Mexico’s Temporary Employment Program (PET)

CASE STUDYJune 2013

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

1

Summary

Mexico’s Temporary Employment Program or PET1 (Programa de Empleo Temporal) is an example of a social safety net (SSN) program in a middle-income country that has integrated disaster risk management and climate change adaptation into its operations. PET is a cash-for-work program providing temporary transfers in exchange for labor in community projects to eligible households in marginalized municipalities or whose livelihoods have been affected by natural disasters or other crises.

Some of the PET’s interesting features include: a highly collaborative and formalized institutional relationship that has been developed between social protection, disaster management and sectoral agencies; the creation of a quick and efficient disaster response mechanism and contingency fund; the incorporation of disaster and climate sensitive targeting criteria and into sectoral public works programs; and a payment system that recognizes the mobility constraints of some beneficiaries.

Natural Disaster/Climate Change Context

Mexico is ranked as one of the world’s 30 most exposed countries to three or more types of natural hazards (World Bank, 2012). Between 1970 and 2009, approximately 60 million people were affected by natural disasters (World Bank, 2012), and the country’s economic losses from disaster impacts have averaged in excess of US$ one billion per year over 1980-2010 (EM-DAT, 2012).

Mexico is exposed to a wide variety of geological and hydro-meteorological (weather-related) hazards due to its diverse geography, including earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, volcanoes, tsunamis, wildfires, and landslides. For example, the country experiences on average more than 90 Richter 4.0 or above magnitude earthquakes per year and has nine active volcanoes. Hydro-meteorological disasters occur frequently, such as severe tropical cyclones, heavy rainfall events, and high intensity storms. Drought is also a significant concern, particularly for Mexico’s agricultural sector. Lower-income populations tend to reside in these more hazard prone locations, increasing the exposure of an already vulnerable population. Climate change impacts are likely to exacerbate current disaster risks with droughts potentially intensifying in the 21st century (Field et al, 2011) and floods and hurricanes also likely intensifying and/or increasing in frequency (Magrin et al, 2007).

Program Overview

Mexico’s PET is a social safety net program managed by the Government of Mexico (GoM). It provides temporary transfers in exchange for participation in public works projects to households in communities that are highly marginalized, suffer high unemployment levels, and/or whose livelihoods have been affected by the impact of natural disasters and other systemic crises.

PET aims to reach the poor with labor-intensive public work programs that build infrastructure as well as environmental or sustainable agricultural improvements. Although its primary function is to provide income to the poor and temporary unemployed, the program has an

1 The Spanish acronyms for the various ministries/agencies are used throughout this case study.

2

insurance function because incremental funds are usually made available for additional beneficiaries in places that have been affected by systemic shocks such as natural disasters. In addition, some of the public works undertaken as part of the program are geared towards increasing community resilience, including reducing household and community risks from predictable and recurrent climate-related natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, floods, droughts). This way, the PET provides resources both for ex-post (disaster recovery/reconstruction) and ex-ante (disaster risk reduction) community-based public works.

Between 2000 and 2010, it is estimated that the PET reached approximately 3.2 million beneficiaries (CONEVAL, 2011). Since 2003, the program has invested approximately six billion pesos (MXB), or US$ 420 million, in public works projects (CONEVAL, 2011).2 In 2010 alone, approximately USD$ 89 million was disbursed on 12,694 community projects that benefited more than 468,000 people in almost 2000 municipalities across Mexico. The program is solely funded by the GoM.

Program Description

Program Evolution

In 1995, the GoM created the Special Employment Program administered by the Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL) and in coordination with the Emergent Employment Program (PEE) administered by the Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT). The programs had the objective of creating temporary employment though public works focused on building community assets and rehabilitating roads (SEDESOL, 2012). At the time, these programs sought to respond to the extreme drought that affected the country by providing employment to vulnerable populations that could not engage in agricultural activity (UAM, 2006). In 1997, this scheme became the Temporary Employment Program (PET) which was intended to have a wider impact by creating broader institutional support, incorporating the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAGAR) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) as implementing agencies (SEDESOL, 2012). The program aimed to increase and diversify income and assets, and to provide income during low employment or agricultural activity periods. The program focused on rural populations living in very small communities of no larger than 2,500 individuals.3

In 2000, PET became an essential part of the federal government’s strategy to reduce poverty. In 2002, operational rules were modified and the program became decentralized with states playing a greater operational role and coordinating with district governments through an Information System for Social Programs (SIIPET) and the PET Information Centre (CIPET) (SEDESOL, 2012).

In 2003, a subcomponent of the PET was established as the emergency PET (PET Inmediato or PETi), and was assigned the task of emergency response (Reglas de Operacion, 2013). Thus, the standard PET would conduct regular operations and PETi would be activated when a state of emergency was declared. In 2006, a contingency fund (Reserva Inmediata) for PETi became mandatory and each agency involved in the implementation of the program was mandated to

2 These totals include all PET interventions, not only disaster risk management activities.

3 This limit was later increased several times and then dropped (UAM, 2006).

3

keep an annual contingency fund (of up to 20 percent), which, if not used, could later be executed through regular programming (UAM, 2006).

Policy and Institutional Framework

PET takes a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approach in its activities, and the institutional mechanisms and partnerships developed across sectors and levels of government over time are systematic, formalized, and reasonably effective.

Policy Level

At the policy level, until recently PET’s objectives were linked to Mexico's National Development Plan for 2007-20124, to the Social Development Sector Strategy and to the “Living Better” Strategy, which mandated the development of a social protection system for those who suffer temporary employment loss (SEDESOL 2010). As a new government comes into power, new policies and strategies are being developed and it is expected that PET will be included as part of these. For instance, a new strategy called “Campaign against Hunger” considers PET as a relevant instrument to reach the strategy’s target population.

National Institutions

At the national level, PET operates as an inter-institutional program actively promoting collaboration amongst the agencies involved in the program to ensure that the public works projects bring both social and economic benefits at the local level, as well as utilize the GoM’s institutional resources efficiently (SEDESOL, 2012a).

The Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL) is the central coordinating and implementing institution for PET5. Within SEDESOL, the General Directorate for Attention to Priority Groups (DGAGP) is responsible for overall oversight of the program. DGAGP's broader mandate is to respond to the needs and improve the well being of vulnerable groups in Mexico, particularly those with low income and/or lack of access to nutrition, education, and health services.

Although the agencies involved in the implementation of PET have changed slightly over time, since 2009, three relevant government ministries collaborate with SEDESOL. These ministries share oversight and responsibility for implementation of PET according to specific thematic areas (SEDESOL, 2010):

The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) supervises community works related to rural road rehabilitation.

The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) supervises works for the preservation of the natural environment.

The Ministry of Labor and Social Security (STPS) links participation in community works with existing demand through its National Employment Service (SNE) area. STPS does not implement public works projects directly, but rather coordinates with the other three

4 A National Development Plan (NDP) is produced every 6 years under Mexico's National General Planning Law. All

government programs must align their objectives with those of the NDP. 5 SEDESOL also administers Oportunidades, a well-known, nation-wide conditional cash transfer (CCT) program

that targets the poorest families.

4

ministries at the strategy and institutional level and by referring unemployed beneficiaries to the program (Reglas de Operacion, 2013).

When a government ministry is designated as carrying the primary responsibility for oversight of a public works project, that ministry is responsible for the entire process, from targeting to payment distribution to supervision. In projects where SEDESOL takes the lead, the other ministries might act as technical advisors.

A PET Technical Commission is the governing body of the program and has the role of strengthening institutional coordination in the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the program, as well as coordinating resources to obtain maximum socioeconomic impact. The Commission is comprised of the heads of the under-secretariats of Human and Social Development, SEDESOL; Environmental Policy and Planning, SEMARNAT; Infrastructure, SCT, and Employment and Labor Productivity, STPS (see Figure 1).

A PET Permanent Working Group (GTP) is the operational body of the PET Technical Commission, in charge of reporting on program activities and conducting program evaluations, studies, and other pertinent activities in support of the Technical Commission’s work. The GTP is also in charge of coordinating annual plans with States and is in charge of approving exceptional requests from the State level. The GTP is also integrated by representatives of SEDESOL, SEMARNAT, SCT, and STPS.

5

Figure 1. PET Organizational Chart at the Federal Level

Source: Adapted from Vargas, J. 2012. Presentation on Temporary Employment Program (Response to disasters).

The PET further coordinates with the Ministry of the Interior (SEGOB), which is tasked with the oversight of coordinated institutional response to natural disasters, and the management of a major national disaster response contingency fund, the Natural Disasters Fund (FONDEN). For instance, SEDESOL’s DGAGP is co-signatory to a Parliamentary Act with the SEGOB's General Directorate for Civil Protection, the department in charge of the GoM's emergency and recovery response to natural disasters, which acknowledges the role of the PET in disaster preparedness, mitigation, and recovery within the National System for Civil Protection. It specifies the terms of cooperation and roles of the two directorates in disaster response, as well as coordination mechanisms with other disaster response entities. Some of these include: the sharing of a common population database and information system; disaster preparedness communication; and training of populations through the creation of social networks (SEGOB 2012). This is a rare example of a nationally legislated relationship between government disaster and social protection agencies.

6

State Institutions

The federal inter-institutional structure is mirrored at the state level through PET State Commissions (CEPET) comprised of representatives of SEDESOL, SEMARNAT, and STPS; the Director of the state’s SCT Center; and the state authorities. PET State Commissions are in charge of reviewing annual work plans and requesting support to the national level, as well as supervising program implementation (SEDESOL et al, n.a.).

Executing Agencies

The operational rules state that executing agencies can be any executive branch of any Ministry, state or municipal governments or registered civil society organizations (Reglas de Operacion, 2013).

Community Level

Since 2008, the PET has incorporated a strong focus on community participation and inclusiveness in the decision making process related to public works projects. SEDESOL recognized the importance of community participation in the provision of relevant, climate-resilient, and more sustainable community infrastructure. It also recognized that meaningful engagement by community members would not be possible if they were not supported to develop the skills, confidence and structures for it.

For this purpose, SEDESOL developed a Community Network Strategy (Red Social). The strategy is implemented by SEDESOL, but is independent of the PET. It entails the formation of networks of community facilitators and trainers who help the communities participating in social programs (including the PET) to form Community Assemblies and build their capacity to engage meaningfully with the program. By 2010, SEDESOL had identified and trained approximately 6,800 people around the country as community facilitators and trainers (SEDESOL, 2010a). These are selected from a centrally located community within each participating municipality, of relatively easy access to other communities, and preferably fluent in the local language and Spanish. SEDESOL facilitators work together with these individuals to create municipal level community assemblies.

The role of the Community Assemblies is to select from the public works project proposals submitted by the local authorities/institutions or civil society organizations. Once a project has been approved by the Community Assembly, it is vetted by the PET State Commission which reviews the feasibility and value of the project from a technical perspective. After obtaining approval at the state level, the project is submitted to the PET Technical Commission at the federal level for final approval, and funds are released to the project proponent.

Program Components

The PET has two components with different but complementary goals. The standard PET is the regular program that supports community-focused public works in several thematic areas with the goal of providing temporary sources of income to unemployed and vulnerable populations. As part of the standard PET’s operations, some of the public works focus on disaster risk

7

reduction, including environmental conservation, rehabilitation and construction of rural/feeder roads, climate change adaptation, and disaster risk management education (under a social participation theme), which contributes to risk reduction and preparedness to disasters. The Immediate PET (PETi) supports households that have been affected by a disaster through relief and recovery activities with the goal of providing them with a source of income while helping them avoid negative coping strategies, such as overexploiting natural resources. The program uses a contingency budget to finance rehabilitation and reconstruction of community assets while providing temporary employment to affected populations.

Types of Interventions

PET sub-projects have been organized around a series of thematic areas with their corresponding budget lines and responsibilities from different agencies, including response to natural disasters and emergencies and environmental conservation but also health services, improvement of local infrastructure, education for community development, and support to youth employment and education (see Table 1).

Table 1. PET Thematic Areas

THEMATIC SECTOR PET INTERVENTIONS LEAD MINISTRIES

Health Preventive actions related to transmissible diseases including information, healthcare, education, and communication

SEDESOL, SEMARNAT

Historic Sites Preservation Maintenance and rehabilitation works in archeological sites and historical monuments.

SEDESOL

Local Infrastructure Improvements

Development of infrastructure projects for water distribution, public health, drainage, public infrastructure and spaces, basic household infrastructure

Construction and maintenance of education infrastructure (schools)

Construction and maintenance of health facilities

SEDESOL, SEMARNAT

Rural Roads Rehabilitation & Maintenance of rural and feeder roads

SCT

Environmental Conservation Protection, conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of natural resources

SEMARNAT

Citizen Education Community development projects such as civic education, environmental conservation, etc. Communication and training activities geared towards educating the population on disaster prevention and mitigation can be undertaken under this component.

SEDESOL

Climate Change Adaptation Promote the sustainable use of natural resources and implement climate change adaptation actions for families and communities.

SEMARNAT, SEDESOL

Food Bank and Food Projects that promote a food and nutrition culture, SEDESOL

8

Services for at-risk groups

productive projects, food storage and distribution projects.

PET Inmediato (only): Disaster Response

Cleaning and rehabilitation activities

Shelter activities

Campaigns to prevent the spread of disease

Reconstruction/rehabilitation of rural roads damaged by natural disasters

SEDESOL, SCT, SEMARNAT as part of PETi

Adapted from: SEDESOL, 2010 Note: Thematic areas with DRR/CCA elements are shaded in grey.

The PET is organized around the first eight thematic areas described in Table 1, whereas PETi focuses on disaster response activities described in the last row. Although under the PET, the public works projects are normally community-selected and approved, with a broad range of possible interventions, under PETi, community selection of projects is limited and most post-disaster interventions are focused on rubble or mud clearing from streets, houses and shelters as well as campaigns to prevent the spread of disease (dengue fever, infections, etc.). In some cases, rehabilitation projects might be undertaken (roads, housing, etc.).

The PET has progressively strengthened its focus on building resilience to disaster and climate change impacts, as awareness of the high costs to households, communities and Mexico's economy of not doing so has grown within the GoM. This reflects a shift in broader GoM policy from a reactive to a pro-active approach to disaster and climate-related risks. From 2009, the public works projects were categorized into thematic areas, with disaster prevention and mitigation activities integrated into these, as appropriate; e.g., initiatives to protect rural roads from flood or landslide impacts. Some of the types of interventions supported to build climate resilience have included: constructing fire trails in forested areas; building flood channels and reinforced terrace borders to protect against rain storms/hurricanes; planting of coastal areas to protect from storm surge/high winds; water collection and preservation in arid/drought-prone areas; and disaster prevention/mitigation activities related to rural road network upkeep and construction. Disaster preparedness and risk reduction educational activities are also carried out under the citizen education category.

