sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acteopan, Ahuehuetitla, Altepexi, Atolinga, Atzala, Ayotoxco de Guerrero

UNITED MEXICAN STATES

September 30, 2002

Public Disclosure Authorized Mr. David de Ferranti Regional Vice President Latin America and the Caribbean Region International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1818 H St., N.W. Washington, DC 20433

Re: Loan 7133-ME (Municipal Development in Rural Areas Project) Implementation Letter

Public Disclosure Authorized Dear Mr. De Ferranti:

This letter, with the following Attachments, constitutes the Implementation Letter defined in Section 1.02 (e) of the Loan Agreement of even date herewith between the United Mexican States and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the above- mentioned Loan:

Attachment I: Performance Indicators for Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Attachment II: List of Eligible Municipalities

Attachment III: IPDP (Programa para Promover la Participación en el Proyecto de los Pueblos Indígenas) Public Disclosure Authorized

Sincerely yours, UNITED MEXICAN STATES

By: ______Authorized Representative

CONFIRMED: INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT Public Disclosure Authorized

By: ______Authorized Representative ATTACHMENT I

PROJECT INDICATORS

Responsable Unit Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 institutions 1. Municipal Subprojects - Municipalities with at least one subproject Municipalities No. 320 335 344 344 344 (total) (cum) -Municipalities with > 30% ILS Municipalities No. 100 105 111 111 111 (cum) -Subprojects Implemented Municipalities No. 8,500 8,500 9,000 9,000 35,000 - Subprojects in SOEs over potentially Municipalities % 60% 75% 90% 100% eligible subprojects) (cum) 100% - Rehabilitation subprojects with respect to Municipalities % 5% 7.5% 10% 12.5% totals 12.5% -Inhabitants in targeted municipalities with Municipalities % 90% 91% 91% 91% 91% access to : (cum) 75% 77% 78% 79% 79%  Electricity 49% 50% 52% 53% 53%  Water  Drainage - Percentage of inter-municipal subprojects Municipalities % 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2. Municipal Development and Support to Decentralization - States with agreements to pool resources Participating No. 1 2 3 4 4 and co-finance municipal institutional States development programs - Training courses offered to: Participating No. States * community associations 4 8 12 16 40 * municipal authorities (COPLADEMUN 12 12 12 14 50 and others) - Technical assistance provided CEDEMUN * States with civil service programs No. 2 2 3 4 4

* E-government functioning in states’ No. 2 3 4 4 4 municipalities Municipalities with Development Plans No. 100 180 300 344 344 (cum) -Municipalities with > 30% ILS No. 55 80 100 111 111 (cum) 3. Project Support, Supervision, Monitoring and Evaluation - States with agreements to pool resources Participating No. 1 2 3 4 4 to technically assist the subproject cycle States - Supervision of overall project STUs No. of 24 24 24 24 96 visits NPCU No. of 12 12 12 12 48 visits - Workshops to discuss experiences in the NPCU No. 2 2 2 2 8 implementation of the project ATTACHMENT II

Eligible Municipalities

Population Private dwellings GUANAJUATO Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % GUANAJUATO 4,049,950 10,689 0.26% 918,822 96.2 92.4 76.3 8932 001 ABASOLO 68,739 129 0.19% 15,081 96.3 93.2 57.7 Medium 301 003 ALLENDE 114,950 520 0.45% 25,428 92.1 84.1 57.6 Medium 494 004 APASEO EL ALTO 49,376 110 0.22% 11,567 95.2 94.1 59.8 Medium 127 005 APASEO EL GRANDE 59,496 149 0.25% 13,379 95.5 93.2 69.5 Medium 142 006 ATARJEA 4,488 18 0.40% 1,127 86.2 54 9.3 Very high 37 008 MANUEL DOBLADO 33,313 57 0.17% 7,946 92.5 91.9 53.1 Medium 317 010 CORONEO 9,128 26 0.28% 2,293 91.4 96.3 52.7 Medium 28 013 DOCTOR MORA 16,900 22 0.13% 3,733 91.1 95.4 39.5 Medium 75 014 DOLORES HIDALGO 109,968 255 0.23% 23,902 90 87.6 53.3 Medium 539 016 HUANÍMARO 17,112 25 0.15% 3,833 98.4 98.8 76.3 Medium 38 019 JERÉCUARO 47,982 70 0.15% 11,411 94 71.5 30.5 Medium 172 022 OCAMPO 17,921 28 0.16% 3,989 91.3 80.6 46.6 Medium 134 023 PÉNJAMO 125,848 179 0.14% 28,860 95.6 88.9 56.2 Medium 520 024 PUEBLO NUEVO 9,198 14 0.15% 2,139 97.9 98.4 73 Medium 52 026 ROMITA 44,869 42 0.09% 9,506 95 95 60 Medium 257 029 SAN DIEGO DE LA UNIÓN 28,979 37 0.13% 6,436 91 90.6 26.9 Medium 192 030 SAN FELIPE 81,059 81 0.10% 17,199 89.9 68.2 42.4 Medium 439 032 SAN JOSÉ ITURBIDE 46,059 76 0.17% 10,496 93.7 90.4 61.2 Medium 202 033 SAN LUIS DE LA PAZ 82,168 1,443 1.76% 17,403 87.2 86.1 54.3 Medium 475 034 SANTA CATARINA 3,879 16 0.41% 966 85.2 91.9 37 High 42 037 SILAO 116,270 203 0.17% 23,993 96.3 91.3 73.5 Medium 389 038 TARANDACUAO 10,209 18 0.18% 2,521 96 95.8 78 Low 27 039 TARIMORO 32,807 68 0.21% 8,303 96.2 94 68.1 Medium 84 040 TIERRA BLANCA 12,232 92 0.75% 2,582 80.8 73.6 16.3 High 73 Population Private dwellings GUANAJUATO Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 042 VALLE DE SANTIAGO 114,613 144 0.13% 26,105 97.3 96.9 59.9 Medium 232 043 VICTORIA 15,153 48 0.32% 3,673 78.1 57.5 20.4 High 176 045 XICHÚ 9,591 31 0.32% 2,196 73.1 65.8 17.2 Very high 86 046 YURIRIA 64,327 73 0.11% 15,718 97.3 86.9 61.9 Medium 111 Subtotal 1,346,634 3,974 0.30% 301,785 0.93 0.88 0.56 5761 Data source: INEGI Census 2000

Population Private dwellings Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % PUEBLA 4,337,362 565,509 13.04% 1,028,692 94.8 84 65.6 6556 002 7,878 271 3.44% 1,981 77.2 54.4 45 High 80 005 2,650 1,014 38.26% 686 97.4 18.1 4.1 Very high 4 006 AHUACATLÁN 11,012 10,429 94.71% 2,503 78.7 57.5 17.3 Very high 27 007 AHUATLÁN 3,236 124 3.83% 726 95.5 69 13.4 Very high 11 008 7,722 80 1.04% 1,852 95.3 82.1 52.4 Medium 21 009 2,167 14 0.65% 548 94.2 78.8 57.7 Medium 10 010 40,756 21,613 53.03% 8,516 82.7 66.3 25.4 Very high 75 012 5,728 17 0.30% 1,371 97 99.6 59.2 Medium 5 013 13,786 9,483 68.79% 2,799 96.9 97.7 49.6 Medium 11 014 AMIXTLÁN 4,045 3,162 78.17% 1,027 78.2 85.3 32.4 Very high 7 016 6,402 239 3.73% 1,595 86.3 62.5 34.9 High 23 017 15,388 7,466 48.52% 3,373 90.3 90.4 28.7 High 18 018 3,078 29 0.94% 819 92.8 90.5 29.2 Medium 20 021 1,106 - 0.00% 286 97.9 97.6 68.9 Medium 6 023 6,863 23 0.34% 1,515 93.4 96.4 29.3 High 20 024 983 14 1.42% 282 97.2 81.6 62.8 Medium 9 Population Private dwellings PUEBLA Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 025 6,620 2,076 31.36% 1,483 81.5 70.9 45.7 Very high 37 027 4,255 33 0.78% 1,134 82.7 72.9 17.8 High 46 028 1,813 1,787 98.57% 481 62 78 71.9 Very high 8 029 3,410 3,004 88.09% 782 81.7 80.3 59.5 Very high 4 030 COATEPEC 749 705 94.13% 182 86.3 91.2 34.6 Very high 2 032 1,562 167 10.69% 359 98.9 27.9 17.8 High 4 033 COHUECÁN 3,966 398 10.04% 825 97.2 47.6 10.7 High 8 035 COXCATLÁN 15,983 6,074 38.00% 3,683 93.3 83.1 47.1 Medium 45 036 10,408 10,263 98.61% 2,561 64 67.2 9.3 Very high 36 037 COYOTEPEC 2,004 215 10.73% 630 97.8 98.4 57.9 Medium 4 039 7,575 6,057 79.96% 1,864 79.7 68 17.8 Very high 17 040 CUAUTINCHÁN 5,921 115 1.94% 1,315 94.7 79 21.4 High 30 042 3,378 32 0.95% 844 95.6 63.4 20.7 High 27 043 CUETZALAN DEL PROGRESO 38,496 27,900 72.48% 8,207 76.1 67.2 38 Very high 160

