentation and reporting data to inform findings • Limited amount of AIME reporting data throughout the first half of the activity 10 Nora Nelson / The Cloudburst Group Evaluation Question 1: 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? 11 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: RELEVANT APPROACH • Community-level tools and models for effective territorial governance • Education and training initiatives • Community-level support to facilitate the participation of indigenous communities in activities and policy discussions related to conservation and climate change 12 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: KEY FINDINGS • Mexico and Honduras: Life Plans and Saneamiento increased community capacity to engage in territorial governance and resource management. – Supplementing with direct support for mangrove conservation increased conservation of carbon stocks (Mexico) • Brazil and Honduras: Tenure insecurity over indigenous lands remains a significant obstacle to improved territorial governance and emissions reduction. 13 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: KEY FINDINGS • Curriculums and training programs equipped indigenous leaders and teachers with knowledge and tools for territorial governance, conservation, and the reduction of emissions. – Scalability and inclusivity of indigenous knowledge are critical – Little evidence that programs alone motivated increased levels of engagement in relevant activities at the community-level • Increased participation and engagement of indigenous communities in policy forums related to conservation and the reduction of emissions. – Honduras (MASTA), Rondonia (Surui) 14 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: RECOMMENDATIONS • Tools and policies related to territorial governance should be combined with community-level efforts to implement conservation activities. • Approaches to territorial governance should emphasize support for strengthened land rights. • Education and training programs should center around scalable core curriculums that are inclusive of indigenous knowledge, institutionalized within educational policy. • Education and training programs should include follow-on community-level support to link the skills and knowledge received to actual changes in relevant practice and policy. 15 Nora Nelson / The Cloudburst Group Evaluation Question 2: 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+? 16 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: RELEVANT APPROACH • 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 • Use of research and extension to increase the visibility of the needs and aspirations of indigenous peoples and traditional communities in jurisdictional REDD+ programs 17 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: KEY FINDINGS • AIME’s impact on policy was largely mediated by the status of pre-existing jurisdictional approaches. • Workshops and support for dialogues promoted voice and empowerment for indigenous inclusion. • The program catalyzed the initial steps to real reform. 18 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: KEY FINDINGS • Little evidence of success with developing or implementing research and tools in support of aligning policy and markets or compensating indigenous peoples for conservation efforts. • Remains a limited understanding of the context and conditions facing communities in high forest cover/low deforestation jurisdictions. 19 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: RECOMMENDATIONS • Programming that intends to include HFLD jurisdictions will require additional research. • Remains opportunity to pilot or ground-truth methodologies and mechanisms developed under AIME. 20 Nora Nelson / The Cloudburst Group Evaluation Question 3: 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? 21 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: RELEVANT APPROACH • Facilitating communication and interaction among indigenous producers and private sector actors • Supporting the production and commercialization of REDD+-compatible products • Development of climate finance mechanisms 22 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: KEY FINDINGS • 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. • AIME’s support for the Canopy Bridge website created an effective, functional and sustainable platform. – Concerns if Canopy Bridge and the Indigenous Atlas will lead to future transactions without additional support 23 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: KEY FINDINGS • Mixed evidence of the success of community-level efforts to develop and bring REDD+ compatible products to market. – Most successful in Mexico (pine resin) and Peru (paiche meat) • AIME support for REDD+ transactions and climate financing mechanisms was largely unsuccessful within the life of the project. – No evidence of increased access to climate finance for the Yawanawa or the Surui • No evidence of gendered outcomes or unintended consequences of AIME with respect to vulnerable populations. – Approach largely focused on communities as a whole, rather than focusing specifically on women or other vulnerable subgroups 24 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS • Programing efforts should expand community-level efforts to strengthen the capacity of indigenous enterprises to engage in the market for sustainable products and climate finance mechanisms. • Programs should consider a shift from supporting climate finance mechanisms and REDD+-compatible products to more broadly supporting sustainable products. • Programming requires a continued focus on the potential effects of REDD+ and climate finance transactions on social equality and equitable outcomes. 25 DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS