Level of involvement in the CPDE:

Since its participation in Busan, DECA Equipo Pueblo —which is part of ADOC Mexico, has been one of the platforms of the “Mesa de Articulación”.
It is also part of the Executive Committee of ALOP, and Mexico focal point
of the CPDE.

 

Download relevant case study documentation

NARRATOR'S NAME

Laura Becerra Pozos

LOCATION

Mexico

ORGANIZATION

DECA Equipo Pueblo, A.C.

Which is the most significant and paradigmatic story of a development

partnership that you have experienced?

Between the months of March and April 2016, within the framework of the Second Monitoring Round of the Commitments for Effective Development Cooperation-2016, DECA Equipo Pueblo AC carried out a monitoring process through an online survey for CSOs and researchers that aims to capture the progress and identify opportunities and obstacles in Mexico’s compliance with the commitments for a more effective development cooperation agreed in Busan —in particular regarding the indicator on civil society participation.

DECA Equipo Pueblo, in line with its role as CPDE's focal point, contacted the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation (AMEXCID) to inform about the implementation of the second monitoring round within the country's CSO, considering some of the proposed indicators. The Mexican Government, which plays the dual role of receiver and issuer of development cooperation, was under no obligation to implement the second monitoring round. However, the Government displayed a receptive attitude to the monitoring process generated by civil society. Spaces of exchange between society and the Government were generated by the two Chancellery levels in charge of following up —the AMEXCID and the General Directorate for Liaison with CSOs (DGVOSC) — in order to release and discuss the monitoring results.

This exchange and dialogue process was carried out at the Mexico Ministry of Foreign Affairs during a Civil Society Forum aimed at launching and validating the results of the online survey. The forum, held on 12 April 2016, reunited some expert leading organizations; CSO networks; and academic institutions; as well as the Chairman of the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation's Social Council and the representatives of AMEXCID and DGVOSC, who reported on the governmental process within the framework of the second round.

The AMEXCID has created many Technical Councils like the Social Technical Council —integrated by several CSOs— with the aim of consulting different actors on the actions undertaken by the AMEXCID in terms of development cooperation. However, the AMEXCID has not played an active role in advocacy that should be played in terms of information (transparency) and consultation, according to the CSOs.

The consultations and dialogues generated by the Civil Society during the monitoring process were useful to draw the Government's attention to the need for improving the CSO's participation mechanisms, as well as the transparency regarding the modalities and priorities of the cooperation.

Subsequently, in June 2016, the AMEXCID organized a multi-stakeholder forum open to the civil society that brought together the representatives of different sectors related to the development cooperation issued and received by Mexico. During the forum, the importance of the Busan principles for effective development cooperation was discussed, and the progress made in their implementation was evaluated. It is expected to arrange a new meeting before holding the GPEDC's Second High-Level Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya.

Additionally, the monitoring process has prompted the CSOs who were consulted to reflect on the importance and the impact of the Mexican Government's actions in terms of development cooperation. Consultation and accountability are therefore important.

There is a need to further drive and support this process in order to improve the quality of CSOs' participation, and to ensure that CSOs do not only follow up on development cooperation actions, but also influence decisions on cooperation, which ultimately are related to sustainable and equitable development in the country.

Mexico Gallery

How was the process of Monitoring this Development Partnership?

Various official sources were consulted in order to provide a frame of reference on cooperation flows in Mexico, the technology to be used was defined, and a survey for online consultations was designed. The survey was designed in accordance with the proposed methodology and the questions suggested for the process at the global level in AGOED's Monitoring Guide 2015-2016. Particularly, it was designed focusing on Indicator 2 (Evaluation of the enabling environment for CSOs) and taking into consideration other questions included in Indicator 3 (Public-Private Dialogue); Indicator 7 (Inclusive Evaluations), and Indicator 8 (Gender Perspective).

The survey addressed some CSOs, thematic networks, researchers, and experts linked to the issues of cooperation and development. More than 50 organizations and researchers participated in the survey, and around 65% of them participated in drafting the answers.

The results of the monitoring, confirm that the creation of favourable conditions for the participation of CSOs —who have an acceptable legal framework that recognizes them as actors of public interest— is not enough considering the different dimensions of an enabling environment.

For example, the economic dimension is closely related to the resources; the political dimension recognizes the freedom of association and promotes spaces of dialogue between the Government and the society; and the cultural dimension is linked to the degree of recognition or acceptance within society.

