The Operationalization of PCD

PCD has emerged as an important policy tool since the 1990s. Thus far, it has only been utilized as a policy framework for international donors. The EU adopted PCD with the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000 (^{Laakso, et al. 2007}). However, only in 2005 was PCD established on the EU agenda with the Commission adopting a communication with a focus on PCD and the EU Council adopting conclusions on PCD (^{Centre for European Policy Studies [CEPS], 2006}). PCD was also integrated into the EU development policy program, (^{European Consensus on Development, EU, 2006}). The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 further reinforced the European Union commitment to PCD, stating that ‘the Union shall take account of development cooperation in policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries’ (Art. 208). The EU is also committed to a biannual PCD reporting process (^{European Commission, 2007}; ²⁰¹¹).

Similarly, PCD has been on the OECD agenda since the early 1990s. The 2002 Ministerial Statement (OECD Action for a Shared Development Agenda) points out that, when formulating policies across the policy spectrum, OECD countries should take account of the potential impact on developing countries. In response to the 2002 Ministerial Statement, the OECD launched a program on Policy Coherence for Development (^{OECD 2005}). In 2008, ministers of OECD countries adopted the Declaration on Policy Coherence for Development (^{OECD 2009}). The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD, which includes most EU member countries and the European Union, has organized peer reviews of its member states’ development policies, where policy coherence has received growing importance. In 2007, the Development Co-operation Directorate and the Development Centre of the OECD jointly created the OECD Network of National Focal Points for Policy Coherence for Development ('the PCD Network') ‘to establish better communications between the OECD and officials in capitals on Policy Coherence for Development’. At the meeting on 9 February 2012 in Paris, the Network envisioned that PCD would be a core element of the new development paradigm (^{OECD 2012}).

Globally, the United Nations has also adopted PCD. It is a pillar of the Sustainable Development Agenda and it is specifically referenced in Target 17.14 as one of the governance mechanisms through which the UN and member states are pursuing the implementation of the SDG’s. In terms of natural resource management, the UN is promoting PCD through its CLEWS program (climate, land-use, energy and water) which examines how investments in one strategic resource affects the others.

While the UN, EU and the OECD have championed PCD internationally significant criticisms of its implementation remain prominent. First, scholars such as ^{Siitonen (2016)} have argued that the implementation of PCD by supranational organizations has been limited to their own policies or those of their own member states. In doing so, the tool has not been employed to detect incoherences that exist in parts of the world where development occurs. Moreover, because this tool has been implemented in a donor-centric way, ^{Thede (2013)} contends that it actually reinforces global inequalities by highlighting the differences between aid donors and aid recipients. Similarly, ^{Koff and Maganda (2016)} have shown how supranational organizations, such as the European Union, have employed PCD as a policy tool to improve the efficiency of their programs at the expense of normative change and global equity. Finally, ^{Carbone and Keijzer (2016)} have shown how PCD has been pursued through institutional reform more than policy implementation. By applying PCD analysis to PWS initiatives in Mexico within the framework of transformative change, this article addresses all of these concerns.

The article employs PCD analysis by adopting the eight different typologies of incoherences identified in the literature on PCD as methodological categories (^{Carbone, 2008}; ^{Koff, 2017}; ^{Koff et al. 2016}), which are presented in Table 1. In the field of sustainable development, PCD has received prominent attention in discussions on agricultural policy (^{Matthews, 2008}; ^{Carbone, 2009}), fisheries (^{Kazcynski and Fluharty, 2002}), biodiversity (^{Nilsson et al., 2012}), energy (^{King et al., 2013}), food security (^{Sarelin, 2007}), climate change (^{Koff and de Coninck, 2007}), water (^{Koff and Maganda, 2016}) and the post-2015 agenda in general (^{Pilke & Stocchetti, 2016}; ^{Millán, 2015}). However, there is a dearth of analysis of sustainability with PCD as a methodology (rather than a goal unto itself), defined as the categorical analysis of public policy initiatives through the identification of different coherences/incoherences.