Commencing in 2012, a new thematic area has been added to directly address vulnerabilities to climate change impacts. Four interventions are being piloted in 2012, covering a range of ecosystem/climatic regimes and productivity sectors (agriculture, forestry, and biodiversity/tourism), with plans to develop this into a standard programming area from 2013 onwards. For instance, one of these pilot interventions is taking place in the municipality of Amanalco, an area classified by the GoM as highly marginalized, located in a region prone to dry periods and water shortages, with agriculture production as its main economic sector. Amanalco has been identified as being particularly vulnerable to potential climate change impacts (e.g., water scarcity, increased intensity/frequency of rains and flooding). The public works program is designed to increase resilience to soil erosion and drought through: stabilization of hillsides and terraces to prevent landslides; construction of cisterns for

9

capturing and collecting rainwater and of water treatment infrastructure; and construction and maintenance of irrigation canals.

The technical nature of the public works determines which ministry or governmental agency will have oversight; in some cases, SEDESOL coordinates with SEMARNAT, SCT, or both, if the nature of the project requires it. The government agency that is the main overseer of a project is responsible for the entire process, from targeting to payment distribution to public works supervision.

Disaster Response and Contingency Planning

Disaster Response

Through PETi, the program has established a separate emergency response mechanism with a contingency budget to ensure that support reaches disaster and shock-affected people in a timely and efficient manner.

PETi springs into action once an early warning of an impending hazard event or an emergency declaration has been issued by SEGOB. Once a state of emergency is declared, SEDESOL local office or state-level branch convenes an extraordinary session of the PET State Commission (CEPET) which assesses the situation. CEPET also assesses the need for reaching out to affected communities that are not in the area covered by SEGOB’s the emergency declaration. Based on this analysis, CEPET submits a request for resources endorsed by the authority responsible for Civil Protection in the concerned state to the PET’s central level (DGAGP). Once DGAGP approves the request, the emergency response actions are launched, including a damage assessment, planning visits to identify potential beneficiaries based on damage, and beneficiary selection and enrollment.

Social Assistance Teams are mobilized to work together with the municipal authorities in identifying and communicating with the affected population. Social Assistance Desks are established to provide information and receive requests from affected populations, channeling those requests as appropriate and linking with the Social Assistance Teams on the ground. These desks are in charge of entering beneficiary information into the system and directing them to the projects.

Although the PETi mechanism operates inside the broader PET framework, its systems and procedures are modified for a post-disaster context. Thus, many procedures utilized under the PET are bypassed or re-structured under PETi’s activities in disaster-affected areas, as exemplified in Figure 2.

10

Fig. 2. Modifications to Regular Programming under PETi

Source: Adapted from Vargas, J. 2012. Presentation on Temporary Employment Program (Response to disasters).

The beneficiaries provide labor to community works focused primarily on post-disaster clean-up activities (e.g., waste collection and disposal, etc.) and supporting temporary shelters and displacement centers. The program may also later undertake follow-on rehabilitation activities (e.g., assistance with housing reconstruction) with support from SEGOB's FONDEN6, and employing targeted disaster-affected beneficiaries.

6 FONDEN, Mexico’s Fund for Natural Disasters, was established in the late 1990s as a mechanism to support the

rapid rehabilitation of federal and state infrastructure affected by adverse natural events. FONDEN consists of two complementary budget accounts, the FONDEN Program for Reconstruction and FOPREDEN Program for Prevention, and their respective financial accounts (World Bank, 2012). The coordination with PET falls under FONDEN’s role of supporting all federal GoM agencies in natural disaster response, particularly following unpredicted disasters with a magnitude exceeding the financial capacity for response of any state or federal agency.

11

Figure 3. Procedures and Times under the PET and PETi

12

13

Contingency Funding

All the PET implementing agencies, SEDESOL, SCT and SEMARNAT, are required to allocate a percentage of the PET’s funding to a contingency fund (up to 20 percent for SCT and SEMARNAT) (Reglas de Operacion, 2013). In the case of SEDESOL, since 2006, it is mandatory that at least 20 percent of PET's total annual budget be reserved for PETI's post-disaster response and rehabilitation activities under a separate budget line to the PET (UAM, 2006). Also, if necessary and justified by the magnitude of the disaster, all remaining funds in that year’s budget for the PET could be channeled through PETi to address the needs of those affected (Reglas de Operacion, 2013). Additionally, if this contingency fund does not adequately cover all temporary employment needs, FONDEN can provide supplementary resources to the PET (SEDESOL, 2012). FONDEN only provides support to PET when all other funds have been utilized (SEGOB, n.a.). However, if relevant, the Ministry of Finance can increase SEDESOL’s budget for disaster response directly, without the need to recur to FONDEN.

The World Bank is assisting SEDESOL to undertake a risk management analysis of the PET's disaster response financial contingency planning in order to more accurately project and plan its future public and private resource needs for both small-scale and larger-scale responses. A preliminary finding from the assessment shows that the annual resources currently budgeted for PETi (68 million MXB or US$ 4.8 million on the average) is sufficient to cover low and average level losses from higher frequency events, such as tropical storms and flooding, but insufficient to cover less frequent but high impact events such as earthquakes. This might indicate the need for the PET to also develop an insurance scheme with private sector partners (SEDESOL/World Bank, 2011).

