Table A2.
Overview of national implementation of the SDGs in Mexico—Process, Approaches and Gaps.
1. Process Steps Taken | 2. Evidence and Science-Based Approaches Applied |
---|
1.1 Governance & Coordination Mechanisms | 1.2 SDG Multi-stakeholder consultations | 1.3 SDG Mapping & Alignment | 1.4 Prioritize/adapt targets & indicators | 1.5 Mainstreaming into existing/new strategies | 1.6 SDG Roadmap of Action Plan | 1.7 Assess Interlinkages | 1.8 Policy evaluation and design | 1.9 Monitoring and review arrangements | 2.1 Systematic target gap analysis (e.g., RIA) | 2.2 Thematic review (selected SDGs) | 2.3 Nexus approach or target clustering | 2.4 Data gap analysis | 2.5 Indicator-based assessment | 2.6 Benchmarking | 2.7 Systems thinking & analysis (qualitative) | 2.8 Quantitative modeling | 2.9 Spatial modeling | 2.10 Scenarios, foresight, back casting | 2.11 SDG Costs or Needs Assessment | 2.12 Multi-Criteria analysis |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
Appendix B.1.1. Process Steps to Support SDG Implementation Undertaken in Mexico
The first step towards SDG implementation is to either create an institutional body to govern and coordinate the process or to confer these tasks on an already existing institution (step 1.1). The Mexican National Council for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda (
Consejo Nacional de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible) was created in April 2017. (Decree DOF: 26 April 2017 of the Presidency of the Republic, Retrieved from:
http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5480759&fecha=26/04/2017 (Last Accessed on 4 October 2018).) Its mandate is to coordinate the design, execution, follow-up and evaluation of actions implementing the SDGs.
The Council’s structure is characterized by centralized leadership and management of the Presidency and a cross-sectorial set up. It is chaired by the Federal Executive. Its Executive Secretary is the Head of the Office of the Presidency of the Republic (OPR). The Council is integrated by representatives from all of Mexico’s eighteen federal ministries who are entitled to speak and vote at general meetings. Representatives of the federal states and municipalities may join the sessions of the Council upon special invitation but do not have the right to vote. The Council is supported by a Technical Committee on Sustainable Development Goals (CTEODS), which is presided by the OPR and brings together representatives from 32 federal states. The CTEODS has been designated as the body in charge of statistically monitoring progress on the SDGs.
Non-state stakeholders are not formal members of the main national SDG-implementation body itself. Instead, they participate in permanent, multi-sectorial working groups that group the 17 SDGs into four thematic axes. The task of these working groups is to formulate proposals and recommendations to the National Council. According to government officials, the decision not to formally include non-state stakeholders into the national SDG-implementation body itself was based on legal concerns. Legal advisors to the Presidency raised the point that the Executive does not have convening power over non-state actors.
As a general criticism, it could be noted that, given that the Council has no independence from the government, its ability to exercise a control function is limited.
To promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the sub-national level, in 2017 the National Conference of Governors (CONAGO) installed a Commission for the Compliance with the 2030 Agenda. The purpose of the commission is to serve as an organizational space through which state governments join in national efforts for the implementation of the SDGs, exchange experiences, coordinate actions and develop monitoring and follow-up mechanisms. One of the commitments adopted by the commission was to set up one
Organ for Monitoring and Implementation of the 2030 Agenda (
Órgano para Seguimiento e Instrumentación de la Agenda 2030, OSI) in each of the country’s 32 federal states and Mexico City [
47,
53]. By the end of 2018, all of the federal states had established the legal bases of their OSI, and 31 of them had already formally installed it. While the majority of the states opted to establish entirely new bodies, some decided to set up their OSI within the framework of an existing institution, such as for example state planning committees [
52]. The OSIs of several federal states differ from the National SDG Council in that they grant representatives from civil society, private sector and academy the right to voice and vote (Colima, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí and Yucatán). In a review of the current state of localization of the 2030 Agenda UNDP [
52] notes that the that the OSIs are supposed to cover a broad set of functions including the in co-creation, monitoring, and evaluation of public policies aimed at achieving the SDGs. However, it is questionable whether they actually have the necessary resources to comply with such a broad mandate, particularly in view of the fact that most OSIs will meet ordinarily only once or twice per year ([
52] p. 18).
Table A3.
The Mexican SDG-Implementation body.
Table A3.
The Mexican SDG-Implementation body.