044 12,334 156 1.26% 2,686 94.2 94.8 36.4 Medium 42 049 10,434 7,829 75.03% 2,553 88.6 63.5 4.5 Very high 48 050 CHICHIQUILA 16,788 3,649 21.74% 3,261 93.9 47.5 3.7 Very high 24 052 CHIGMECATITLÁN 1,023 863 84.36% 301 96.7 97 13.3 Medium 1 053 41,771 255 0.61% 9,874 91.3 82.9 47.3 Medium 168 054 17,984 3,929 21.85% 3,794 93.2 89.7 47.1 High 26 055 4,170 28 0.67% 1,064 90.7 57.8 18.4 High 17 056 1,603 5 0.31% 388 97.4 77.8 45.1 Medium 7 057 6,170 572 9.27% 1,394 89.4 55.8 21.5 High 11 058 14,740 1,303 8.84% 2,559 94.3 89.6 15.7 Very high 35 059 2,221 25 1.13% 597 94.5 84.3 54.1 Medium 12 061 ELOXOCHITLÁN 9,050 8,653 95.61% 2,073 42.2 33.2 0.6 Very high 42 062 EPATLÁN 4,086 42 1.03% 975 97.4 75.4 43.6 Medium 16 Population Private dwellings PUEBLA Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 064 FRANCISCO Z. MENA 14,300 1,384 9.68% 3,407 88.3 37.5 30.6 Very high 106 066 GUADALUPE 6,596 25 0.38% 1,597 92.9 83.9 44.2 High 25 068 HERMENEGILDO GALEANA 6,975 5,422 77.73% 1,667 75.7 45.3 13.8 Very high 26 069 24,314 290 1.19% 5,496 96.2 80.8 42.6 Medium 52 070 6,465 4,803 74.29% 1,623 92.9 87.2 21.5 High 23 072 HUEHUETLA 13,976 12,553 89.82% 2,915 64.9 48.5 13.8 Very high 14 075 8,524 7,909 92.79% 1,819 88.5 90.9 17.1 Very high 21 076 24,150 2,300 9.52% 5,521 82.3 57.2 39.8 High 167 077 4,592 4,071 88.65% 1,005 43.3 35.9 16.7 Very high 27 078 HUITZILAN DE SERDÁN 9,617 7,453 77.50% 2,245 86.1 54.3 30.8 Very high 27 079 3,925 62 1.58% 953 98 95.9 40.4 Medium 7 080 2,369 2,322 98.02% 575 88.7 78.6 35.1 Very high 2 081 3,868 83 2.15% 911 95.5 65.1 13.9 High 15 083 IXTACAMAXTITLÁN 23,892 2,663 11.15% 5,234 90.4 72.1 18.6 Very high 129 084 5,613 5,490 97.81% 1,296 77.1 14.7 34.1 Very high 10 086 11,153 1,420 12.73% 2,615 80.7 41.2 29.8 Very high 81 088 4,352 2,652 60.94% 1,002 81.3 75.2 48.4 High 20 089 11,422 7,050 61.72% 2,521 75.7 70 49.4 Very high 28 090 JUAN C. BONILLA 12,402 119 0.96% 2,475 97.9 48.6 49.6 Medium 6 093 7,714 145 1.88% 1,775 97.2 90.7 36.9 Medium 17 094 21,786 415 1.90% 4,951 95.4 95.8 56.4 Medium 62 095 MAGDALENA 640 18 2.81% 129 98.4 93 85.3 Medium 1 , LA 096 MAZAPILTEPEC DE JUÁREZ 2,049 4 0.20% 495 95.8 91.7 29.3 Medium 19 097 1,741 164 9.42% 367 98.6 94.6 75.2 Medium 3 098 5,137 322 6.27% 1,245 95.3 81.1 23.9 Medium 13 099 CAÑADA MORELOS 14,825 48 0.32% 3,647 95.8 70.8 21.8 High 30 100 8,110 7,572 93.37% 1,837 86.6 82.6 50.6 High 15 Population Private dwellings PUEBLA Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 101 3,163 598 18.91% 763 90.6 75.2 49 High 10 105 OCOTEPEC 4,219 165 3.91% 975 94.2 87.5 49.1 Medium 16 107 10,789 10,249 94.99% 2,281 76.6 65.9 17.2 Very high 31 109 PAHUATLÁN 15,384 7,544 49.04% 3,877 86.4 79.7 44.4 Very high 32 111 PANTEPEC 16,904 7,700 45.55% 3,945 83.2 35 28.2 Very high 78 112 8,129 424 5.22% 2,132 93.9 85.6 28.5 Medium 26 113 4,866 39 0.80% 1,266 94.9 75.1 56.7 Medium 22 116 QUIMIXTLÁN 16,043 231 1.44% 3,150 95.4 61.2 9.7 Very high 63 120 SAN ANTONIO CAÑADA 3,782 1,610 42.57% 783 91.2 78.3 12.1 Very high 10 121 SAN DIEGO LA MESA 951 12 1.26% 234 99.6 68 21.8 Very high 4 TOCHIMILTZINGO 123 SAN FELIPE TEPATLÁN 3,802 2,727 71.73% 883 57 65.2 22.2 Very high 14 124 SAN GABRIEL CHILAC 11,665 7,746 66.40% 2,574 95.7 83.4 65.6 Medium 6 126 SAN JERÓNIMO 4,467 87 1.95% 925 96.5 67.4 38.4 Medium 9 TECUANIPAN 127 SAN JERÓNIMO 3,492 2,122 60.77% 1,029 91.5 72.2 32.4 High 18 XAYACATLÁN 129 SAN JOSÉ MIAHUATLÁN 10,098 9,096 90.08% 2,191 96 98 60.9 High 7 130 3,100 5 0.16% 790 96.5 99.6 53.4 Medium 8 131 647 10 1.55% 169 99.4 95.3 16 High 1 133 SAN MARTÍN TOTOLTEPEC 799 14 1.75% 199 96 98 72.4 Medium 2 135 SAN MIGUEL IXITLÁN 553 14 2.53% 170 95.3 97.7 77.7 Medium 4 137 SAN NICOLÁS BUENOS 7,076 8 0.11% 1,457 97.3 91.6 28.4 Medium 24 AIRES 139 2,917 13 0.45% 737 93.1 64.2 59 Medium 17 141 SAN PEDRO 3,151 9 0.29% 781 92.3 89.5 66.6 Medium 16 YELOIXTLAHUACA 145 SAN SEBASTIÁN 11,002 10,459 95.06% 2,531 47.7 63.1 11.9 Very high 58 TLACOTEPEC Population Private dwellings PUEBLA Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 146 SANTA CATARINA 683 531 77.75% 227 97.8 97.4 15.4 Medium 1 TLALTEMPAN 148 7,433 103 1.39% 1,653 97.7 29.4 48.2 Medium 8 150 HUEHUETLÁN EL GRANDE 5,733 171 2.98% 1,423 93.9 72.6 21.9 High 18 153 14,526 94 0.65% 3,303 97.2 88 50.4 Medium 33 155 TECOMATLÁN 5,657 180 3.18% 1,254 96.7 63.4 43.1 Medium 23 157 10,595 37 0.35% 2,563 95.7 74.5 49.5 Medium 46 158 6,216 1,042 16.76% 1,611 81.4 24.2 27 Very high 41 159 TEOPANTLÁN 4,221 3,243 76.83% 1,066 94.5 78.4 61.1 Very high 17 160 2,991 11 0.37% 711 92.1 76.8 42.9 Medium 13 161 TEPANCO DE LÓPEZ 14,280 1,659 11.62% 3,318 94.3 91 26.8 High 45 162 TEPANGO DE RODRÍGUEZ 3,411 3,093 90.68% 810 80.6 73.2 15.6 Very high 5 165 1,033 19 1.84% 220 95 71.8 20.5 Very high 4 167 TEPETZINTLA 7,903 7,592 96.06% 1,664 82.3 60.4 14.3 Very high 13 169 TEPEXI DE RODRÍGUEZ 15,424 1,132 7.34% 3,854 94.3 65.3 29.5 High 43 170 13,050 51 0.39% 3,051 95.1 84.7 21.7 Medium 28 171 TEPEYAHUALCO DE 2,491 20 0.80% 605 98.3 96.7 78.7 Medium 7 CUAUHTÉMOC 172 21,730 5,325 24.51% 5,179 77.1 66.5 40.5 Very high 80 173 TETELES DE AVILA 4,798 801 16.69% 1,062 93.9 97.1 70 Medium 6 CASTILLO 176 7,086 62 0.87% 1,746 97.6 89.5 54.6 Medium 13 177 TLACOTEPEC DE BENITO 34,961 10,632 30.41% 7,595 93.5 93.2 26.6 Medium 32 JUÁREZ 179 21,868 59 0.27% 4,542 94.3 98.8 36.7 Very high 59 183 15,241 10,801 70.87% 3,542 89.6 65.1 24.1 Very high 41 184 5,415 2,433 44.93% 1,237 66.3 73.2 12.1 Very high 17 185 TLAPANALÁ 7,427 25 0.34% 1,639 97.1 86.6 55.3 Medium 18 186 TLATLAUQUITEPEC 40,483 8,595 21.23% 9,314 92.7 86 39.4 High 91 Population Private dwellings PUEBLA Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 187 TLAXCO 5,374 265 4.93% 1,260 54.1 59.3 40.8 Very high 24 190 TOTOLTEPEC DE 926 91 9.83% 313 93.3 88.5 23.6 Medium 4 GUERRERO 191 8,992 82 0.91% 2,165 95.6 65.4 48.5 Medium 29 192 5,423 3,030 55.87% 1,231 85.6 85.7 45.7 High 17 193 5,341 34 0.64% 1,275 96.2 58.1 10.4 High 12 195 VICENTE GUERRERO 17,821 5,205 29.21% 3,642 72.1 33.8 9.1 Very high 50 196 XAYACATLÁN DE BRAVO 1,383 818 59.15% 410 96.6 87.1 60.3 Medium 8 198 XICOTLÁN 1,195 21 1.76% 270 96.3 0.4 11.5 High 3 199 25,688 308 1.20% 5,375 93.2 89.3 49.1 High 39 200 3,622 1,534 42.35% 909 81.7 66 18.4 High 25 201 2,825 83 2.94% 655 97.6 99.4 54.5 Medium 5 202 XOCHITLÁN DE VICENTE 9,903 8,777 88.63% 2,382 81.2 71.8 27.6 Very high 19 SUÁREZ 204 YAONÁHUAC 5,798 3,371 58.14% 1,229 91.5 90.2 38 Medium 17 206 3,674 29 0.79% 938 96.6 65.6 44.8 High 34 207 ZACAPOAXTLA 41,464 20,485 49.40% 9,279 89.9 73.8 36.8 High 45 208 ZACATLÁN 59,298 8,577 14.46% 13,944 92.3 83.7 52 Medium 99 209 ZAPOTITLÁN 7,455 584 7.83% 1,794 90.2 83.8 43.9 Medium 52 210 ZAPOTITLÁN DE MÉNDEZ 4,529 3,521 77.74% 1,094 87.4 89.9 46.7 High 4 212 16,268 7,663 47.10% 3,635 85.6 73 12.3 Very high 47 213 11,462 4,266 37.22% 2,343 82.8 56.8 42.5 Very high 103 214 11,909 7,901 66.34% 2,555 97.9 99.1 86.5 Medium 4 215 3,773 3,562 94.41% 859 95 96.6 84.2 Medium 4 216 2,507 2,036 81.21% 635 78.4 85.7 37.3 Very high 22 217 ZOQUITLÁN 16,207 15,976 98.57% 3,619 66.6 64.8 9.6 Very high 51 Subtotal 1,336,313 433,684 32.45% 303,913 0.88 0.74 0.35 4065 Data source: INEGI Census 2000