Key Design Features

Targeting

The PET's beneficiary targeting system is distinguished by its ability to adjust to different programming contexts, as well as its utilization of social marginalization indexes to more accurately identify the most vulnerable communities.

The PET aims to provide temporary support to populations whose income and employment are affected seasonally or by shocks. For this, the program first selects areas of intervention based on unemployment or marginalization indexes. Municipalities with medium, high or very marginalization levels or high unemployment are selected for operation of the PET.

The marginalization index is a composite measure published by CONAPO (National Population Commission) that allows classifying municipalities based on their lack of access to services (education, medical services, water, electricity, and sewer systems), housing conditions, income, and remoteness or size of the locality. An example of an indicator is: the percentage of the population over 15 years of age that is illiterate and/or hasn’t completed primary education. The index allows the identification of geographical differences and is used by several government programs across the country (CONAPO, 2011).

14

At the household and individual level, PET’s Operational Guidelines (SEDESOL, 2012a) define its overall target population as “men and women, 16 years old or older who suffer from a temporary decrease in their income due to low employment availability or through the effects of an emergency.” Individuals self-select themselves into the program. However, preference is given to those individuals who have registered in the program through the National Employment Service (SNE). Once all SNE applicants have been placed, those who have registered directly with the PET can be enrolled if vacancies are available.

In addition to these criteria, the different PET thematic sectors use criteria that are tailored to their specific thematic/sectoral objectives. Criteria related to climate resilience are incorporated by the implementing partners for a number of projects. For instance7:

Municipalities with high rainfall and rugged topography (hence, vulnerable to road landslides/erosion), are given preference for rural road construction and repair; and

Drought-related climate indexes are used to select municipalities to undertake fire hazard roads construction or watershed protection/reforestation projects.

Targeting in an Emergency

In the case of the PETi, when an emergency is declared, geographical targeting is the first level of beneficiary selection. Participation is mainly limited to households8 residing in municipalities inside the area where the emergency has been declared. Occasionally a state-level PET Coordination Unit can request to include another community or group of households that might have been affected outside the area.

Since 2009, housing damage surveys have been the mechanism used to identify eligible households within disaster-affected communities. Housing damage is intended to act as a proxy for livelihoods losses, i.e., as a basis for determining temporary income support needs; it is not used to determine actual costs for housing reconstruction. However, as part of a coordinated institutional response, houses identified as damaged are also targeted for follow-on engineering assessments by SCT.

The PETi emergency response teams (SEDESOL employees and sometimes local and state government officials) perform a visual assessment of household and property damage, and interview the heads of the households that has sustained the damage. The damage criteria used to determine eligibility depends on the type of disaster: for floods, reaching a certain level of flooding depth in the house is the threshold, whereas for earthquakes, it is having cracks or holes in the house through which one can see through to the other side of the wall (as the minimum damage level for participation).

In addition to housing damage, the PET also targets beneficiaries who cannot return to work due to loss of infrastructure at their workspace as well as loss of their lands/crops; in this instance, more than one beneficiary per household might be enrolled in the program.

7 Adapted from discussions with program officials.

8 The PET defines a household as a group of people, related or not, living under the same roof and sharing a

common kitchen/cooking hearth, and by proxy, the costs involved in purchasing a basic basket of food items.

15

Targeting Errors during Emergencies

According to program officials, inclusion errors in PETi are minimized by ensuring simultaneous house-to-house verification of both beneficiary addresses and household damage by the PET teams. This makes it difficult for individuals not identified to claim benefits and for individuals residing at the same address to claim more than one benefit.

However, a certain amount of exclusion error is more likely, as some households may have sustained damage and income losses in municipalities not officially declared under a state of emergency, or some households that have sustained damage within municipalities in a state of emergency may be inadvertently missed by the housing damage surveyors. Although the internal supervising office and a federal agency (Auditoría Superior de la Federación) conduct some verification, and toll-free numbers are provided for grievance calls, these mechanisms have limitations in poor isolated communities.

Beneficiary Registration and Payment

The PET has designed its beneficiary registration processes to suit the different needs and circumstances of the PET and PETi, while employing a standardized and centralized database that allows for the efficient sharing of information from both channels among the implementing partners. A range of payment methods are used taking into account the context and isolation beneficiaries.

Registration

For registration in the PET, the National Employment Service (SNE), under the STPS, provides information on the availability of employment opportunities in PET projects. Eligible individuals can request to participate through the local SNE office. Although not a requirement, going through the SNE means the individual receives preference for selection, after which s/he can then go to the project site to complete beneficiary registration with the partner that is implementing the project (SEDESOL, 2009).

In the case of the PETi, during the housing damage survey, the PET team provides eligible household heads with a receipt or number code which s/he can use to register at the SEDESOL temporary registration desks and to claim benefits (see Figure 3). The SEDESOL field staff enters the beneficiary data into PETi's own registry after each natural disaster. The registry is used for public works follow-up by other participating government dependencies, such as SEMARNAT and SCT.