SDG Governance Mechanism |
New organization | Yes | National Council for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda/Consejo Nacional de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible |
Previously existing organization | No | |
Year of foundation | 2017 | |
High Level Political Leadership |
Leadership by Center of Government (CoG) | Yes | Head of the Office of the Presidency of the Republic |
Leadership by line ministry | No | |
Horizontal Coordination |
Membership of line ministries in SDG implementation body |
| Ecology | Yes | Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources |
Economy | Yes | Ministry of Finance |
Social Affairs | Yes | Ministry of Social Development |
Sustainability | No | |
Foreign Affairs | Yes | Ministry of Foreign Relations |
Other | Yes | Ministries of: Interior; National Defense; Navy; Energy; Economy; Agriculture, Farming, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Nutrition; Public Service; Education |
Membership of Technical Bodies | Yes | National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) |
Vertical Integration |
Formal representation of sub-national governments in SDG implementation body? | No | |
Are sub-national governments organized in permanent working groups reporting to SDG implementation body? | Yes | Specialized Technical Committee on the Sustainable Development Goals (CTEODS); CONAGO |
Stakeholder Engagement |
Formal representation of non-state stakeholders in SDG implementation body? | No | |
Are non-state stakeholders organized in permanent working groups reporting to SDG implementation body | Yes | Stakeholders from CSOs, the academic and scientific Communities and the private sector participate in 4 multi-sectorial working groups |
So far, stakeholder consultations in the context of the 2030 Agenda (
step 1.2) have taken place in different formats and at different points in time. According to the 2016 VNR [
46], civil society organizations (CSO) contributed to the country’s positions at the international level throughout the negotiation process of the SDGs and some of their members attended as part of the Delegation of Mexico in the negotiations. Stakeholders from the academic community participated in the preparation of the first VNR in 2016 in the form of a workshop organized by the government in collaboration with the UNDP. The input of the private sector, in turn, was collected through the Alliance for Sustainability (AxS) created by the Mexican Agency for Development Cooperation (AMEXCID).
Furthermore, for the purpose of developing Mexico’s National Strategy for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda [
49], several regional dialogues were held with CSOs in order to help define national priorities. A first draft of the National Strategy was made available on the government’s online participation portal where the public was invited to provide their comments and suggestions in an open online consultation. (
https://www.participa.gob.mx/consulta-general-de-la-estrategia-nacional-de-la-agenda-2030-113) The consultation received 438 citizen comments [
49]. However, at the time of writing this study, the results of the consultation were not yet publicly available and it was unclear, how citizen input was integrated into the National Strategy.
Mexico’s academic community is involved in the 2030 Agenda process in a variety of ways. A Mexican chapter of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) has been installed at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) to support the collaboration between science, government, private sector and civil society. The Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), in turn, has been engaged in the development of local development indicators.
In June 2016, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) carried out a mapping exercise (step 1.3), in order to determine which of the 2030 Agenda’s indicators are applicable in Mexico and which government agencies will be responsible for delivering for this information. The study concluded that out of the Agenda’s 232 indicators, 169 indicators could, in principle, be tracked domestically, while the other 63 indicators either do not apply domestically or require additional regional or global calculations. However, out of the 169 indicators that apply domestically, thus far only 83 are measured periodically but partly present challenges regarding the required level of disaggregation. The remaining 36 indicators are either not measured periodically or no methodology for their measurement has yet been established.
Mexico’s National Strategy for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda (OPR, 2018) was published in September 2018 (step 1.6). First, for each of the 17 SDGs, this document proposes “national priority targets” (128 in total) (step 1.4). Subsequently, for each SDG, the strategy formulates a package of measures that will be necessary to achieve these priority targets. Finally, the status quo of target achievement is documented using the 169 domestically measurable indicators identified plus 49 additional indicators proposed by the CTEODS for specific follow-up in Mexico (approach 2.5). At the time of writing this study, it is unclear to what extent these priorities and indicators will actually be incorporated into the national planning process. The introduction to the strategy document positions itself mildly positive on this subject by stating that the priority targets constitute proposals, which “
in due course, may or may not be incorporated into the processes of democratic planning of the next federal administration” ([
49] p. 11). This cautious formulation can be attributed to the fact that the strategy was formulated by a team of outgoing administrators that was well aware that continuity in the implementation of the SDGs depends, to a large extent, on the political will of the respective incumbents.
Mexico’s previous National Development Plan (NDP) for the period 2013–2018 was based on five pillars entitled Mexico in Peace, Inclusive Mexico, Mexico with Quality Education, Prosperous Mexico and Mexico with Global Responsibility. In order to facilitate mainstreaming the SDGs into sectorial programs, national programs and special programs, Mexico conducted a mapping exercise using UNDP’S Rapid Integration Assessment Tool (RIA) (approach 2.1). The analysis concluded that there was a reasonable degree of alignment between the NDP 2013–2018 and the SDGs but that a review of indicators and their sources would be necessary to determine the effectiveness and relevance of existing public policies concerning the SDGs.
