MCA Monitor Blog
March 10, 2008
Warmth, Commitment, and Questions in El Salvador
Posted by Amy Crone at 10:02 AM
I am here in El Salvador for the MCA Monitor Reports from the Field series.
The first thing that hits upon arrival in San Salvador is the warmth – in the climate, from the people, and through the services that are readily accessible. There is also ample evidence of this small country’s close relationship with the United States. There are American restaurant chains throughout the city, many people express themselves in English as easily as Spanish, and the U.S. Embassy compound is immense. The sheer magnitude of the grounds and the fortress-like security at the Embassy also belie the complicated history between these two nations which included significant military support for a protracted civil war and less substantial support in the area of development. With the peace accords this relationship has been recalibrated to provide more development and less military assistance, but the war remains too recent to bury history. UN monuments and graffiti proclaiming the vote as stronger than the sword serve as a reminder of this past and as a symbol of a renewed democratic contract between the Salvadoran government and its people.
This sense of commitment is also seen in the newest program of U.S. assistance to El Salvador – the MCC compact here is seen as a contract that the Salvadoran government has not only entered into with the U.S. government, but perhaps more importantly, with its own people. The theme of compromiso is prevalent in all of the discussions that I have had with various parties – from implementing entity Fomilenio representatives to the young recipients of scholarships at the National Agricultural School. The idea that El Salvador has the opportunity to determine how to use these funds is novel here, and due to a variety of political and social pressures, is being seen as more akin to a challenge. The motivation to demonstrate impacts quickly comes from the upcoming presidential elections but the fierce stanchness to complete the projects in time to utilize the $461 million dollars committed for the next 5 years is a matter of national pride.
However, this challenge and commitment also begets considerations and questions. The allocation of the influx of MCC funds through the proposal and compact designed by the Salvadoran government has garnered a myriad of queries. Some of these are standard for any international governmental assistance undertaking – how can the funds be best put to use? How to measure and record progress and impacts? What are potential stumbling blocks to success in each of the designated components? Others are a particular reflection of both MCC as an institution and the Compact in El Salvador as it fits into the panoply of politics and society here – what is the appropriate role of social audits? What is a reasonable balance between oversight and management? How can the programs engender tangible change in the lives of those in the Northern Zone? Are the MCC guidelines and procedures means by which Salvadoran capacity is augmented or are they an island of donor requirements in a sea of development programs? Where does capacity need to be strengthened – government? Civil society? And perhaps most crucial to the future of El Salvador and national development – will this newly opened dialogue amongst stakeholders lead to better allocation of resources and economic growth to lift many out of poverty in the Northern Zone?
These and more are the questions that MCC is raising around the globe. While some are addressed more easily than others, the nature of each Compact will continue to evolve with the given social and political currents and thus will beget more inquiries in each country regarding compact development, preparation, or implementation. The MCA Monitor team will attempt to examine the issues that have the most tangible impacts, taking into account the realities on the ground.
The resurrection of the Reports from the Field series is a step in this direction – to better understand from the ground up what issues will broadly impact MCC as an institution and the perception of the MCA as an innovative and meritorious experiment. Through this broader analysis, in concert with an understanding of local country environments, we hope to suggest solutions to at least some of the aforementioned questions for a given country, though it may not be possible to tackle them all. These solutions will undoubtedly come (at least in part) from the ground up – from beneficiaries through consultative processes, or via implementing entity decisions, or based on changing circumstances in world economic trends. But other aspects of solutions can be discovered through broadening the dialogue – so what are you interested in examining or answering? What do you think are the vital issues that must be solved for this grand experiment in foreign assistance to be a success?
August 17, 2006
Should We Expect More from Middle Income Countries?
Posted by Sarah Rose at 09:15 AM
The MCC is in final negotiations with El Salvador, one of two lower middle income countries (LMICs) deemed eligible in FY2006. Over the last year, we've heard bits and pieces of feedback from NGOs on the ground. Together with a review of the actual proposed compact (pdf), here's what I think is worth watching and discussing:
1. Donor coordination appears strong...at least on paper. A donor coordination framework on page 6 of the proposal nicely lays out the compact's plan to develop the North Zone and includes how funding responsibilities will be shared among MCA, the government, and other donors. It’s noteworthy that the government offers counterpart funding for every aspect of the compact (except M&E).