Registry

In 2008, the PET switched from a highly localized system of collating beneficiary registration data at the local level to a standardized and central data collection system. Program data is still collected at the field level, but entered in SEDESOL's Integral Information System of the PET (SIIPET). The information on the beneficiary registry is published on the information webpage of the PET’s Information Center called CIPET. The registry is updated monthly to compare incoming beneficiary data with previously registered data in order to avoid duplication and to notify the relevant ministries if duplication is found.

16

However, the PET does not use the database of the National Population Registry (RENAPO), which issues Mexico's national identity card (NIC). As possessing a card is not mandatory by law, not all of the population is registered, particularly those living in remote areas. For this reason, a NIC is not required to register for social programs. Therefore, even though the PET and RENAPO databases overlap, it has not been possible to integrate them.

The government ministries utilize the CIPET as a platform to integrate and disseminate information related to the beneficiary registry, as well as projects, budget, coverage, participation, geographical location and other statistics related to the public works projects. CIPET organizes and classifies information for use by the relevant government agencies in analysis and decision-making. CIPET is funded and administered by SEDESOL.

Payment Mechanisms

Under the PET, the payment system varies according to the implementing agency involved. For example, while SEDESOL uses the Mexican Telecommunications Agency’s (Telecomm)9 network of cash distribution facilities; the SCT sometimes contracts commercial banks to make the payments in addition to using Telecomm. A third option is to give the funds directly to the Community Committee at the locality where the public works are being conducted; this option is preferred when smaller amounts of cash are being disbursed, as it is considered more efficient. If deemed necessary, security detachments are used to accompany personnel that disburse the payments.

In the case of the PETi, payments are disbursed to beneficiaries within five working days, on average, after a disaster has been declared in an area. The disbursements are made in cash through Telecomm given that the company has abroad network of cash-disbursement facilities around the country, and sometimes uses mobile facilities where fixed facilities do not exist, or where conditions make it difficult for beneficiaries to move to the locations where the cash disbursement centers are located.

Setting Benefit Levels

The PET’s payments are meant to function as a supplementary and temporary income support to help meet a household’s needs during times of stress and hence the level of payment is determined on this basis. For the program, a jornal or working day wage, is roughly the equivalent of what a worker is paid for a full working day of 8 hours; but depending on the degree of physical difficulty of a job, a worker can receive the equivalent of two working day wages for 8 hours work, or one full working day wage for less than 8 hours work. Generally, the payments cover 10 working days, at the rate of one or two working day wages. The wage is set at 99 percent of the current minimum wage rate (62 pesos or US$ 4.60 in 201210); this represents 600 pesos or US$ 45 dollars over ten days, and up to 1,200 pesos or US$ 90 dollars for two working day wages over ten days. The principle behind setting the benefit level just below minimum wage is to dissuade employed laborers from leaving their jobs to engage in the

9 Even though Telecomm is a state agency under the SCT, it is financially and functionally independent, and the

resources it assigns for deployment of its services are collected through its own funding sources. SEDESOL and Telecomm have signed a MOU which regulates commercial interactions between them, including for the PET. 10

This represents 52 % of the poverty line in urban areas, 146 % in rural areas (national poverty line is individual).

17

public works program, while compensating beneficiaries at the highest level possible to support them in recovering their livelihoods. The PET also is able to avoid the legal responsibilities and costs associated with regular salaried employment.

Beneficiaries can work up to 132 working days per intervention (US$ 594); the average intervention is 76 working days (US$ 342). Additionally, each project has a certain number of job positions created with a certain number of days, meaning that a beneficiary can leave the temporary job before using all of his/her eligible workdays and be replaced by a second beneficiary (SEDESOL 2012). A PET beneficiary may also receive support from Mexico’s regular SSN, Oportunidades, which covers five million beneficiaries.

When responding to a disaster, the PETi adapts some of these mechanisms to ensure support reaches beneficiaries in a timely and adequate manner. Thus, the limit to number of days a beneficiary can work is lifted and it can last as long as the state of emergency is in place (up to three or four months in some instances).

Table 2. Disbursements, Standard And Immediate PET, 2007-2011

YEAR TOTAL BENEFICIARIES REACHED 11

BENEFICIARIES REACHED BY PETI

TOTAL DISBURSEMENT (millions of pesos)

DISBURSEMENTS TO PETI BENEFICIARIES (millions of pesos)

2007 731,265 143,402 430.1 136.5

2008 156,716 109,708 359.7 109.1

2009 262,446 91,683 817.3 117.3

2010 466,187 269,784 1,000.3 257.1

2011 536,470 389,504 911.2 282.3

Source: SEDESOL, 2011a

Monitoring, Grievances, and Accountability

Monitoring

Each implementing agency is responsible for the direct supervision of the public works, as well as verification of their compliance with existing laws. As PET funding is federal, it is subject to audit by the Internal Agency Control unit and the Government Accountability Agency (Secretaría de la Función Publica, SFP). These bodies work in coordination with local government fiduciary control bodies and the Supreme Auditing Body of the Mexican Federation. The implementing institutions must follow up and resolve any concerns regarding potential misuse of funds raised by these bodies. Any deviation from the GoM's supervisory and audit regulations can also negatively affect their budget allocations for the following year.