Population Private dwellings Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % Veracruz 6,118,108 633,372 10.35% 1,597,311 89.4 72.1 67.8 22032 001 ACAJETE 6,485 18 0.28% 1,598 89.1 95.3 47.4 High 46 002 ACATLÁN 2,296 21 0.91% 542 94.8 95.6 90.6 Medium 37 004 ACTOPAN 35,436 152 0.43% 10,226 97 91.2 81.6 Medium 694 006 15,340 3,476 22.66% 3,507 83 60.1 25.2 Very high 146 007 CAMARÓN DE TEJEDA 5,041 11 0.22% 1,282 92.9 94.3 18.4 High 155 008 ALPATLÁHUAC 7,194 26 0.36% 1,557 89.6 65.3 15.7 Very high 21 009 ALTO LUCERO DE 24,317 50 0.21% 6,453 96.7 94.4 87.7 Medium 62 GUTIÉRREZ BARRIOS 010 45,404 820 1.81% 10,518 74 75.8 44.2 High 79 012 AMATITLÁN 6,591 27 0.41% 1,946 94.9 46.9 62.4 Medium 7 015 ANGEL R. CABADA 28,719 181 0.63% 8,150 86.1 80.5 69.2 Medium 425 017 3,283 19 0.58% 938 96.5 93 54.3 Medium 67 018 AQUILA 1,543 29 1.88% 350 90.3 52.3 12 Very high 686 019 4,514 4,413 97.76% 917 75 23.3 0.7 Very high 190 020 6,848 6,703 97.88% 1,449 82.3 57.6 3.3 Very high 93 023 ATZALAN 41,561 305 0.73% 9,803 69.3 69.3 36.1 Very high 73 024 11,498 136 1.18% 2,585 91.1 87.4 56.2 High 7 025 16,971 64 0.38% 3,462 92.1 95.2 30.8 Very high 38 027 BENITO JUÁREZ 14,004 12,625 90.15% 3,091 82.5 50.4 8.7 Very high 34 029 CALCAHUALCO 9,211 64 0.69% 1,846 84.9 71.5 14.4 Very high 14 031 CARRILLO PUERTO 12,873 33 0.26% 2,814 67.6 41.2 25.9 Very high 13 033 CAZONES 20,973 2,982 14.22% 5,016 83.6 20.7 18.6 Very high 11 035 CITLALTÉPETL 9,660 1,902 19.69% 2,353 76.5 58.4 51.8 Very high 76 037 COAHUITLÁN 5,880 3,181 54.10% 1,272 85.4 35.7 1.6 Very high 23 041 1,589 568 35.75% 381 80.3 96.3 44.9 Very high 32 042 COLIPA 5,375 15 0.28% 1,455 78.6 83.1 59.1 Medium 96 Population Private dwellings VERACRUZ Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 043 COMAPA 14,879 17 0.11% 3,187 85.4 59.7 30.7 Very high 229 046 COSAUTLÁN DE 13,387 45 0.34% 3,040 92 97.3 64.4 Medium 82 CARVAJAL 049 COTAXTLA 16,783 62 0.37% 4,249 88.3 64.2 52.7 High 130 050 12,578 8,891 70.69% 2,774 56.8 29 13.2 Very high 287 051 18,651 12,964 69.51% 4,105 77.8 40.2 29.9 Very high 36 054 10,499 82 0.78% 3,021 89.3 59.3 71.9 Medium 515 055 11,581 5,155 44.51% 2,748 85.3 14.5 24.3 Very high 301 056 CHICONAMEL 5,838 4,015 68.77% 1,308 71.8 0.4 4.7 Very high 5 057 11,075 98 0.88% 2,355 74.1 63.2 42.3 Very high 161 058 CHICONTEPEC 52,448 40,107 76.47% 11,815 88.9 34.5 11.5 Very high 363 060 CHINAMPA DE GOROSTIZA 12,263 1,023 8.34% 3,022 76.2 29.7 13.2 Very high 33 063 13,174 3,472 26.35% 3,168 71.1 62.9 15.3 Very high 379 064 CHUMATLÁN 2,972 2,881 96.94% 684 71.2 31.6 19.7 Very high 239 065 EMILIANO ZAPATA 39,492 174 0.44% 10,638 96.4 95.3 77.3 Medium 42 066 ESPINAL 21,182 9,005 42.51% 5,016 84.2 17.4 20.3 Very high 42 067 8,849 8,734 98.70% 1,674 81.1 21.9 12.3 Very high 3 070 HIDALGOTITLÁN 15,781 549 3.48% 3,717 77.5 20 44.3 Very high 47 072 15,817 861 5.44% 3,978 59.3 57.3 27.8 Very high 44 073 34,902 7,676 21.99% 9,358 82.2 65 44.2 High 38 075 IGNACIO DE LA LLAVE 15,936 165 1.04% 4,462 83.5 31.2 61 High 35 076 ILAMATLÁN 11,005 9,765 88.73% 2,852 67.8 20.8 4.5 Very high 24 078 11,243 6,698 59.57% 2,618 74.5 40.4 12.8 Very high 255 079 IXHUACÁN DE LOS REYES 8,229 49 0.60% 1,878 89 92.4 37.5 High 62 080 IXHUATLÁN DEL CAFÉ 17,099 311 1.82% 3,895 88.7 55.8 36.6 Very high 129 081 10,357 4,905 47.36% 2,727 84.1 75.5 62.1 High 4 083 IXHUATLÁN DE MADERO 43,101 32,879 76.28% 9,782 81.8 19.4 7.8 Very high 7 084 5,377 50 0.93% 1,556 77 47.1 59.7 High 80 Population Private dwellings VERACRUZ Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 086 28,375 118 0.42% 6,397 86.3 81.5 30 High 105 088 4,024 29 0.72% 1,093 95.2 96.8 59.4 Medium 106 091 JESÚS CARRANZA 22,200 1,201 5.41% 5,339 86.5 39.4 55 High 43 094 JUAN RODRÍGUEZ CLARA 29,698 1,250 4.21% 7,750 88.5 72 60.2 Medium 58 095 16,443 42 0.26% 4,176 89.8 86.2 67.3 High 26 096 1,278 61 4.77% 328 97.9 89.6 86 Medium 39 098 MAGDALENA 1,988 1,861 93.61% 458 89.3 97.6 53.1 Very high 9 100 MANLIO FABIO 18,514 68 0.37% 5,261 93.9 77.8 43.7 Medium 75 ALTAMIRANO 103 MECATLÁN 8,778 8,626 98.27% 1,921 57.8 24.1 11.6 Very high 3 104 13,046 10,442 80.04% 3,091 71.9 78.3 21 Very high 77 107 MINAS, LAS 2,170 8 0.37% 459 57.7 80.2 31.2 Very high 86 109 53,438 305 0.57% 13,612 87.7 69 69.6 Medium 58 110 7,012 6,933 98.87% 1,707 29.2 45.1 6.6 Very high 27 111 MOLOACÁN 14,886 194 1.30% 3,816 79.4 52.3 79.9 Medium 93 112 15,999 77 0.48% 4,107 95.8 96.3 86 Medium 74 113 NARANJAL 3,550 347 9.77% 808 92.6 79.8 38.1 High 18 114 NAUTLA 8,737 54 0.62% 2,475 89.1 54.4 68.3 Medium 133 117 OMEALCA 19,495 1,240 6.36% 4,729 89.4 87.5 49.6 High 64 121 DE 21,752 298 1.37% 5,853 63.3 47.6 35 High 168 MASCAREÑAS 122 12,239 8,517 69.59% 3,115 79.6 77.1 15.1 Very high 481 124 152,057 37,367 24.57% 36,892 81.9 38.9 51.1 High 126 125 23,576 164 0.70% 5,763 89.7 76.7 52.3 Medium 43 126 27,707 66 0.24% 7,625 96.4 91.9 64.6 Medium 131 127 PERLA, LA 14,446 34 0.24% 3,210 85.4 86.8 16.8 Very high 46 129 15,332 5,637 36.77% 3,672 80.7 56 34.3 High 120 130 43,438 15,499 35.68% 10,486 86 30.2 43.7 High 239 134 PUENTE NACIONAL 16,953 67 0.40% 4,837 96.4 92.8 68.3 Medium 160 Population Private dwellings VERACRUZ Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 135 RAFAEL DELGADO 12,772 8,130 63.65% 2,735 86.8 68.3 69.9 High 37 137 REYES, LOS 3,494 3,398 97.25% 842 59.9 46.2 4.4 Very high 27 140 SAN ANDRÉS TENEJAPAN 1,882 1,746 92.77% 375 92.3 89.6 33.3 High 253 141 SAN ANDRÉS TUXTLA 124,548 877 0.70% 30,134 88.5 75 51.1 High 517 142 28,830 383 1.33% 7,058 87.9 40.7 64.1 High 143 143 48,256 297 0.62% 11,836 81.2 65.1 49.7 High 207 144 SAYULA DE ALEMÁN 24,598 4,190 17.03% 5,934 87.6 46 70.5 High 284 146 2,673 20 0.75% 546 86.8 93.8 52.2 High 223 147 14,054 13,743 97.79% 2,835 94.2 55.3 1.9 Very high 12 148 24,299 53 0.22% 6,224 90.5 82.4 49.4 Medium 48 149 23,143 19,841 85.73% 5,741 73.8 83.8 15.7 Very high 137 150 TAMALÍN 10,185 1,044 10.25% 2,532 80.1 55.3 43.6 High 70 151 23,356 365 1.56% 6,140 85.4 18.8 29.2 High 37 152 11,292 117 1.04% 3,213 81.3 30.4 29.2 High 1070 153 5,591 633 11.32% 1,470 83.8 87.6 42.7 Medium 34 154 11,933 965 8.09% 2,958 78.9 32.9 16.5 Very high 129 155 82,422 45,559 55.28% 19,377 40.5 29.7 19.2 Very high 49 156 4,118 8 0.19% 940 73.5 28.4 26.9 High 105 157 CASTILLO DE TEAYO 17,420 1,753 10.06% 4,069 87.1 37.8 28.1 Very high 146 158 22,859 1,248 5.46% 5,943 85 23.1 52.5 High 27 159 14,141 14,071 99.50% 2,772 46.8 16.6 8.1 Very high 137 160 91,259 9,001 9.86% 21,956 86.8 32.3 34.4 High 72 161 31,847 3,018 9.48% 7,923 61.3 51.1 34.3 Very high 50 162 5,146 31 0.60% 1,165 84.4 68.5 44.7 Very high 68 163 TENOCHTITLÁN 4,798 27 0.56% 1,069 82.4 93.8 64.2 High 8 165 6,830 51 0.75% 1,496 86 26.8 23.5 Very high 72 166 TEPETLÁN 7,452 16 0.21% 1,885 83.4 97.4 78.5 Medium 41 167 TEPETZINTLA 12,051 2,369 19.66% 3,010 85.7 79.2 37 High 161 Population Private dwellings VERACRUZ Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 168 TEQUILA 10,114 9,231 91.27% 2,452 62.5 58.2 14.3 Very high 30 169 JOSÉ AZUETA 21,852 631 2.89% 5,717 88.2 39.7 60.9 High 81 170 7,675 5,913 77.04% 1,681 52.6 19.6 0.2 Very high 92 171 TEXHUACÁN 3,973 3,166 79.69% 879 58.3 83.3 11 Very high 55 172 16,825 568 3.38% 4,061 78.3 44.6 64.8 High 31 173 44,498 9,377 21.07% 10,926 71.4 29.2 29.9 Very high 116 174 TIERRA BLANCA 79,755 2,732 3.43% 21,769 87.1 66.7 70 Medium 96 175 TIHUATLÁN 71,750 3,113 4.34% 17,917 86.3 28.6 50.1 High 31 177 7,570 18 0.24% 1,673 68.1 65.9 22.8 High 27 179 TLACOTEPEC DE MEJÍA 3,187 17 0.53% 804 85.5 91.4 47.1 Medium 34 180 9,519 5,432 57.06% 2,197 63.7 33.2 9.2 Very high 59 181 32,778 303 0.92% 9,136 85.7 46.2 66.1 Medium 39 182 TLALNELHUAYOCAN 9,884 51 0.52% 2,272 93.5 91.2 63.6 Medium 14 184 5,348 5,220 97.61% 1,007 79.7 77.4 7.7 Very high 44 185 3,409 1,619 47.49% 827 88.9 78 54.7 Medium 17 187 TONAYÁN 4,111 9 0.22% 832 85.3 83.2 24.8 High 31 188 13,089 49 0.37% 3,022 91.3 84.6 56.9 Medium 3 190 2,012 12 0.60% 633 93.8 49.8 79.9 Medium 34 194 6,862 6 0.09% 1,584 92.1 94.7 50.1 Medium 25 195 XOXOCOTLA 3,744 1,009 26.95% 766 81.7 70.6 6.8 Very high 5 196 YANGA 14,564 85 0.58% 3,956 95.6 80.5 75.7 Medium 34 197 10,919 250 2.29% 2,644 84.1 79.4 67.6 High 20 198 ZACUALPAN 6,110 66 1.08% 1,584 45.4 36.8 14.3 Very high 18 199 ZARAGOZA 7,610 3,920 51.51% 1,666 82 48.9 66.9 Very high 44 200 10,969 119 1.08% 2,444 86.1 80.7 50.4 High 33 201 34,415 27,290 79.30% 8,019 48.2 59.6 21.6 Very high 11 202 ZONTECOMATLÁN DE 10,475 8,610 82.20% 2,274 54.8 42.7 5.9 Very high 75 LÓPEZ Y FUENTES Population Private dwellings VERACRUZ Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 203 10,965 8,993 82.02% 2,377 42.7 27.4 21.3 Very high 322 205 HIGO, EL 16,433 219 1.33% 4,309 88.9 94.6 44.6 Medium 84 209 DE 10,518 7,803 74.19% 2,414 83.1 88.1 22.7 231 JUÁREZ 210 20,132 7,849 38.99% 4,238 71.9 50.3 36.9 45 Subtotal 2,576,549 545,593 21.18% 630,376 0.81 0.57 0.44 15250 Data source: INEGI Census 2000