There is progress, but not enough to assert the existence of monitoring mechanisms for the commitments undertaken in Busan. However, more and more organizations and regional networks, like the ones involving Equipo Pueblo (ALOP and the Articulation Table of National Associations and Networks of NGOs in Latin America and Caribbean) have increasingly positioned the Enabling Environment framework as the benchmark for measuring CSOs' working conditions in Mexico and the way these dialogue should be positioned with federal and local governments.

Mexico takes part in various global processes making strategic decisions on countries' development at different levels that involve some CSOs from Mexico. These CSOs have participated proactively in the Heads of State and Government Summits on environment, financing for development, and the role of MDGs in the Agenda 2030, among others. These show the interest and activism of the Mexican civil society, which is well positioned and has the ability to offer alternatives to the Government in the light of the negotiations in said regional spaces.

However, it should be acknowledged that the percentage of the participating CSOs is low when compared to the total number of CSOs. Participating CSOs are firmly convinced that the foreign policy decisions on development have a key impact on the society as a whole, and they are committed to dialogue with the Government in order to have a greater impact on public advocacy.

 

Which was the monitoring role of the CSOs?

Involvement as

project partners

Other

 “The decision to hold the CED's second monitoring round is due to two reasons: to its role as Mexico focal point, and to the fact that one of DECA Equipo Pueblo's strategic lines is linked to the follow up on Mexico Government's foreign policy. The AMEXCID was aware of such commitment to monitoring, but explained that as a country with the dual role of receiver and issuer of development cooperation, it was not obliged to commit itself and thus, the country would carry out an ad hoc process. Therefore, Equipo Pueblo coped with its tasks as a point focal for Civil Society through an online survey targeting a set of CSOs and researchers from country. This motivated and somehow influenced the Government's decision to organize the multi-stakeholder forum, which is now being monitored to present the results in Nairobi.”

Bringing in consultation and

involvement of the community

affected by the project

Research and

evidence-based

monitoring

What type of monitoring of government-led DPs is occurring in your country?

"The format implemented by AMEXCID to approach the civil society consisted in the integration of Councils made up of various actors: the civil society, the municipal authorities, and the private sector —which plans to hold a meeting twice a year with limited powers to influence and even to voice opinions on the Mexican Government's decisions on cooperation."

Open to all stakeholders,

and include their ideas

Open to all stakeholders, but doesn’t include their ideas

Open to a few, chosen stakeholders, and include their ideas

Open to a few, chosen stakeholders, but does not include their ideas

Not open at all

Which are the actors or development agents that had participated in

the Development partnership that you describe in this story?

Goverment

Palestine

Kyrgyz Republic

India

Zimbabwe

Mexico

Guatemala

Paraguay

Zambia

Georgia

USA

Cameroon

Private Sector

CSO

Other Agents

"Investing time in dialogue with the Government is very important to us, even sometimes we do not manage to understand each other because in many cases public servants are not experienced enough and lack the willingness to dialogue with civil society; feel threatened; or can't manage the organizations' proposals. The process is still under construction and its improvement remains a challenge. We believe that the second round may have contributed to improving the mechanisms for dialogue and moving towards a more qualitative participation."

How could you define the dialogue process between the

multistakeholders involved in the Development Partnership?

Lack of proper listening, cycling the same arguments, no learning.

Encouraging listening and taking voices into account

What kind of monitoring processes is being done?

Ad hoc exercises

(specific for the process)

Regular reviews/on-going

monitoring

Qualitative/quantitative assessments

or evaluations.

Could you explain how the four-development effectiveness principles were used

as monitoring criteria in the experience you are presenting?

By clicking on the round circles in the graphic you could read more about how the principle has been used.

Key Primary Tool

Used somehow

Principle not used in the monitoring

Ownership of development priorities by developing counties

 Recipient countries define the development model that they want to implement.

Focus on results

Having a sustainable impact   should be the driving force behind investments and effort in development policy making

Partnerships for development

 Development depends on the participation of all actors, and recognises the diversity and complementarity of their functions.

 Transparency and shared responsibility

Development co-operation must be transparent and accountable to all citizens.

How has the Human Rights Based Approach been used as

monitoring criteria in the monitoring experience you are describing?

The survey was built upon the planned methodology and the suggested questions for this process at the global level in AGOED's Monitoring Guide for 2015-2016. Therefore, the monitoring instrument used incorporated the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA).

Not at all

Key Primary Tool

How did the government or other stakeholders react after

you have presented the monitoring initiative/some monitoring results?