Since 2008, SEDESOL's General Directorate for Monitoring (DGS) and DGAGP have worked with a joint annual plan for field monitoring, as required under SEDESOL's General Monitoring

11

Beneficiaries reached include totals for SEDESOL+SEMARNAT for 2010; for the previous years only SEDESOL.

18

Methodology. The plan identifies the monitoring objectives for that year, including verification of the progress and completion; quality and maintenance status of the public works financed the previous year, as well as capturing feedback from PET's managers and beneficiaries.

Management Information System

SEDESOL uses an electronic database called Argos to store and process data about program implementation collected by SEDESOL staff during field supervision visits. This includes follow up on the public works; observations about the project selection process from attendance at Community Assembly sessions; and verification that the participative planning process has been done correctly, with eligible people adequately consulted and participating voluntarily.

SIIPET is used to capture information and follow-up on the activities of each participating Ministry. It integrates information about the beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex and age); cash disbursements; public works projects; resources/budget flow; geographic sites; and the NIC. Argos and SIIPET do not interchange data directly, but some of the data collected in Argos is transferred to SIIPET to share with the other participating ministries/agencies.

Community Accountability

The PET promotes beneficiary participation through the Community Assemblies, which coordinate with SEDESOL, SEMARNAT, and SCT local personnel to monitor and supervise program activities and the use of public resources. The Community Assembly elects a Social Participation Committee and an Executive Board to support this work (SEDESOL, 2009).

Grievances

There are three spaces in which beneficiaries can lodge complaints about the program at different levels, in the project area, at the regional SEDESOL offices, and at the DGAGP offices in Mexico City.

The program promoters and supervisors at the PET registration desks handle grievances. They do this through the use of mobile mailboxes where written complaints can be deposited. SEDESOL regional offices also manage grievances. The mailboxes containing complaints are opened, discussed amongst the representatives from the relevant government institutions, and decisions made about investigating claims. Additionally, the SEDESOL regional offices and the central DGAGP office in Mexico City operate complaint telephone hotlines, and SEDESOL's website has a section for grievances and complaints. The PET regularly compiles statistics on the number of complaints lodged and the timeliness of response, which is expected to take place within 30 days from the date of receipt of the complaint (SEDESOL, 2009).

However, exclusion complaints are not tracked in the same way as other grievances. According to PET officials, this is because the number of such complaints received tends to be relatively small – which they credit to the intensive household level follow-up undertaken by PET staff during beneficiary selection. Exclusion complaints are followed up only while the relevant public works project is being implemented, as the cost of managing these cases post-project is prohibitive. Only in cases where there is a significant volume of complaints, i.e., where a complete neighborhood/several blocks of a municipality have been missed, does a verification visit take place to ascertain the validity of the grievance claim. This has seldom occurred.

19

Evaluation

The GoM's National Evaluation Council (CONEVAL) performs internal process evaluations of program performance against physical implementation targets. If the project completion targets are close to 100 percent met, and if the technical quality of the public works is assessed as acceptable by the relevant government ministry, the program is considered to have been efficiently implemented.

The internal evaluations have highlighted some targeting issues. Socioeconomic data shows that a significant number of the beneficiaries are chronically unemployed which does not correlate with PET’s stated objective of offering employment only to the temporarily unemployed (CONEVAL, 2010). In the specific case of the PETi, the evaluations have concluded that the sub-program is likely reaching communities that mostly fulfill the definition of vulnerability, regardless of their previous employment status (CONEVAL, 2011).

While the internal evaluations include few indicators related to beneficiary feedback, beneficiary assessments have been carried out. Generally, the program has been rated highly by the beneficiaries, including generally favorable views: of the targeting mechanism, the continuity of the program in their localities, and the possibilities it offers for improving their quality of life (CONEVAL 2011). The feedback is registered as “Potential Actions for Improvement” and followed up on by the corresponding ministries. All this information is posted online.

The PET has not conducted any external impact evaluations to date, and data regarding the degree to which the program is having a positive socio-economic impact on its beneficiaries’ lives (e.g., asset retention or growth) and/or increasing the resilience of its target population to natural disaster impacts is not yet available. The PET is currently investigating options to develop a baseline for future impact evaluations which has been difficult to complete, due to technical and cost constraints.

Lessons Learned

The experience of the PET has yielded several useful lessons on the design of a large-scale, permanent SSN designed to reduce the impacts of transitional shocks from natural disasters:

The establishment of an effective and formalized working relationship between Mexico's disaster management, social protection and sectoral ministries demonstrates the positive mutual benefits that can be gained from greater collaboration across these areas of work. Legal frameworks, contingency mechanisms and a set of clear pre-defined rules for action by the relevant agencies help ensure that response to disasters is rapid and coordinated.

