Uncovering REDD+ readiness in Mexico: Actors, discourses and benefit-sharing PhD Thesis Jovanka Špirić Under the supervision of: Dr. Esteve Corbera (UAB) Dr. Victoria Reyes-García (ICREA-UAB) Dr. Luciana Porter-Bolland (INECOL) PhD Programme in Environmental Science and Technology Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, ICTA Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, UAB December 2015 Mojoj porodici Abstract Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, plus conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) is an international policy mechanism that seeks to mitigate climate change, while potentially alleviating poverty and contributing towards biodiversity conservation in developing countries. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) laid the foundations for REDD+ design and implementation in 2005 and the mechanism’s architecture was finalised in 2015. During that period, parties to the UNFCCC debated and developed procedures and guidelines on REDD+ technical and governance issues, including for example how to guarantee the meaningful participation of all relevant stakeholders and how to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. In parallel, several developing countries, supported by multilateral and bilateral aid, entered the so-called REDD+ readiness phase and started developing national strategies for implementing REDD+ activities through specific policies and actions. This thesis addresses three main issues of concern for REDD+ scholars and practitioners using Mexico’s readiness process as an example. First, it analyses the design and legitimacy of the institutional arrangements established by the Mexican government to draft the REDD+ national strategy. Second, it identifies the REDD+ discourses mobilised by the actors involved in the country’s REDD+ readiness process and it highlights how such discourses are reflected in national policy documents, thus shedding light on dominant ideas and narratives permeating into the national strategy. Third, using two rural communities as case studies, the thesis investigates the preferred scenarios for REDD+ implementation and benefit-sharing at the local level, and it identifies the key contextual and socio-economic factors mediating such preferences. At the national level, there is a high level of decision-making centralization within the federal government’s environment agencies and there are two groups of participating actors with contrasting perceptions about the legitimacy of the REDD+ readiness phase. Among these actors, three main REDD+ discourses are identified. The first discourse relies on global environmental justice arguments to challenge the assumptions and foundations of REDD+ and, therefore, such discourse is not reflected in policy decisions to date. The second and partly institutionalised discourse encourages legal and policy reforms for REDD+ implementation to achieve social benefits and equitable outcomes across national REDD+ stakeholders. The third and dominant discourse openly supports REDD+ implementation but remarks the importance of making it an effective mechanism from a mitigation perspective. At the local level, findings indicate that, in the hypothetical case that REDD+ activities had to be developed, local people would prefer to implement a combination of land-use productive and conservation activities with governmental support, in exchange of direct payments. The results also reveal that individual preferences for REDD+ implementation and benefit-sharing are mediated by land tenure, gender and social status. This thesis contributes to a growing body of research analysing REDD+ governance processes. It suggests that Mexico’s government needs to decentralise the REDD+ design process to improve its legitimacy and perceived fairness. This would likely increase actors’ participation and the institutionalisation of their ideas. Overall, the research suggests that countries can only develop legitimate and fair REDD+ architecture if they avoid reproducing old-fashioned, government-led policy processes that might result in unfair policies. Instead, REDD+ host countries should design novel institutional arrangements to recognise the diversity of actors involved in land-use activities and their uneven power in policy design, while being sensitive to a diversity of narratives and positions about how to operationalize REDD+ at the desk and on the ground. Resumen La Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación forestal, además de la conservación, el manejo sostenible de bosques y aumento de reservas de carbón forestal (REDD+) es un mecanismo de política internacional que busca mitigar el cambio climático y, a su vez, aliviar la pobreza y contribuir a la conservación de biodiversidad en los países en desarrollo. La Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC) sentó las bases para el diseño e implementación de REDD+ en el 2005 y la arquitectura del mecanismo se finalizó en 2015. Durante ese período, los países miembros de CMNUCC debatieron y desarrollaron procedimientos y directrices sobre las cuestiones técnicas y de gobernanza de REDD+, incluyendo por ejemplo la forma de garantizar la participación significativa de todas las partes interesadas, y cómo respetar los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales. Al mismo tiempo, varios países en desarrollo, apoyados por los fondos multilaterales y bilaterales, entraron en la fase de preparación para REDD+ y comenzaron a diseñar estrategias nacionales para la implementación de actividades a través de políticas y medidas concretas. Esta tesis aborda tres cuestiones fundamentales para los académicos y profesionales interesados en REDD+, utilizando como ejemplo el proceso de preparación en México. Primero, analiza el diseño y la legitimidad de los mecanismos institucionales establecidos por el gobierno mexicano para elaborar la estrategia nacional REDD+. Segundo, la tesis identifica los discursos movilizados por los actores involucrados en el proceso de preparación para REDD+ y subraya cómo se reflejan esos discursos en los documentos de política nacional, identificando así las ideas dominantes que permean en la estrategia. Tercero, la tesis investiga las preferencias para la implementación de la REDD + y la distribución de beneficios en las dos comunidades rurales e identifica los factores contextuales y socio-económicos que median dichas preferencias. A nivel nacional existe un alto nivel de centralización en la toma