Population Private dwellings Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % ZACATECAS 1,188,724 1,837 0.15% 298,217 95.5 88.5 70.3 4882 001 6,542 2 0.03% 1,721 97.2 87.2 87.7 Low 49 002 4,345 1 0.02% 1,068 91.8 77.9 53.5 Medium 33 003 ATOLINGA 2,895 6 0.21% 875 95.9 91.3 58.4 Low 26 004 BENITO JUÁREZ 3,832 6 0.16% 999 93.9 89.3 69.4 Medium 25 008 CUAUHTÉMOC 9,415 1 0.01% 2,157 94.2 98.4 81.9 Medium 73 011 TRINIDAD GARCÍA DE LA 3,168 4 0.13% 909 95.2 94.5 80.3 Low 38 CADENA 012 GENARO CODINA 6,992 - 0.00% 1,531 90.3 83.2 30.4 Medium 64 014 GENERAL FRANCISCO R. 20,495 2 0.01% 4,985 96.5 79.3 48.9 Medium 80 MURGUÍA 015 PLATEADO DE JOAQUÍN 1,863 - 0.00% 563 94.1 90.9 55.1 Medium 22 AMARO, EL 016 GENERAL PÁNFILO 18,831 4 0.02% 4,612 96.9 94.2 53.2 Medium 53 NATERA 018 4,699 2 0.04% 1,247 96.1 74.2 71.3 Medium 54 021 JIMÉNEZ DEL TEUL 4,514 5 0.11% 1,008 78.8 83.3 26.4 High 57 Population Private dwellings ZACATECAS Total Speaks indigenous Total Electricity Current Drainage Marginality Localities water language % 026 MAZAPIL 15,896 4 0.03% 3,762 80.6 62.1 23.8 High 200 027 MELCHOR OCAMPO 2,397 - 0.00% 575 87.7 31 19.8 High 37 028 MEZQUITAL DEL ORO 2,641 2 0.08% 700 92.9 73 53.3 Medium 62 030 2,621 3 0.11% 771 96.9 93.1 84.6 Low 27 031 8,755 23 0.26% 2,449 91.8 76.5 58.9 Medium 155 033 MOYAHUA DE ESTRADA 5,186 2 0.04% 1,470 96.9 78.7 82.7 Low 54 035 NORIA DE ÁNGELES 12,034 - 0.00% 2,803 92.9 91.1 51.7 Medium 36 036 OJOCALIENTE 32,842 18 0.05% 7,777 96.9 95.2 69.2 Medium 100 038 PINOS 55,928 15 0.03% 13,190 89.7 56 28.3 High 306 039 RÍO GRANDE 51,821 25 0.05% 13,114 97.7 96.3 68.2 Low 55 040 SAIN ALTO 18,114 8 0.04% 4,324 95.7 82.1 41.4 Medium 71 041 SALVADOR, EL 2,810 - 0.00% 695 78 82.7 21 Medium 21 042 SOMBRERETE 54,341 29 0.05% 13,581 95.6 84.6 56.8 Medium 207 043 SUSTICACÁN 1,157 - 0.00% 329 93.3 95.1 55.9 Medium 6 044 TABASCO 13,678 15 0.11% 3,512 96.3 82.9 69.6 Medium 58 045 TEPECHITLÁN 8,042 19 0.24% 2,205 95 89.1 64.1 Medium 55 046 7,648 6 0.08% 2,190 96.8 94.4 61.1 Medium 50 047 TEUL DE GONZÁLEZ 8,186 14 0.17% 2,161 94.6 82.3 73.9 Medium 63 ORTEGA 049 VALPARAÍSO 30,880 437 1.42% 8,090 84.2 76.6 53.2 Medium 245 050 6,389 - 0.00% 1,544 97.6 88.5 76.4 Low 11 051 28,284 13 0.05% 6,866 94.7 85.2 46.1 Medium 276 052 VILLA GARCÍA 12,612 1 0.01% 2,857 94.8 83.8 67.7 Medium 49 054 VILLA HIDALGO 13,637 2 0.01% 3,197 93.4 86 48.6 Medium 50 055 VILLANUEVA 28,408 23 0.08% 7,445 94.5 88.9 64.5 Low 128 Subtotal 511,898 692 0.14% 127,282 0.83 0.55 2896 0.94 Data source: INEGI Census 2000 ATTACHMENT III