This article argues that PCD can become innovative from a policy standpoint when applied to specific development contexts, such as water basins or clearly defined ecosystems. While current uses of PCD as a policy tool highlight its strengths because they prioritize sustainable development over competing policy arenas and they identify specific challenges regarding development policy implementation, contemporary approaches only scratch the surface of PCD’s potential contributions to transformative development as defined above. Instead, the application of PCD as a methodology to examine policies/programs at different scales of analysis could maximize its impact. This is explored here through the application of a PCD methodology to PWS initiatives in the Antigua river basin in part four below. This analysis is based on the modeling of PWS initiatives through the identification of internal and external (in)coherences based on the categories presented in Table 1. This methodological model is presented in Figure 1 and applied in section four below.

Source: Figure designed by authors. Note that the “multilateral coherence” category in table one has not been included in the model because it is specific to the international arena.

Figure 1 PCD as a methodological model for policy analysis. 

Research Design and Data Collection

This work is part of a larger project entitled “Experimental Frameworks for Evaluating Net Effects of Hydrologic Service Payments on Coupled Social-Ecohydrological Systems” (CH2ILES), funded by the National Science Foundation (project number ICER/GEO 1313804), that examines PWS programs in the Antigua River Basin in the center of the Mexican state of Veracruz (Fig. 2), which can be considered a critical case for the study of PWS for a number of reasons:1) the PWS programs in the region are long running, 2) there is a diversity of PWS program types in the region, 3) there are many unanswered questions about how land use/land management change (the target of PWS) impacts the socio-ecological system, and 4) the project is providing a rich data set on which to assess PWS performance. Also, the city of Coatepec, Veracruz, located in the cited basin, is the site of the pilot initiative for PWS in Mexico named “Coatepec Trust for Forest and Water Conservation” (Fideicomiso Coatepecano para la Conservación del Bosque y el Agua, Fidecoagua), and is one of the matching program case studies in the CH2ILES research project. The second initiative in an adjacent sub-basin is the “Compensation Program for environmental services of the Pixquiac river watershed” (Prosapix). The Basin is also home to the national payment for watershed services run by Mexico’s Forestry Commission (PSAH-Conafor) (Table 2).

Map created by Juan Jose von Thaden Ugalde

Figure 2 Location of the Antigua River Basin and subwatersheds 

Field research was carried in the Antigua Basin from January 2016 to March 2017. In order to operationalize PCD, research has been based on a review of the academic and professional literatures on PWS and PCD, as well as policy documents related to both development strategies in Veracruz and PWS programs in the Antigua Basin. New data has been generated through the organization of a roundtable including ten stakeholders (representatives of government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) involved in PWS debates in the Antigua Basin which was organized within the IV Congreso Nacional de Manejo de Cuencas Hidrográficas (IV National Conference on the Management of Hydrographic Basins) held in Xalapa, Mexico, 26-28 October, 2016. Participants were recruited through previous contacts with different organizations and semi-structured questions were sent to them before the roundtable was held. Participants were also invited to submit questions as well. During the roundtable, the authors mediated the discussion by maintaining focus on the previously circulated questions. The debate was then opened to the public and participants were again invited to raise relevant queries.

A follow-up discussion was held with the panel participants in March 2017 in order to validate the research findings. On this occasion, a draft of the empirical findings was circulated to participants before the workshop in addition to a list of questions based on preliminary conclusions. Based on this draft and the list of questions, the discussions on PWS programs in the Antigua Basin was utilized to validate our findings. The responses of the participants in these two structured policy fora informed the empirical analysis presented in part three below.

Unlike traditional research on PWS which focuses specifically on those programs, a PCD approach is innovative because it considers the interaction between PWS and other policy arenas. The stakeholders interviewed in the policy forum and the follow-up meeting are government officials and representatives of NGOs that are active in both environmental and non-environmental policy arenas, such as forestry, water, climate change, agriculture, social integration and education. Stakeholders in the areas of security and commerce were invited to participate as well but they declined our invitation. Moreover, five semi-structured interviews were carried out with academic experts on PWS, development in the state of Veracruz and agricultural and social policies; and four interviews were carried out with local entrepreneurs in sustainable tourism during a site visit. Between the policy fora and the individual interviews, nineteen stakeholders provided empirical information for this article.