de decisiones por parte de las agencias de medio ambiente del gobierno federal. Hay dos grupos de actores con percepciones opuestas sobre la legitimidad de la fase de preparación para REDD+. Entre esos actores se identifican tres principales discursos sobre REDD+. El primer discurso moviliza argumentos de justicia ambiental global para criticar los principios y fundamentos de REDD+ y, por lo tanto, no se refleja en decisiones políticas. El segundo discurso está parcialmente institucionalizado y propugna las reformas políticas y legales para que la implementación de REDD+ logre beneficios sociales distribuidos de manera equitativa entre actores a nivel nacional. El tercer discurso apoya abiertamente la implementación de REDD+, pero señala la importancia de convertirlo en un mecanismo eficiente desde el punto de vista de la mitigación. El tercer discurso domina en las discusiones nacionales. A nivel local, los resultados indican que, en el caso hipotético de que las actividades de REDD+ se desarrollaran, la gente preferiría implementar una combinación de actividades productivas y de conservación con el apoyo del gobierno, a cambio de pagos directos. Los resultados también revelan que las preferencias individuales para la implementación y la distribución de beneficios de REDD+ dependen de la posesión de tierras, el género y el estatus social de la persona. Para concluir, esta tesis contribuye a un creciente cuerpo de investigación analizando los procesos de gobernanza de REDD+. La tesis sugiere que el gobierno de México necesita descentralizar el proceso de diseño de REDD+ para mejorar su legitimidad y el grado de justicia percibido por todos los actores de diferentes sectores. Esto probablemente resultaría en un aumento de la participación y en la institucionalización de las distintas ideas promovidas por estos actores. En general, los resultados de la tesis sugieren que los países pueden desarrollar una arquitectura REDD+ legítima y justa sólo si evitan reproducir un proceso político dirigido exclusivamente por el gobierno. Los países dónde REDD+ vaya a implementarse deberían diseñar nuevos arreglos institucionales para reconocer la diversidad de actores involucrados en actividades de uso de la tierra y su poder desigual en el diseño de la política, siendo sensibles a la diversidad de discursos de como diseñar e implementar todas las políticas y programas vinculadas a dicha implementación. Contents Tables ................................................................................................................................ 6 Figures .............................................................................................................................. 7 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 8 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 10 Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 12 1.1. Research aim and objectives ............................................................................ 13 1.2. Thesis structure ................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 2. Research context ........................................................................................... 19 2.1. Forests, deforestation and forest degradation ....................................................... 19 2.2. Forest tenure and governance ............................................................................... 22 2.3. Forest conservation and management .................................................................. 24 2.4. Carbon offsetting markets and carbon forestry .................................................... 25 2.5. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation .......................... 29 2.5.1. Financing REDD+ ......................................................................................... 30 2.5.2. Benefit-sharing from REDD+ ....................................................................... 31 2.5.3. Environmental and social safeguards and non-carbon benefits .................... 33 2.5.4. Monitoring, Reporting and Verification ........................................................ 35 2.5.5. Evolving REDD+ strategies in developing countries .................................... 36 2.5.6. Evolving REDD+ pilots: key findings and research gaps ............................. 37 2.6. Mexico’s forestry sector ....................................................................................... 38 2.6.1. Deforestation and forest degradation trends .................................................. 39 2.6.2. Forest tenure and property rights: the ejido system ....................................... 39 2.6.3. Forest conservation and management programmes ...................................... 42 2.7. The history of REDD+ in Mexico ........................................................................ 45 2.7.1. The REDD+ readiness process ...................................................................... 45 2.7.2. Emerging REDD+ pilots at regional and local levels ................................... 51 2.8. Summary .............................................................................................................. 52 Chapter 3. Theoretical foundations ................................................................................. 53 3.1. Governance for REDD+ ....................................................................................... 53 3.1.1. Defining environmental governance ............................................................. 53 3.1.2. Four core criteria to analyse environmental governance ............................... 55 3.1.3. REDD+ as environmental governance .......................................................... 56 1 3.2. Analysing legitimacy in environmental governance and REDD+ ....................... 58 3.2.1. Input and output legitimacy ........................................................................... 58 3.2.2. Legitimacy in multi-stakeholder policy processes ........................................ 60 3.2.3. Input legitimacy criteria and indicators ......................................................... 62 3.2.4. Output legitimacy criteria .............................................................................. 67 3.3. Environmental discourses .................................................................................... 67 3.3.1. Discourses, storylines, and discourse coalition ............................................. 