Municipal Development in Rural Areas Project Social Assessment and Indigenous Peoples Development Plan

This document presents, in two sections: (i) the general Social Assessment of the Municipal Development in Rural Areas Project, and (ii) the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP). The social assessment deals with the general social conditions of all of the beneficiaries of the project in the four states. It also identifies among beneficiaries a significant proportion of indigenous peoples concentrated in two of the project states. The social assessment depicts an existing social participation strategy with strong emphasis on social participation, and community and municipal-level decision taking.

The Indigenous Peoples Development Plan details characteristics of the indigenous population, their social and cultural context and defines ways to strengthen a social and cultural participation strategy specific for indigenous communities and municipalities. One major finding is that indigenous communities’ access to the benefits of the predecessor project, DRD II, have been more than proportional, though there are demands for more information and training to improve subproject execution.

1. Social Assessment This Social Assessment covers seven main points: 1. Introduction, 2. Project Objective, 3. Background and Political Context, 4. Beneficiaries, 5. Social Capital, 6. Main Institutional and Economic Trends, and 7. Social and Cultural Strategy.

1.1 Introduction Main Social Assessment Activities. The axis of the social assessment was the field work performed by an interdisciplinary team of consultants integrated by specialists in social sciences with experience in rural development, indigenous culture and municipal governance. Some consultants were proposed by and recruited from civil society organizations with an important background as consultants to indigenous municipal governments. Field work included workshops and interviews in 23 municipalities of the four states in the project: Guanajuato, Puebla Veracruz and Zacatecas. Nine of these municipalities had important indigenous population. Main people consulted were 23 municipal presidents, 99 other municipal staff, 130 small community leaders, over 800 community beneficiaries and 26 representatives of local and national civil society organizations. Other consultations with state and federal staff and national scope civil society organizations were additional to the field work. For specific information on indigenous peoples (besides field work) the Indigenous Profiles, a World Bank supported study made by prestigious Mexican institutions and consultants, was amply consulted, particularly the well developed Veracruz Indigenous Profile. The Puebla Indigenous Profile is under preparation. In the second section of this document, the IPDP, there is a more detailed treatment of indigenous issues.

Main Social Assessment findings. These findings correspond to inquiries made about the functioning of Ramo 33, which is the ongoing program that would be supported by the project.  After four years of operation, beneficiaries know about the program, its objectives and mechanisms, but requested fuller understanding of project mechanisms;  Marginal and highly marginal (poorer) population has benefited the most from the project. Nevertheless infrastructure investments are usually seen as grants from the government rather than a citizen or community right;

 There was no major criticism on the basic structures for decision making and monitoring (COPLADEMUN, community assemblies, comites de obras). There was however criticism on operative issues such as: insufficient resources or actual community priorities. There was demand for logistic support to participation (e.g., meals, transportation, compensations for time spent by representatives).  Participants in the consultation demanded more information and training on communities’ rights and operational issues.  The social assessment identified a significant indigenous population concentrated on 111 municipalities of the States of Puebla and Veracruz. In the selected municipalities there is one million of Indigenous Language Speakers out of a total of 5.8 million inhabitants. According to indigenous representatives, experts and state governments the actual number of indigenous population is much larger. These consultation findings are considered in the design of the social and cultural strategy. 1.2. Project Objective The Municipal Development in Rural Areas aims to reduce the incidence of rural poverty by (i) supporting investments in basic small-scale social and productive infrastructure, utilizing a proven effective community-driven development (CDD) approach, (ii) strengthening municipal administrative and technical capacity to increase the efficiency of municipal investments, and (iii) deepening the ongoing decentralization from Federal to State and Municipal levels. To achieve this objective, the Project main Component will finance creation, maintenance and rehabilitation of small-scale public and social infrastructure including: water supply, sewage, drainage and latrines, small scale electrification, health posts, schools and education facilities, rural roads rehabilitation, town markets, housing improvement, and rural productive infrastructure. Its Second Component will address institutional development issues, such as (i) dissemination of information (mainly on beneficiaries rights and operational issues); (iii) training for community capacity building and (iv) training for cultural and social participation awareness of key actors of the State and Municipal Administrations (including COPLADEMUN).