Debates over Payments for Watershed Services: Salient Issues and Competing Appreciations

Payments for watershed services have emerged within the framework of the broader payment for ecological/ecosystem services (PES) movement. This approach provides economic incentives to landowners to engage in land management practices that conserve or restore ecological services. Such strategies emerged in the 1970s as a way to increase public interest in conservation of biodiversity (^{Gómez-Baggethun, de Groot, Lomas and Montes, 2009}). As stated above, payment for watershed services is the fastest growing example of PES worldwide due to global concern regarding the decline of hydrological resources. By assigning a utilitarian value for environmental services, PES programs aim to provide financial rewards to compensate and set “decisions for nature” on a more equal footing with other economic considerations. These payment schemes seek to address water-related problems, such as scarcity or pollution by directly linking producers of watershed services to consumers through ways that explicitly incorporate market value to these services (^{Asbjornsen et al. 2015}). Such programs have been promoted by international organizations (Kyoto Protocols), especially with focus on developing countries. According to ^{Mayrand and Paquin (2004)}, ^{Kosoy et al. (2007)} and others (^{Alix-Garcia et al. 2005}), over 300 PES programs have been established worldwide. In the broader scope of all ecosystem services, ^{Costanza et al. (2014)} estimate that the total global value of ecosystem services in 2011 was USD 125 × 10¹²/year. Moreover, ^{Milder et al. (2010)} estimate that by the year 2030, markets for biodiversity conservation could contribute to poverty alleviation throughout the world by benefittinglow-income households in developing countries, carbon markets, markets for watershed protection, and markets for landscape beauty and recreation.

The literature specifically focusing on PWS programs has detailed the underlying economic logic of this policy approach. ^{Wunder, Engel and Pagiola (2008)} have shown how this strategy includes two payment approaches: 1) beneficiary-financed, under which the users of ecological services pay for them directly and 2) government financed, under which the government pays for ecological services on behalf of users (^{Wunder et al., 2008}). The authors also contend that PWS are effective remedies for the mismanagement of watershed services. Other authors have focused on the indirect benefits of PWS programs. ^{Muradian (2013)} has shown how PWS can act as the basis of collective action aimed at environmental conservation. ^{Garbach, Lubell and DeClerck (2012)} focus their analysis on the ways that payments stimulate social communication between farmers.

Despite its emergence throughout the world, PWS strategies remain controversial for different reasons. First, no universal definition of “ecosystem service” or “watershed service” exists. ^{Boyd and Banzhaf (2006)} contend that such terms are too “ad hoc” to have meaningful value. ^{Mokondoko et al. (2016)} argue that the bundling of these services has restricted financing for PWS in Mexico by not making the argument of their importance for particular sectors. Similarly, the lack of definition of watershed services has been recognized in policy documents. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identified 24 different ecosystem services (^{Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005}) which are very different in character. These services vary from those related to food production to climate change, to energy, etc. The disparities between these fields has also led to criticisms related to the lack of integrated solutions provided by this policy approach (^{Wunder et al., 2008}). Other studies have highlighted the negative influences of PWS (and PES more generally) on other arenas such as social inequality (^{Corbera et al., 2009}; ^{Börner et al., 2017}), adaptation to global change (^{Murandian et al., 2013}) and poverty alleviation (^{Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2015})

Of course, the conceptual confusion surrounding this term has led to methodological debates as scholars have criticized PWS approaches for their measurement difficulties. The assignment of economic values to watershed services is often contested for being a practice that is too subjective. ^{Boyd and Banzhaf (2006)} criticize such approaches for a lack of standardized environmental accounting units. Similarly, ^{Redford and Adams (2009)} argue that markets only exist for a certain range of ecosystem services, and some services are not amenable to pricing or valuation, thus complicating the implementation of the entire system. ^{Boisvert et al. (2013)} critically analyze market-based instruments for environmental protection and highlight the lack of attention paid to their design and impacts. ^{Asbjornsen et al. (2015)} have similarly underlined the lack of empirical studies that illustrate the impacts of PWS programs due to shortcomings related to monitoring and evaluation that reflect a lack of understanding of the complex interactions between market-based PWS and the coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) in which they operate. They also contend that monitoring of hydrological services is very expensive and that it is difficult to scale up models from micro-watersheds to watersheds leading to generalizations from policy makers that more forest leads to more service provision, which is a risky proposition in many cases (^{Asbjornsen et al. (2015)}.

Finally, PWS is often criticized in the literature for reasons related to its underlying logic as much as its operationalization. Scholars such as ^{Redford and Adams (2009)} and ^{Shapiro-Garza (2013)} have contended that economic approaches commodify the environment by placing a monetary value on resources that outweighs the non-economic value of nature. Moreover, scholars (^{Redford and Adams, 2009}; ^{Alix-Garcia et al. 2005}) have identified inherent tension between efficiency, effectiveness and equity as program objectives. Related to this, numerous scholars have contended that PWS programs do not pay close enough attention to surrounding social contexts. For example, ^{Muradian (2013)} discusses the subjective nature of assigning monetary value to watershed services due to cultural considerations that affect how the communities value specific services. Moreover, ^{Rodríguez de Francisco et al. (2013)} empirically examined payments for ecological services in Ecuador and showed how these programs reinforced social divisions, eroded community organization and exacerbated inequalities because such programs interact with existing development trajectories and power differentials. Another viewpoint contends that the focus on social context and equity has actually hurt the efficiency of PES programs (Samii, et al. (2014).

These criticisms of PWS programs have led to a rejection of many of their fundamental tenets. For example, PWS is often promoted as a way to ensure conservation of natural resources/biodiversity, but also as a strategy for poverty alleviation, social integration, the promotion of resilience and the pursuit of food and water security. While some programs have achieved conservation, most reviews of PWS initiatives (^{Rodríguez de Francisco et al. 2013}; ^{Asbjornsen et al. 2015}) highlight the approach’s limits in terms of social impacts. This would seem to indicate that PWS strategies, as designed and implemented today, are incompatible with the transformative development objectives that characterize the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda because the SDGs extend beyond simple conservation. The following section addresses this assumption and indicates how policy coherence for development (PCD) methodologies can be applied to PWS programs in a way that fosters more transformative change.

Empirical Results: A PCD Approach to Transformative Development within the Framework of PWS

The previous section has outlined contemporary debates on PWS including the perceived weaknesses of current PWS strategies. However, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development promotes “transformative sustainable change,” policy mechanisms that promote the implementation of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals need to be identified. Critics of PWS claim that there is a dearth of scientific evidence legitimizing these programs and that their promotion is speculative. However, many of the proposed empirical studies of PWS (^{Milder et al. (2010)}, ^{Zheng et al. (2013)}) examine social and biophysical impacts in specific ecosystems/watersheds without necessarily studying the programs themselves. According to many scholars (^{Carpenter et al., 2009}; ^{Costanza et al. 2016}) PWS and sustainable development as defined by the SDGs are not as separate as they seem. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature by proposing a policy coherence for development approach, which analyzes PWS within the framework of transformative development as defined by the SDGs. In this regard, the analysis will discuss PWS by examining its relevance in terms of conservation, social integration and sustainable economic development in communities where it is practiced. Empirical considerations are based on the data gathered during the public forum and follow-up meeting as well as empirical interviews mentioned above.

Exploring the transformative potential of PWS in the Antigua River Basin Through PCD Analysis

PWS has become a prominent mechanism in Mexico for addressing deforestation and water scarcity issues. These programs were initially proposed in 2003 in response to severe deforestation, overexploitation of aquifers and high poverty rates in rural areas. In this regard, PWS was linked to conservation and social integration objectives. The main objective of the Mexican PWS program was to prevent deforestation in poor and marginalized areas of hydrological importance. The program started with a clear focus on improving provision of hydrological services but over time it has been re-oriented toward a focus on socio-economic issues (Muñoz-Piña et al. 2011): The project was run by Conafor, Mexico’s National Forestry Commission which dispersed USD 384.6 × 10⁶ between 2003 and 2011 (^{García Romero, 2012}). It expanded the geographic coverage of PWS from 126 000 hectares in 2003 to 330 000 hectares in 2011 (^{García Romero, 2012}). ^{León et al. (2012)} narrate the evolution of Mexico’s PWS programs through the following stages:

In terms of program implementation, the government and the owner of the forest sign a five-year contract whereby the owner receives a payment at the end of each year if the forest is conserved. The payment seeks to cover the opportunity costs for landowners of preserving the forest. The program focuses on areas where commercial forestry is not feasible, since there are other government programs that support sustainable commercial exploitations (^{García Romero, 2012}). As with most PWS programs, it is difficult to ascertain how affective these initiatives have been. On one hand, the Mexican PWS program successfully prevented 18 000 hectares from being deforested (^{OECD, 2014}). However, this statistic represents only a small fraction of the geographic coverage of the program. (^{García Romero, 2012}) Also, little progress was made in the fight against poverty in participating geographic areas. According to ^{Rolón Sánchez (2009)}, the levels of marginalization in areas participating in PWS programs have not been significantly affected. The percentage of corresponding residents living in “very high” marginalization increased from 25% in 2003 to 37% in 2008 after reaching 50% in 2007. Those living in “high” marginalization decreased minimally from 47% to 45% during the same period. (^{Rolón Sánchez, 2009}). Of course, the levels of marginalization are affected by many more variables than the existence of a PWS program.

La Antigua basin in the Mexican State of Veracruz is one of the more visible cases where PWS has been implemented (Fig. 2). A significant body of literature has been published on this case. Many authors have examined the impacts of PWS programs in the basin through different approaches including technical implementation (^{Scullion et al., 2011}), spatial analyses (^{Mokondoko et al., 2018}), institutional decentralization (^{Nava-López et al., 2018}), social participation (^{Jones et al., 2019}), etc. These works have contributed to significant understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of PWS in the basin. This article builds on this interesting research because it addresses the interactions between PWS and other policy areas.

La Antigua is a basin that extends 3918 km² from the Gulf of Mexico to the center of the state. The basin is characterized by high biodiversity including pine-oak forest, cloud forest, deciduous forest, riparian vegetation, induced and cultivated pasture (^{Proyecto Conservación de Cuencas Costeras en el Contexto del Cambio Climático [C6], 2017}). In addition to the wide variety of plants found in the different forests in the basin, numerous endemic fish and amphibian species live there. In terms of economic activities, the basin fosters shrimp farming, coffee (some under forest cover), cattle raising, sugar cane production and seasonal agriculture. Moreover, the sustainable tourism sector has begun to emerge around the Antigua river and its tributaries, where rafting and other outdoor sports have become popular.

According to the participants in the aforementioned policy forum, these economic activities, especially farming and the limited industry that exists in the basin have threatened the local ecosystem. The Antigua basin has its relevance at the national level since it has been declared by Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático (INECC) and other researchers as a priority watershed due to its levels of degradation (^{Román-Jiménez et al., 2011}), important number of users, and high amount of biodiversity (^{Cotler, et al., 2010}). The Antigua river has been polluted by the runoff of chemicals used for agriculture and domestic use as well as waste associated with coffee production. Moreover, according to interviewees, clandestine logging (which contributes to deforestation), the uncertainties in coffee pricing, sugar cane expansion and a recent attempt to build a hydroelectric dam near the town of Jalcomulco, threaten sustainable tourism in the region which attracts more than 40 000 visitors per year (personal interviews with tour operators and political organizers, 14 March 2016, Jalcomulco). Also, increased urbanization has promoted significant deforestation as the expansion of informal urban settlements around Xalapa (state capital of Veracruz) and the city of Coatepec has reduced cloud forest cover to only 7.6% (^{Benítez et al., 2012}). In general, land management is an issue in the area as the lower part of the basin is characterized by small parcels of land while larger communal holdings characterize the upper part of the basin. Often the divisions between properties have been unclear, leading to social tensions (conclusion expressed by stakeholder participating in October 2016 Policy Forum).

In response to water scarcity and deforestation, the Antigua Basin has become the site of three prominent PWS initiatives. The first is the local government program in Coatepec which was established by Fidecoagua. The second program is the national PSAH initiative run by Conafor and the third program (Prosapix) has been forwarded by the Comité de Cuenca del río Pixquiac (Cocupix) which is a collective of local social actors. Table 2 above compares these initiatives.

