Mexico Community-based Forestry Development Project in Southern States (DECOFOS) Authors Romina Cavatassi, Federica Alfani, Adriana Paolantonio, Paola Mallia Impact Assessment Report: Mexico DECOFOS The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IFAD concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The designations “developed” and “developing” countries are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached in the development process by a particular country or area. This publication or any part thereof may be reproduced without prior permission from IFAD, provided that the publication or extract therefrom reproduced is attributed to IFAD and the title of this publication is stated in any publication and that a copy thereof is sent to IFAD. Cavatassi, R., Alfani, F. , Paolantonio, A., Mallia, P., 2018. Impact assessment report: DECOFOS, Mexico. IFAD, Rome, Italy. Cover image: ©IFAD/Carla Francescutti © IFAD 2018 All rights reserved. Impact Assessment Report: Mexico DECOFOS Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Víctor Hugo Martínez Cíntora from the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR), for his useful guidance and input during the design phase of the project and sampling selection; Marco Antonio Carrera Agüero; Gerardo San Roman Arteaga Martinez; Rusbeli Garcia Pinto; Abigail Lopez Cruz; Germanico Galicia Garcia from CONAFOR offices in the States of Chiapas, Campeche and Oaxaca for their input, data provision and coordination in conducting qualitative work and data collection; Paul Winters for comments, guidance and suggestions throughout IA implementation and for earlier versions of this document. Special thanks go also to the IFAD colleagues involved in the implementation of the DECOFOS project for their useful insights and guidance during IA design: Tomas Rosada, JoseMaria Schaeffer Cabrera. A special thank goes to our colleague Kristen McCollumn for her help with data and inputs during analysis and to Michael Keppler. 1 Impact Assessment Report: Mexico DECOFOS Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5 2. Theory of change and main research questions ................................................... 7 2.1 DECOFOS theory of change.................................................................................... 7 2.2 Project coverage and targeting ............................................................................... 11 2.3 Research questions ................................................................................................. 12 3. Impact assessment design: Data and methodology ............................................... 13 3.1 Data ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Questionnaire and impact indicators ................................................................. 17 3.3 Impact estimation ............................................................................................... 17 4. Profile of the project area and sample .................................................................... 18 5. Results ....................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Impacts of DECOFOS ............................................................................................ 20 6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 24 References ..................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 28 2 Impact Assessment Report: Mexico DECOFOS Executive summary The territory of Mexico is covered by forests and wildland up to about 73% of the total territory (World Bank, 2015 and CONAFOR, 2012). This corresponds to around 140 million hectares, 80% of which are owned by communities and ejidos. Starting from the '80s, Mexico has experienced one of the largest deforestation rates in Latin America due to a number of complex socio-economic and political reasons which have reduced incentives to the sustainable use of forests with negative consequences for their long term conservation (Segura, 2000). To address and overcome problems linked to deforestation and forest degradation, the Community- based Forestry Development Project in Southern States (Desarrollo Comunitario Forestal en los Estados del Sur – DECOFOS) was designed and implemented from March 2011 to September 2016 with contribution from the Government of Mexico, IFAD, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and project beneficiaries. The project had two main components. The first component was mainly meant to raise awareness of climate change and of sustainable use and management of natural resources through trainings and capacity development. This component could be instrumental to achieving impacts when combined with the second component which had a more tangible connotation. The second component, indeed, consisted on promoting sustainable management and exploitation of forest and natural resources through reforestation, adoption of agroforestry and of good environmental practices, supporting and facilitating business enterprises through the provision of technical and financial support to the start-up of micro-entrepreneurial projects and small- businesses enterprises. The project was implemented in the three Southern states of Oaxaca, Chiapas and Campeche which have very different characteristics and where implementation posed diverse emphasis on different components according to the development needs of each state and to the agro-ecological and socio- economic characteristic of each state. More in particular, the project focussed more on reforestation and agro-forestry interventions in Campeche, whose topography is rather flat and mainly characterised by large forested areas and very little diversification of income sources, whereas in Chiapas which is a more diversified state in terms of agro-ecology and whose economy offers a number of off-farm and other income opportunities, the project focussed more on providing financial support to start or strengthen micro-enterprises. In Oaxaca1, on the other hand, the project has a lower number of beneficiaries and was scattered across the various types of interventions including spending more on the first component solely. This impact assessment investigates whether the DECOFOS project, with its unique mechanisms, contributes to the production of environmental benefits as well as to the increase of well-being of beneficiaries measured through key outcome indicators of poverty reduction, increased nutrition and resilience and increased access to market. In order to answer these questions, this ex-post evaluation makes use of a quasi-experimental approach that combines quantitative methods and qualitative analysis that was used to enrich project design and to identify a valid counterfactual. Data are comprised of more than 2,200 household surveys from direct beneficiaries of the project, indirect beneficiaries (those inhabitants of treated villages that did not directly participate to the project) and households that represent the control group. The dataset contains information about 1 It is also important to note that while the data were being collected, the state of Chiapas and particularly of Oaxaca were hit by a strong earthquake. 3 Impact Assessment Report: Mexico DECOFOS households’ socioeconomic characteristics, livelihood and income-generating activities, food consumption, social capital, and experience of climatic and socioeconomic shocks. Results are reported on the general sample and disaggregated by states given the above mentioned differences across them. Positive impacts on a range of economic mobility indicators are reported, particularly with relation to assets and productive asset ownership (across the entire sample) and on reduction of poverty, as well as on income coming from use of natural resources in common area and from business enterprises which was the focus of the project. Results are more varied and less significant for the state of Oaxaca possibly given its more scattered type of intervention. Beneficiaries are also more resilient across the sample whereas the natural vegetation index measured controlling for precipitation, temperature and coefficient of variation of same climatic indicators, is positive and significant across the entire sample with particular emphasis in Campeche and Oaxaca where, indeed, the project focussed on agroforestry and sustainable use of forest resources as opposed to Chiapas where the focus was on micro-business enterprise. In terms of social capital there is a stronger participation of women in associations and organizations reflecting the gender component of the project, although this did not translate into higher participation of women in economic activities and business enterprises.