1.3. Background and Political Context. The project builds on the successful experiences of two previous decentralization projects and supports an ongoing federal, state and municipal program with four years of operational experience (1998 – 2001). This Project supports the trend, recommended by its predecessor Bank Project, of increased resources and decision taking capabilities transferred from the federal to the municipal level in a transparent way. Allocation of municipal funds is now done by formulas of general application instead of discretionary criteria. Furthermore, formulas are designed to compensate poverty indicators and therefore per capita allocation is significantly higher for municipalities with higher extreme poor and poor population. The new regulatory framework calls for ample social participation in the municipal decision making mechanisms.

The project is the result of deepening democratization occurring in the country in the last years. Ramo 33 was born out of a new balance of power among political parties in Congress that allowed for a big step towards decentralization. It agrees with other important political change related to the composition of municipal cabildos (governing structure integrated by representatives of the political groups that competed in the municipal elections) that took away the “governance clause” that gave majority voting to the largest party. Today political parties are represented at the municipal “cabildo” matching their percentage of votes. This change increased transparency and accountability by giving municipal opposition parties a saying (often a veto power) on municipal decision taking.

1.4. Beneficiaries. The project is targeted to the poorer population of the states of Guanajuato, Puebla, Veracruz and Zacatecas. Rural population is known to be the poorest in . Out of the 25.9 million Mexicans who live in communities of under 2,500 inhabitants, 37% are in extreme poverty, with incomes lower than one dollar a day. Extreme poverty reaches even higher figures in indigenous households.

The project will support infrastructure investments in rural and indigenous municipalities and the development of municipal institutions. The selected municipalities are those in which at least 50% of the population live in communities of less than 2,500 inhabitants. Total population in these municipalities is 5.8 million people in 344 municipalities.

According to their degree of marginality these municipalities are distributed as follows: DEGREE OF MARGINALITY Guanajuato Puebla Veracruz Zacatecas Total Very High 2 51 61 0 114 High 3 35 41 4 83 Medium 22 56 35 24 137 Low 1 0 1 8 10 Very low 0 0 0 0 0 Total 28 142 138 36 344 Source: Sistema Nacional de Información Municipal. CEDEMUN Web Page: www.cedemun.gob.mx

Rural municipalities largely coincide, in the states of Puebla and Veracruz, with a higher proportion of indigenous population. In order not to leave out an important segment of indigenous population, municipalities with more than 30% of indigenous language speakers (ILS) were also included (each of these municipalities under 15,000 inhabitants). The 5.8 million beneficiaries mentioned include one million ILS (an indicator of a larger indigenous population). However, the indigenous presence in the four states area is quite heterogeneous. The states of Puebla and Veracruz have high percentages of indigenous population in 111 municipalities in which there is a long indigenous history and persisting traditions; the other two states have very low percentages of indigenous population, most of them immigrants in the states larger cities.

1.5. Social capital Rural municipalities superpose different models of organization at local, regional and national levels. The most active and “natural” form of organization for municipal issues in the four states are communities themselves; the mere fact of inhabiting in a locality means the right to participate in community assemblies. Communities are entitled to: a) elect a representative to the Municipal Planning and Development Council (Comité de Planeación y Desarrollo Municipal, COPLADEMUN), b) to present proposals for local investments in social and productive infrastructure, c) to appoint specific beneficiaries monitoring committees (Comités de Obras) to follow up implementation, and d) to administer and take responsibility for built infrastructure. Other important organizations in the four states are based on collective property or rights to land, like Ejidos, Comunidades Agrarias, Asociaciones Rurales de Interes Colectivo, Sociedades de Solidaridad Social, Sociedades de Produccion Rural, Uniones de Crédito and numerous organizations of rural producers (coffee, pineapple, sugar cane, livestock and other specific associations). Leadership of this kind of local- regional organizations greatly overlap with community representatives.

There are organizations, in Puebla and Veracruz, with an ethnic identification. Examples of them are, in Puebla, Cooperativa Agropecuaria Tosepan Titataniske, Organización Independiente Totonaca, Organización Regional Náhuatl Independiente; in Veracruz, Consejo Regional Indígena, Coordinadora Regional de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Sierra de Zongolica, Consejo Indígena de Uxpanapa. Some represent alliances over ethnic differences like Comité para la Defensa de los Derechos Indígenas Chinanteco, Zoque, Totonaca, or Unión Pro Defensa de los Pueblos Indígenas Zoque – Popoluca – Náhuatl. In the State of Zacatecas organizations of absent migrants have an important role to play on local decisions due to the importance of their remittances and are promoting local organization. Guanajuato and Zacatecas have regional farmer organizations that tend to be affiliates of national organizations like the Confederación Nacional Campesina or Unión Nacional de Organizaciones Regionales Campesinas Autonomas or Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras Campesina.

During the last years, due to higher municipal decision capabilities and higher resources, local politics have become more attractive for local and regional organizations. There are successful experiences of local organizations, some of them indigenous (in Puebla and Veracruz), winning municipal presidencies. Three organizations of municipal presidents tend to figure as increasingly important actors in promoting the general municipal interests at the state and federal levels: Asociación de Municipios de México, A.C. (AMMAC); Asociación de Autoridades Locales de México A.C. (AALMAC) and Federación Nacional de Municipios de México (FENAMM).

Some NGOs of urban origin are actively supporting rural development (like Fundacion Mexicana para el Desarrollo Rural, and Anadeges) and, more specifically indigenous municipalities’ governments (like Equipo Pueblo).

1.6. Main Institutional and Economic Trends

Federal Government Withdrawal During the last twenty years there has been an important rationalization of field staff of public institutions in rural marginal areas. Communication channels between the federal government and rural population have become increasingly shallow. In the case of Ramo 33, as well as in other public programs, decentralization has implied an important switch of operational responsibilities towards municipal administration structures that have not fully developed appropriate capabilities. A general demand in municipalities is that the decentralization processes (not only of Ramo 33) be accompanied by additional transfers of human resources, technical and administrative capacities and financing. i. Economy Agricultural activities prevail in the selected municipal communities. In Puebla and Veracruz there are mainly traditional peasant economies; in Guanajuato and Zacatecas there is usually a more modern agricultural activity. In the four states (particularly in Zacatecas) the communities’ income is increased with the remittances from migrants who have found jobs in the big US cities. A 20 years old rural impoverishment trend, particularly important in peasant and indigenous communities, is linked mainly to the growing isolation of rural producers from the market. Besides severe deterioration in their exchange relationships (diminishing relative prices for rural products) and a growing difficulty to place their production in the market (whether livestock, agriculture or rural industry products). Reduced opportunities of rural employment outside the communities (such as in coffee, cotton, sugar, fruits and vegetable crops) an in urban activities (construction) has translated into a sharp deterioration of their income level. Local oligopolies on commercialization and services (credit, technical assistance, transport) have been strengthened resulting in higher transaction costs. Reduction of local food self-sufficiency levels leads to increased need for external monetary input and growing emigration. 1.7. Social and Cultural Strategy The predecessors of this project, DRD I and DRD II, were essentially small-scale infrastructure investment projects. This Municipal Development in Rural Areas Project has a wider approach that includes a general but flexible social strategy designed to adjust to different social and cultural contexts. This is not an addition to the design but an intrinsic part directed to improved targeting and enhance the quality of small- scale municipal infrastructure investments. The project supports the continuation of the basic participatory design that was implemented under the DRD II. Its main features are:  Community assembly decisions on infrastructure investment proposals to be submitted to the COPLADEMUN.  Community assembly appointment of a representative to COPLADEMUN.