What is interesting about the simultaneous presence of these PWS programs in the Antigua watershed is the seeming institutional coherence that exists between them. Scholarship (^{Fuentes & Paré, 2012}; ^{Vidriales-Chan & Mateos, 2016}) on the Antigua basin has shown how governmental and non-governmental actors have participated in Cocupix with a vision of promoting a holistic and integrated management of the basin and its resources. Moreover, the experts interviewed for this project confirmed that the three PWS schemes outlined above have been coordinated since 2011 when “concurrent funding” was introduced for initiatives that were supported by different programs so that funding became complementary rather than competitive. Finally, Fuentes and Paré have documented how Cocupix participated in the elaboration of the State of Veracruz’s Sustainable Development Plan. From a PWS standpoint, these programs indicate significant levels of citizen input and social participation which should contribute to effective implementation. From a PCD standpoint, these measures indicate institutional commitments to policy coherence for development, which should successfully promote sustainable transformative development in basin communities.

Empirical research on conditions in the Antigua basin, however, has indicated that PWS has made little impact on socio-environmental conditions in local communities. ^{Scullion et al. (2011)} have reported that remote-sensing data show that deforestation was substantially lower on properties receiving PWS payments compared to properties not enrolled in the programs, but the programs did not prevent the net loss of forests within Coatepec. Similarly, ^{Mokondoko et al. (2018)} utilized spatial analysis to compare the impact of payments for hydrological services on delivery of hydrological services in the basin. The study illustrates that mismatches exist between PWS-targeted areas and geographic areas of priority. The authors highlight the need to improve ecological and socioeconomic targeting criteria. This conclusion was supported by the stakeholders interviewed in the follow-up meeting organized in March 2017.

Other analyses have shown that poverty remains high in forested areas, that urban-rural social divisions remain prominent and that the deterioration of water quality in program territories includes substantial increases in e-coli bacteria which augmented the incidence of disease in the basin (^{Mokondoko et al., 2016}; Personal interviews with government officials).

Following general trends regarding research on PWS, local studies of these initiatives have focused on the distribution of economic costs and benefits of payment programs as well as the need for social participation in their definition and implementation in order to promote buy-in amongst potential contributors (especially water users). However, a preliminary PCD analysis of these programs based on the viewpoints of stakeholders expressed in the 2016 policy forum and the follow-up meeting in 2017, indicates that economic incentives and political participation are not the only factors that impact the success of these policies. According to the ten participants in these events and the five local experts interviewed for this project, numerous policy incoherences exist which undermine the success of PWS programs, especially in terms of transformative development. These incoherences are outlined in Table 3.

In terms of the conservation of the ecosystem, government officials who participated in the policy forum noted that PWS projects are weakened by horizontal incoherences, such as the absence of health and sanitation regulations for livestock which contaminate water, thus undermining PWS investments aimed at conserving water quality. Other examples of horizontal incorherences include inadequate public health strategies and contradicting subsidies such as those from Conafor and Sagarpa, as the former (Mexico’s Forestry Commission) pays landholders to plant trees on their properties while the latter (Mexico’s Agriculture Service) provides subsidies to promote the raising of goats which eat the saplings subsidized by Conafor (personal interview with development official, 23 June 2016, Xalapa). Other incoherences include: 1) internal incoherence as PWS programs include payment calendars that are not coherent with project evaluation calendars and different mapping techniques are used by national and local authorities which create mismatched information, 2) financial incoherence as the subsidies provided to participants in PWS schemes is reported to be less than 3% of their total income (^{Scullion et al. 2011}; ^{2016 policy forum}). Conafor has decided since January 2017 to further reduce both the size of the subsidy and the duration (^{Deschamps-Ramírez, P., & Madrid-Zubirán, S., 2018}), 3) inter-organizational incoherence as PWS programs in Mexico do not recognize the important cultural and structural differences between ejidos (communally managed agricultural lands) and more general civil society organizations, and 4) normative incoherence as PES focuses on conservation of natural resources without significantly addressing social marginalization, thus limiting the long-term transformative impacts of the programs. In fact, participants in the 2016 policy forum highlighted the fact that PWS subsidies do not promote economic transformations towards sustainability, but they have furthered financial dependence on public subsidies of marginalized communities in the basin. All of these incoherences, identified by local government officials and representatives of NGOs in the 2016 policy forum as well as interviewees, undermine the effectiveness or efficiency (or both) of PWS initiatives. Identifying these policy weaknesses in terms of incoherences already informs policymaking by suggesting where policies face challenges. However, this article contends that PCD analysis can provide a valuable tool for the reduction of policy obstacles that undermine PWS programs, thus, reinforcing their socio-environmental impacts. This is the focus of the discussion section.