"The Government of Mexico showed receptiveness to the monitoring process that we would be conducting within the CSOs of the country. The two levels of the Government's Chancellery in charge of monitoring also generated space for exchange between society and the Government: These are the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation (AMEXCID) and the General Directorate for Liaison with CSOs (DGVOSC), that are in charge of presenting and commenting on the results of

our monitoring. We can argue that our consultations and dialogues with the Government action were useful in tightening links with CSOs.

Later, in June, we were invited to the multiactor forum held by the AMEXCID, which is now organizing a forum in November 2016 in Nairobi.”

Monitoring experiences from CSOs like the one in my story happen in my country...

Rarely; they certainly go from less to more due to the pressure and the growing interest of CSOs dealing with this topic. They are aware of the impact that it has on in their work and the population, and the opening of spaces made by the Government, which is sensitive to participation.

Rarely

Frequently

Which capacities do you consider as key in order to realise this monitoring experience?

Capacity to relate, by participation in coalitions and networks of CSOs to engage engaging at multiple levels,

with the community and a variety of stakeholders

Capacity to foster dialogue with government and other stakeholder. Convene around a common landscape

Communication and outreach capacity. Counting with media in reaching and influencing public opinion.

Capacity to conduct evidence-based research and policy papers.

Capacity to commit and act, through a well-elaborated strategy for lobby and advocacy.

Capacity to conduct Lobby and Advocacy representing right-holders, from a legitimate, accountable and trustworthy representation.

Capability to mobilise public support and create and maintain operational space. Contributing to the public debate and maintain legitimacy of representation.

Capability to ensure organisational sustainability (with financial sustainability and capability to attract and retain qualified staff)

Capacity to adapt and renew, pro-act to changing external contexts. Organizations should be able to monitor changing circumstances and respond accordingly.

Capacity of culture of learning and innovation in the organisation. Developing an own learning agenda

The capacity grown through the organisation trajectory:

"Among all our successful projects and actions, we highlight our involvement for more than three years in tracking the process after 2015 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, thanks to which we opened a formal space for dialogue with the Chancellery and now with those in charge of the social policy."

 

"We highlight the wide experience in advocacy strategies from civil society; the follow-up on foreign policy issues —particularly since the Institutional Program on "Citizen Diplomacy"; the recognition of our Organization as a CSOs coordinator regarding lobbying processes with the Government on various issues, including the right to development and cooperation."

Key competences

For several years (since 1993) have kept track of foreign policy; macroeconomics and its impact on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESC rights); and we have prioritized the CSOs' advocacy strategy. For many years, we have been making clear the meaning of public incidence, and we have been convincing CSOs of the need for a new relationship between Government and society mainly focused on dialogue, on exchange, on joint responsibility, on convincing the Government to not to consider us as adversary organizations, and on building CSOs' trust in the strategy of dialogue and management. "Our work is not only built upon a solid trajectory and a proven experience, but also upon the conviction that we must develop a relationship between the Government and society that helps us make Mexico a better country.

Which are, in your opinion, the capacities needed to conduct a good monitoring of Development partnerships?

"The capacities needed in order to perform a good monitoring of development partnerships are as follows: The ability to call for articulation between CSOs and other stakeholders; the willingness and ability to dialogue with the Government and international bodies; the knowledge about the scope and limits of political advocacy on global issues; and the options for participation in the Heads of State and Government Summit."

To which extent has this experience been articulated through networks and
shared at regional level in other countries?

"We have shared this experience thanks to the meeting processes we have organized with the Articulation Board and the ALOP, in several meetings with organizations from Latin America. We have been able to share our experience with other organizations from other countries, particularly with the CPDE."

Which is the projection of the organisation/network at the moment

in their national and international context?

"Equipo Pueblo has been involved in various processes since the 90's of the last century: It has taken part in the follow-up to the Trade Agreements signed by Mexico, particularly TELCAN and TCLUE (Global Agreement between Mexico and the EU); the Inter-American Conventions on ESC rights; and the EU's Political Forums on Development and the CPDE, among other forums. We committed ourselves to the active follow-up on the Agenda 2030
debate the Beyond 2015 campaign and others.

As Equipo Pueblo, we are the Mexico focal point of CSOs Permanent Forum regarding the Summits of the Americas (PASCA) and the Community of Democracies. We fulfil our role on the basis of dialogue and advocacy spaces with the Government of Mexico, especially with the Chancellery and its Cooperation Agency (AMEXCID), and multilateral agencies such as UNDP and ECLAC."

 

© 2016 CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness. Design and content: UBORA Services