 Infrastructure investment decisions taken by COPLADEMUN. Usually COPLADEMUNs have a majority (about 70%) of community representatives.  Transparency on budget allocations to Municipalities and on community allocations to subprojects.  Community appointment of Comités de obras (citizen’s monitoring committee) for each of the infrastructure subprojects in the community.  Voluntary community counterpart investment, often in labor or local materials. (A way to secure individual and local ownership). Consultations on the project point out to opportunities of improvement; they are included in the project to open the way for increased decision-making participation of the poorest and most vulnerable groups, inter- alia indigenous peoples. The main activities of the social strategy are:  Dissemination to citizens and communities of benefits and operational mechanisms under the project.  Training on participatory mechanisms and building communities capabilities to contribute to the design, execution, monitoring and evaluation of the project.  Promotion of social participation. The axis of the specific design of the social strategy will be the systematization of a methodology to promote participatory social and cultural municipal self-diagnostics, through Desde lo Local methodology. CEDEMUN (National Project Coordination Unit) will develop the methodology, supporting materials and training to State Technical Units. STUs will promote the Desde lo Local´s self diagnostics at the municipal and community levels and train Municipalities authorities and COPLADEMUN representatives in the methodology. From the results obtained, CEDEMUN will develop and execute (with the support of the municipalities), a strategy for information dissemination, training and promotion of social participation, giving an special attention to the development of socially and culturally appropriate regional/ municipal social strategies for indigenous people. 2. Indigenous Peoples’ Development Plan This second part of the document, the IPDP, is concerned with compliance with the Bank’s O.D. 4.20 and covers the following aspects: 1. Introduction, 2. Legal Framework and Indigenous Rights, 3. Indigenous People in the Project Municipalities, 4. Indigenous People Participation in the Political Life of Municipalities, 5. Indigenous Peoples’ Share of Benefits of DRD II and Ramo 33, 6. Indigenous Peoples’ Development Plan. Development Plan.

2.1 Introduction This section is based on two main sources. One is the field municipal and community consultation already described in the introduction to the social assessment and, second, the Indigenous Peoples Profiles studies supported by the World Bank and conducted by highly recognized institutions and experts in Mexico. One of the aims of the Profile of the Mexican Indigenous People is reflect its lessons in ongoing and new operations. Main findings related to the indigenous population were similar to the general rural population plus:  Puebla and Veracruz have an important indigenous peoples population, concentrated in 111 municipalities where they are the majority. There were 91 municipal presidents that spoke an indigenous language in the year 2000 (no data for the current presidents).  Although there are one million Indigenous Language Speakers in the selected municipalities, state authorities, academics, and indigenous peoples consider a much bigger indigenous population. The Mexican legal framework states that self identification as indigenous is the main criteria to determine whether an individual or a community is indigenous. There is high cultural and language

diversity among indigenous peoples with at least 10 different ethnic groups in both states. The Indigenous Profile for Veracruz indicates at least 50 dialects.  Ethnicity is an important basis for local and regional organizations in both states.  Indigenous communities have been benefited more than proportionally by DRD II and Ramo 33. There is, however, strong demand for better information and training to strengthen participation on design and execution of investments.

2.2. Mexican Legal Framework on Indigenous Rights Recent changes in the Political Constitution of the Mexico have resulted in the acknowledgement of the multi-cultural nature of the Mexican State and of the rights of indigenous peoples in the country. These changes have been driven by an increasing indigenous cultural awareness in large population groups. Currently there is an important discussion related to the legal status of indigenous peoples that will probably result in more legal reforms to their benefit. Article 2 of the Constitution states, among other elements, that:  The nation has a multi-cultural composition originally sustained on its indigenous peoples which are descendant of populations that lived in the current country territory when colonization started and who have maintained their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions or part thereon;  The conscience of an indigenous identity is a fundamental criterion to determine where the indigenous people dispositions apply; and  Indigenous peoples right to free determination will be exercised in a constitutional framework of freedom that will assure national unity. The recognition of indigenous peoples and communities will be made in the constitutions and laws of the federal entities.

The constitution recognizes and guarantees autonomy rights to indigenous peoples and communities to:

 Decide its internal manners of living together and its economic, social, political and cultural organization;  Apply its own regulatory systems to regulate and solve internal conflicts, abiding by the general principles of this Constitution, respecting individual guarantees, human rights, and in a relevant manner, women’s dignity and integrity;  Elect their authorities or representatives according to their traditional rules, procedures and practices, to exercise their own type of internal government, assuring participation of women in similar conditions as men; and  Elect representatives from indigenous communities to municipal town halls.  In order to promote equal opportunities to the indigenous populations, and eliminate any discriminatory practice, the Federation, the states and the municipalities will establish the institutions and determine the necessary policies to guarantee the effectiveness of indigenous rights and the integral development of indigenous peoples and communities, which must be designed and implemented with their participation.

Mexico has signed the 169 ILO (International Labor Organization) Agreement accepting the following as part of its own legal system:

 Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.  Governments shall have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.  Such action shall include measures for:

(a) Ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population; (b) Promoting the full realization of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions; (c) Assisting the members of the peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may exist between indigenous and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible with their aspirations and ways of life.  In sum, the peoples concerned, through these various legal and institutional arrangements, have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programs for national and regional development which may affect them directly.

2.3. Indigenous People in the Project Municipalities One of the most relevant indicators of indigenous presence in the selected states and municipalities is the percentage of “Indigenous language speakers” – ILS, among the population above five years old. According to census figures, indigenous language speakers –ILS- presence is as follows:

Indigenous Language Speakers State State Project % ILS in Project Municipalities Municipalities 1. Guanajuato 10,689 3,974 0. 29 1. Puebla 565,509 433,684 32.45 1. Veracruz 633,372 545,593 21.17 1. Zacatecas 1,837 692 0.13

The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States as well as other applicable laws consider that self- identification with, or the conscience of belonging to, an indigenous group, is the fundamental criteria to define someone as an indigenous population integrant. In general terms, indigenous organizations, public officials and experts in the subject reject that the number of indigenous language speakers is the only criterion to calculate indigenous population and recommend the inclusion of cultural criteria (food, health and sanitary habits, religious festivities, land attachment, clothing, housing features and others).

It is important to point out the gradual and subtle cultural continuum between the indigenous and the non indigenous, which renders its identification a complex task. The population census of the year 2000 indicates a total of 6.45 million of ILS, while the Instituto Nacional Indigenista, with additional criteria, considers there are no less than 10 million indigenous people. Other experts rise the figure between 12 and 14 million people. The census in the state of Veracruz registered 633 thousand ILS, while the state authorities and indigenous leaders speak of no less than 1.3 million indigenous people. An extrapolation of such estimates would lead into thinking that even municipal communities with only 20% of ILS could, in certain circumstances be identified as fundamentally indigenous. This would be the case when the difference between indigenous language speakers and non-speakers is fundamentally generational (grandparents are ILS), the community has an indigenous historical background, and other persistent indigenous cultural characteristics. This reasoning would not apply to areas with relatively recent indigenous migration, weak indigenous historical-cultural background and where ILS data could indicate a different social group.

Because of its demographical background, culture, history and traditions, the indigenous presence can be considered a majority (at least more than 50%) in the municipalities of Puebla y Veracruz with over 20% of ILS. Thus there are a total of 49 indigenous municipalities in Veracruz and other 62 in Puebla. Veracruz. Indigenous language speakers of 5 or more years of age.

Language 1980 1990 1995 Absol Relative Absolute Relative Absolute Relative ute Total ‘ils’population in the 634 208 100.00 580 386 100.00 590 829 100.00 state Náhuatl 347 597 54.80 294 711 50.78 314 121 53.16 Totonaca 117 533 18.53 111 305 19.18 115 455 19.54 Huasteco 47 584 7.50 46 897 8.08 47 620 8.05 Popoluca 21 249 3.35 29 203 5.03 34 261 5.80 Zapoteco 24 631 3.88 22 180 3.82 20 151 3.41 Chinanteco 7 627 1.20 16 284 2.80 17 431 2.95 Otomí 17 995 2.84 15 986 2.75 15 688 2.65 Mazateco 5 766 0.91 6 533 1.12 8 247 1.40 Tepehua 6 489 1.02 5 742 0.99 5 937 1.00 Mixteco 5 747 0.91 3 674 0.63 3 311 0.56 Zoque 237 0.04 2 790 0.48 2 401 0.40 Mixe 1 379 0.22 1 559 0.27 1 467 0.25 Maya 2 042 0.3 1 318 0.23 964 0.16 Note: Only the languages with a larger number of speakers are considered. The missing amounts and percentages to reach 100.00% represent languages with a small number of speakers an non-specified cases. Sources: Luz María Valdés y María Teresa Menéndez. Dinámica de la población de habla indígena (1900- 1980). México, SEP-INAH, 1987. INEGI. XI Censo de población y vivienda, 1990. INEGI. Conteo de población y vivienda, 1995. Resultados definitivos. Tabulador básico, 1996. 3 vols. (Veracruz, vol. 3).