To ensure the continuity of the implementation of the Agenda across administrations until 2030, the national planning law was reformed in 2018. The reform added transitory article 5, which states that the Federal Public Administrations for the periods 2018–2024 and 2024–2030 should consider the SDGs in the elaboration of their respective NDPs and that proposals submitted by the National SDG Council should be integrated into the drafting process ([
50] p. 27). Yet, the reality of the national planning process for the administrative period 2018–2024 turned out differently.
Following the inauguration of the new administration, the Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, SHCP) started to elaborate the first draft of the NDP 2019–2024. Several of our interviewees assessed both the drafting process and its result very positively. For one thing, sub-national governments and selected civil society stakeholders were involved in consultations at several stages of the draft process. For another thing, concrete targets and measurable indicators underpinned the main strategic axes of the draft plan (step 1.5). However, few days before this draft was to be presented to parliament, AMLO surprisingly came forward with a much shorter draft, stating that the SHCP’s draft represented a “neo-liberal project” which had made it necessary for him to replace it by document elaborated by himself [
54]. The new draft characterized itself by a strong social rhetoric, but at the same time remained much vaguer in the formulation of concrete objectives than the draft elaborated by the SHCP and did not make any mention of indicators. In the days following the release of this new draft, staff members of the OPR and the SHCP worked hard towards a compromise whereby the draft submitted by AMLO would be presented to the public as the official NDP and the draft elaborated by the SHCP would be retained as a complementary, technical annex to facilitate its practical implementation. Ultimately, however, only the president’s plan was approved by Congress at the end of June 2019. The sudden resignation of the Minister of Finance, Carlos Manuel Urzúa, at the beginning of July 2019, is widely attributed to a fall out between him and the president regarding the NDP. In its current form, due to its vague objectives, the NDP provides insufficient orientation or clues for sustainable development planning to planning authorities at the national and sub-national level.
By ratifying the Paris Agreement in September 2016, Mexico committed to contribute to its fulfillment through a series of mitigation and adaptation goals, condensed in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). To promote the integrated implementation of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda, and avoid trade-offs and duplications of policy efforts, the OPR and the Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), with support of GIZ, commissioned a study on NDC-SDG interlinkages and co-benefits (step 1.7). Based on expert interviews and review of scientific literature, SDG interlinkages and co-benefits existing between NDC measures and SDG targets were systematically mapped. The data obtained through this mapping exercise were then analyzed using network analysis methodology in order to produce policy recommendations for each sector.
The 2018 Reform of the National planning law suggested the consideration of the SDGs in the elaboration of the NDPs for the periods from 2018–2024 and 2024–2030. Motivated by this reform, in 2019 the Mexican office of UNDP published a guideline that proposes a systematic methodology for the evaluation of public plans and programs [
51] (step 1.8). The 80 pages long document is explicitly targeted at public institutions whose tasks involve the management of public government plans and programs, the results of which are intended to lead towards the principles and objectives of Agenda 2030. At the time of writing this study, it was unclear to what extent the targeted institutions were already making active use of these technical guidelines.
At the national level, the Follow-Up and Evaluation Committee, which is integrated into the National SDG Council, has been designated as the body responsible for monitoring the development and progress of policies related to the SDGs (step 1.9). The committee is constituted by staff members of INEGI and the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL, as well as representatives of higher education institutions from every region of the country and members of CSOs. To facilitate public access to the global and national SDG indicators, the CTEODS, in collaboration with the OPR’s National Digital Strategy Department, have designed an open data platform. (
www.agenda2030.mx) The platform entitled, Information System of Sustainable Development Goals (SIODS), reports on 66 indicators corresponding to 16 SDGs. Data are made available by various government departments and agencies. The platform provides a variety of tools to analyze and visualize this information. For example, it includes a geographic search function that allows users to view SDG data for each of the federal states [
85,
86].
At the subnational level, monitoring and review is expected to be carried out by the OSI created by each of the 32 federal states [
52]. Due to different size and needs of each state, there are major variations in terms of the number of members of each OSI, as well as which sectors and government agencies are represented in them. Variation can also be found in the formulation of the decrees that establish the OSI and define their mandates and functions. In general terms, the decrees indicate that the OSIs are established as auxiliary monitoring (or planning) bodies and as links between the State Government and the Legislative and Judicial branches, municipalities, the private sector, academia, and civil society. However, only 78% of the decrees explicitly indicate the elaboration of annual or periodic SDG progress reports as a function of the OSI [
52]. Furthermore, almost all of the decrees envisage the creation of a technical committee (or working group) to provide technical follow-up. However, given the wide range of responsibilities assigned to the OSIs it is questionable whether the OSIs will have the capacities to fulfill these responsibilities. Particularly in view of the fact the majority of decrees establish that the OSI will hold ordinary sessions only once or twice per year.