The multi-sectoral and multi-agency approach taken to social protection has created the flexibility to integrate disaster risk management and climate change adaptation targeting criteria and delivery mechanisms into the public works and emergency response programming of the participating ministries. Different ministries share responsibility for implementation, in accordance with their specializations and comparative advantages.

20

The systematic establishment of a separate emergency response mechanism and contingency fund, linked to existing regular SSN delivery channels, allows for more timely and efficient relief and recovery responses.

The provision of employment opportunities to poor and vulnerable households to cope with transitional shocks, combined with the creation of community assets that strengthen disaster and climate resilience, is expected to bring a double benefit from the same funding in protecting household and community assets from disaster- and climate-related impacts. An impact evaluation of the program could provide more clarity on whether this is being achieved.

The development of a common and standardized beneficiary registration system/database for the agencies involved in disaster risk management promotes better coordinated follow-up action, as well as smoother transitions from relief to recovery assistance for disaster-affected populations.

Bibliography

CONAPO. 2011. Indice de marginación por entidad federativa y municipio 2010. Consejo Nacional de Población.

CONEVAL. 2011. Programa de Empleo Temporal: Informe de la Evaluación Específica de Desempeňo 2009-2010.

CONEVAL. 2009. Programa de Empleo Temporal: Informe de la Evaluación Específica de Desempeňo 2008.

DGAGP. 2011. Atención Ciudadana. Documento Rector. Dirección General de Atención a Grupos Prioritarios. Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

EM-DAT. 2012. The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Brussels: Universite catholique de Louvain.

Field C, Barros V, Stocker T, Dahe Q, Dokken D, Ebi K, Mastrandrea M, Mach K, Plattner G-K, Allen S, Tignor M, Midgley P. 2011. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Magrin, G., C. Gay García, D. Cruz Choque, J.C. Giménez, A.R. Moreno, G.J. Nagy, C. Nobre and A. Villamizar, 2007. Latin America. Climate Change 2007. In: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 581-615.

Vargas, J. 2012. Presentation on Temporary Employment Program, June 2012.

Reglas de Operacion, 2013. “Acuerdo por el que los integrantes del Comité Técnico del Programa de Empleo Temporal emiten las Reglas de Operación del Programa de Empleo Temporal para el ejercicio fiscal 2013” in Diario Oficial . February 28, 2013.

Reglas de Operación, 2003. “Acuerdo por el que los integrantes del Comité Técnico del Programa de Empleo Temporal emiten las Reglas de Operación del Programa de Empleo Temporal para el ejercicio fiscal 2003”.

21

SEDESOL. 2012a. Cambios en las Reglas de Operación. Dirección General de Seguimiento, Subsecretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

SEDESOL, 2012b. Memoria del Programa de Empleo Temporal 2007-2012.

SEDESOL, 2011. Diseño de un esquema de gestión financiera de riesgos de desastres para el Programa de Empleo Temporal en su modalidad de Inmediato. Reporte Final.

SEDESOL. 2011a. Programa de Empleo Temporal: 2o Informe Trimestral. Direccion General de Seguimiento, Subsecretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

SEDESOL. 2011b. Informe de Cuenta Publica del Programa de Empleo Temporal. Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

SEDESOL. 2010. Modificacion de las Reglas de Operación del Programa de Empleo Temporal 2011. Diario Oficial. Subsecretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

SEDESOL. 2010a. Programa de Empleo Temporal: Cuarto Informe Trimestral. Dirección General de Seguimiento, Subsecretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

SEDESOL. 2009. Programa de Empleo Temporal: Informe Trimestral. Dirección General de Seguimiento, Subsecretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.

SEDESOL, SEMARNAT, SCT, STPS, n.d. Lineamientos para el Funcionamiento del Comité Tecnico, Grupo Permanente de Trabajo, y Comité Estatales del PET.

SEGOB. 2012. Bases de Colaboración entre la DGAGP y la DGPC. Acta Oficial, Secretaría de Gobernación.

SEGOB, n.a. Fondo de Desastres Naturales –FONDEN. Online PPT

UAM, 2006. Evaluacion Externa del Programa de Empleo Temporal. Evaluacion del Desempeno del PET

a traves de su Informacion Secundaria, 2001-2006. Informe Final.

World Bank. 2012. FONDEN: Mexico's Natural Disaster Fund - A Review. Washington DC: IBRD/World Bank.

Video/phone interviews and email exchanges with:

Vargas, Jorge Alberto, Subdirector for Strategic Planning and Policy, General Directorate for Attention to Priority Groups, Ministry for Social Development (SEDESOL).

Duran Vallejos, Ulises Benjamin, Director, DGAGP Operations Department, SEDESOL.

Flores, Luis Francisco, Chief, Operations Department, General Directorate for Attention to Priority Groups, Ministry for Social Development (SEDESOL).

Santos, Jose Alfredo. Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT).

Cadena Sanchez, Ing. Abraham Eduardo, General Adjunct Directory, Rural and Feeder Roads, Ministry for Communications and Transportation (SCT).

Garcia Najera, Lic. Martin Jose, Deputy Director, Monitoring Department, Ministry for Communications and Transportation (SCT).