Most rural indigenous inhabitants identify first with their community and with their ethnic group in a very close geographical area; then they identify themselves as Mexicans. The identification with their broad ethnic group is usually very weak. One of the reasons to explain this is that each indigenous ethnic group has its own cultural characteristics; even among communities of the same ethnic group there are important differences resulting from their degree of isolation, condition of their close environment, community background, access to mass media, regional trade centers, educational and health services. All literate population reads and writes in Spanish, and all monolingual population is illiterate. It is important to mention that each ethnic group has dialectal differences that make understanding difficult among speakers of the same language who live in distant villages. In the case of Veracruz some 50 different dialects are identified by in its Indigenous Profile (a study supported by the World Bank). On the other side 87% of ILS speak Spanish.

The indigenous profile of the State of Puebla is in its elaboration process. It may be said, however that the proximity of the two states results in the predominance of the same ethnic groups, (Nahuas, Totonacas, Tepehuas and Ñañhús [Otomí] in the case of Puebla), and in similar socio cultural traits.

2.4. Indigenous People Participation in the Political Life of Municipalities

It has already been mentioned, in the first section of this annex, the existence of some experiences where indigenous organizations have arrived to the control of the municipal government through democratic competition. It should be also pointed out that according to a CEDEMUN survey on municipal presidents

there were 41 ILS among them in the state of Veracruz and another 50 in Puebla in the year 2000. This number of a total of 92 ILS in both states, plus other indigenous municipal presidents that are not ILS, is an indicator of the very high possibility of indigenous municipalities having an indigenous municipal president. b. c. 2.5 Indigenous Peoples’ share of the benefits of DRD II and Ramo 33. Indigenous peoples have been the most benefited group of DRD II and present Ramo 33 due to the following: Poverty alleviation objective. DRD II expressly stated that Bank financed investments were to be directed to poverty alleviation. This now holds for all Ramo 33 investments. Allocation formula. DRD II strongly recommended the use of a pro-poor formula for budget allocation. The formula favors highly marginal and marginal municipalities in a three to one ratio over low marginality municipalities. Most indigenous communities are located in municipalities rated as high or very high in the marginality indicators. The states of Puebla and Veracruz have strongly promoted at the COPLADEMUN meetings investments in three “basic” investments: access to water, sewage and electricity. These states add significant state counterpart investment in municipalities that adopt these priorities. By their own nature (household and community located) these priorities usually mean small investments in disadvantaged communities; indigenous communities are more than proportionally represented in this segment. Recent changes in the political context, (multiparty cabildos, overlapped multiparty executive and legislative powers at the federal, state and municipal governments) and increased awareness of indigenous rights translate into increased transparency and accountability. d. 2.6. Indigenous Peoples Development Plan

The project will support the definition and implementation of socio-cultural strategies at the municipal level. The strategies will help communities to make consistent use of municipal investments and programs to pursue their specific social, ethnic and cultural goals. The main device to start the preparation of these strategies are autodiagnósticos (self-evaluations), conducted by the Municipalities with the COPLADEMUNs support. This autodiagnostico is known as “Desde lo Local” (Descentralización Estratégica para el Desarrollo de lo Local) The methodological instruments of the Desde lo Local would include sections to address the identification of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural traits, and would be translated into the main ethnic language.

Capacities required to perform this planning function will be strengthened through Part B over the life of the project. To start the process, the immediate strengthening of capacities will come from hiring external support, with funds allocated through Part B.

CEDEMUN will play a key role initially in guiding the development of the Desde lo Local System as standardized tool and a viable methodology which could then be implemented in each municipality. For this purpose, CEDEMUN will deploy the services of specialists in socio-cultural assessment (e.g., anthropologists, sociologists) in order to (i) bring sufficient rigor to the overall exercise; (ii) ensure that culturally appropriate mechanisms are incorporated into the diagnostic kit to effectively reach the expected diversity in the project municipalities; (iii) design the dissemination campaign; and (iv) design and develop a monitoring and evaluation system including the software required . Development of the diagnostic kit would also entail an ongoing dialogue with the Municipalities and COPLADEMUNs throughout the four states, to encourage a strong “buy-in” to the exercise and its intended product. Once developed, the diagnostic kit of the “Desde lo Local” would become part of the project Operational Manual. Subsequent to the development of the socio-cultural diagnostic kit, a series of intensive training activities would be conducted to properly equip both STU personnel and representatives of COPLADEMUNs in the elaboration of the municipal autodiagnósticos following the “Desde lo Local” methodology created for this purpose. Given the extensive geographic coverage of the project, as well as the overall aim of

strengthening federalism in Mexico, a “training of trainers” approach would be pursued. Under this approach, CEDEMUN would instruct selected STU personnel in the proper deployment of the diagnostic kit at the municipal level; then, STU staff would, in turn, carry out training activities with the COPLADEMUNs in their respective states. As stated earlier, the autodiagnósticos would detail the specific socio-cultural characteristics of the municipality and provide inputs toward defining the basic needs at the community level. To this end, given that the COPLADEMUN is itself a representative council of community-level constituents, it is expected that these local-level representative will each play a strong role in consulting, identifying and expressing community basic needs in the COPLADEMUN and as part of the overall process of elaborating the autodiagnósticos.

Once completed, the autodiagnóstico would be used by the municipalities hearing the COPLADEMUN to formulate Planes de Desarrollo Municipal. The formulation of these plans would be the responsibility of the municipalities hearing the COPLADEMUN, with guidance and technical assistance provided for its completion through the STU and other civil society organizations. At a minimum, the Planes de Desarrollo Municipal would detail the actions and activities required to address the demands identified in the autodiagnóstico (Desde lo Local) , specify those responsible for carrying out these activities, identifying the role of the Federal, State, Municipal Governments and Community , identify a timeframe for their completion, and stipulate the sources of additional resources (e.g., finance) that may be necessary for their attainment. The communication of the Planes de Desarrollo Municipal Social Development Plan will rely on culturally appropriate media for reaching all elements of municipal society (e.g., indigenous radio broadcasts, interpretation facilities for municipal-level meetings, etc.) Throughout this process, the learning experiences of the different actors, will be crucial in order to ensure the success of the approach, and to share from such experiences .

Monitoring and Evaluation: CEDEMUNs monitoring and evaluation system will be strengthened by (i) An annual evaluation of the project that will include: (a) contracting an external third party and independent assessment in particular of the participatory approach, and of the impact of autodiagnósticos on Municipalities (including the respective COPLADEMUN) involvement; (b) developing recommendations and alternatives (as needed) to improve the participatory approach; (c) analysing the effectiveness of the Governments response to the communities strategic decisions; and (d) developing general recommendations and alternatives. (ii) Desde lo Local monitoring and evaluation system will include representative statistical samples with the identification of beneficiary communities as indigenous or not indigenous. It would examine examples of the project’s outcomes (field measurements of actual benefits) for indigenous people. This will be included in the previously mentioned evaluation framework. Schedule of Activities and Budget: Table 1 provides details as to the substance, timing and costs of activities associated with completion the autodiagnóstico and the Municipal Development Plan exercise. It is expected that, once initiated, the process would require a period of nine to twelve months. Activities would be eligible for financing under Part B of the project (with the exception of the Participatory Assessment, which would be financed through Part C of the project).

Timeline and Budget of Activities: PPPPPI Objective Activities Responsible Completion Budget Deadline Technical Guide for  TOR for development of diagnostic kit; CEDEMUN CY2003, Qtr 2 US$ 100,000 Autodiagnóstico  Contract specialists;  Development materials. Training of STU and  TOR for training module; CEDEMUN, CY 2003, Qtr 3 US$ 160,000 CEDEMUN staff  Select STU and CEDEMUN staff; STUs  Contract training specialist;  Conduct workshop  Training Materials Training of  TOR for training module; STU, CY 2003, Qtr 4 US$ 260,000 Municipalities  Development calendar of training activities; Municipalities authorities and  Invite COPLADEMUNs Municipalities authorities; authorities COPLADEMUN  Conduct workshops COPLADEMUNs  Training Materials Conduct  Municipalities authorities with COPLADEMUNs consult their localities; STU, CY 2004, Qtr 2 US$ 760,000 Autodiagnósticos and  Apply Desde lo Local´s diagnostic tools; Municipalities develop Municipal  Prepare Autodiagnósticos authorities Development Plans  Municipalities authorities with COPLADEMUNs use data gathered to COPLADEMUNs program activities and actions to address communities’ basic needs and appropriate means for their achievement Execution of Municipal  Information Campaign STU, Ongoing US$1,000,000 Development Plans  Subproject proposals prepared and prioritized; Municipalities  Implementation of subprojects; authorities COPLADEMUN Monitoring and  Baseline Study STU, Ongoing US$1,500,000 Evaluation  Mid-term Review (Social Participation Assessment) CEDEMUN,  Analysis of statistically representative samples of investment allocation Municipalities among indigenous and non indigenous communities. authorities  Final Evaluation COPLADEMUN US$4,680,000