67 3.3.2. Environmental discourses .............................................................................. 69 3.3.3. Discourses on deforestation, forest governance and REDD+ ....................... 72 3.4. Equity in environmental governance ................................................................... 76 3.4.1. Framing equity ............................................................................................... 76 3.4.2. Equity in REDD+ .......................................................................................... 78 3.4.3. Equity in REDD+ benefit-sharing ................................................................. 79 3.4.4. Determinants of equity in REDD+ benefit-sharing across scales ................. 84 3.5. Summary .............................................................................................................. 89 Chapter 4. Case study and methods ................................................................................ 90 4.1. Case study communities ....................................................................................... 90 4.1.1. La Mancolona ................................................................................................ 91 4.1.2. Xmaben .......................................................................................................... 93 4.2. Data collection ..................................................................................................... 95 4.2.1. Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................ 95 4.2.2. Focus groups ................................................................................................ 101 4.2.3. Participant observation at meetings and events ........................................... 105 4.2.4. Literature and documents review ................................................................ 106 4.3. Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 106 4.3.1. Qualitative content analysis ......................................................................... 106 4.3.2. Stakeholder analysis .................................................................................... 107 4.3.3. Discourse analysis ....................................................................................... 110 4.4. Ethical considerations ........................................................................................ 111 4.5. Summary ............................................................................................................ 113 Chapter 5. Actors: Analysing stakeholders and the legitimacy of decision-making processes in REDD+ readiness ..................................................................................... 114 5.1. Mapping REDD+ actors in Mexico ................................................................... 114 5.1.1. Top-holders .................................................................................................. 117 2 5.1.2. Followers ..................................................................................................... 119 5.1.3. Frontliners .................................................................................................... 120 5.1.4. Money patrons ............................................................................................. 122 5.1.5. Midfielders .................................................................................................. 123 5.1.6. Infielders ...................................................................................................... 125 5.1.7. Information providers .................................................................................. 127 5.1.8. Outfielders ................................................................................................... 129 5.2. Normative and organisational characteristics of multi-stakeholder processes in Mexico’s REDD+ readiness ...................................................................................... 130 5.2.1. REDD+’s Technical Advisory Committee .................................................. 130 5.2.2. REDD+’s state-based Technical Advisory Committees ............................. 131 5.2.3. ENAREDD+’s Working Group of the National Forestry Council ............. 133 5.2.4. Information sharing between multi-stakeholders fora ................................. 133 5.3. The legitimacy of Mexico’s REDD+ multi-stakeholders fora ........................... 135 5.3.1. The CTC-REDD+ as a legitimate decision-making forum ......................... 135 5.3.2. The CTC-REDD+ as an illegitimate decision-making forum ..................... 137 5.3.3. The legitimacy of the CTC-Campeche ........................................................ 140 5.4. Grounds for and current state of REDD+ readiness legitimacy ......................... 142 5.4.1. Impact of stakeholders asymmetries on REDD+ readiness legitimacy ....... 142 5.4.2. Explaining actors’ legitimacy perceptions .................................................. 147 5.5. Summary ............................................................................................................ 150 Chapter 6. Discourses: Analysing the key narratives and their prominence in REDD+ readiness ........................................................................................................................ 151 6.1. REDD+ discourse coalitions in Mexico ............................................................. 151 6.1.1. REDD+ rejectionists .................................................................................... 152 6.1.2. REDD+ reformists ....................................................................................... 155 6.1.3. REDD+ advocates ....................................................................................... 158 6.2. The resemblance of Mexico’s REDD+ discourses with global forest governance discourses .................................................................................................................. 161 6.3. Discourse institutionalization in REDD+ readiness ........................................... 167 6.3.1. Institutionalisation of REDD+ conceptual dimensions ............................... 168 6.3.2. Institutionalisation of REDD+ strategic dimensions ................................... 170 6.4. Interpreting the discursive dynamic of REDD+ readiness ................................. 176 6.4.1. REDD+ discourses overlaps and conflicts .................................................. 176 3