2. Road to growth, but with poverty reduction? El Salvador is another road-dominated compact, namely a highway to the North Zone and a network of connecting roads. While in theory highways and rural roads can better connect the poor to growth--and infrastructure in developing countries has been under-funded over the last decade-- there is no evidence that El Salvador conducted a real poverty impact assessment that evaluates exactly who will be served, how many people will actually benefit, and if the roads will serve their needs (what kind of access is most important to the people it is designed to serve? Schools? Health facilities? Markets? And will the roads actually provide this connectivity?) There is some concern that those who will benefit most from the road system will be the big Canadian mining companies and other multinationals with interests in the area.
3. Adequate consultative process? Since El Salvador is using MCA money to partially fund a pre-developed strategy for the development of the North Zone, the government claims the consultations actually started back in 1998. True that it is not the best use of resources to completely replicate a prior process, but it is necessary (and required!) that a country consult with stakeholders about the MCA compact specifically regarding prioritization, beneficiaries, etc. The government held its MCA-specific consultations between January and March of 2006, but some NGOs on the ground are saying that these meetings were disingenuous, without reflection that their input was accepted or not (either by being included in the proposed compact or by being provided with rationale for rejection through feedback to consulted groups). We're interested in hearing from anyone else who has some input about El Salvador's consultations. Were they legitimately “consultative”? What kind of weight do you think prior (non-MCA) consultations can be given as a basis for the MCA consultative process? This is a complicated issue, but, like in Tanzania, I think that at a minimum the MCC should raise the existing bar on consultation in countries.
These questions about the El Salvador compact are not new in a general sense. We've brought up the same issues with other compact countries over the last year or so. But should we expect more of LMICs? You'd think that they'd be in a better position than the lower income countries to manage the development process, but are they really?
My last big question relates to the MCA's longer term strategy of engaging LMICs. Since MCC is limited by law from allocating more than 25% of its annually appropriated funds for LMIC compacts, the El Salvador compact--estimated at $446 million--will preclude other compacts for 2006. It's not a problem this year as there were only two eligible countries, but what are the implications for future years? Namibia will probably qualify again, as will several more presumably. Even in the best situation, 25% of $3 billion (and that's being optimistic since Congress has yet to approve an amount this high!) is only $750 million. This is highly unlikely to be enough for multiple transformative compacts, particularly when we may be looking at Jordan and Ukraine being deemed eligible next year.
We hope you'll keep an eye on both of these processes as they develop – both El Salvador and LMIC compacts more generally. Let us know what you think.
June 06, 2006
What to Watch for in El Salvador
Posted by Sheila Herrling at 11:19 AM
In reaction to my search for bold, innovative MCC programs, a former MCC official told me recently to keep an eye toward El Salavador -- that it was going to be "truly innovative stuff." I'm really looking forward to seeing the process unfold, including perceptions on the ground that can help inform and improve the process. I recently received an email from the SHARE Foundation, an established development and solidarity organization working exclusively in El Salvador. SHARE raises three issues with El Salvador's emerging MCA proposal, quoted here:
"1) Consultation Process: The consultation process was not conducted in its proper order: instead of the Saca Administration approaching civil society to consult on proposal ideas, it already had a proposal when it came to the consultations. At meetings with NGOs, it has presented its proposal for commentary. This is not our understanding of what the MCC intended "consultation" to look like, nor what authentic consultation really is. In spite of the Saca Administration's claim that consultations have been conducted since 1998 via the National Commission on Development, our partners wonder who has been part of that process aside from the private sector and a limited segment of civil society.2) Poverty Impact Analysis: The majority of MCC funding will be used to build a highway in northern El Salvador. It is uncertain how the highway will help Salvadorans in the region move out of poverty, particularly small and medium-sized farmers who are threatened by rice and dairy imports from the US with CAFTA. Instead, we expect the highway to be used by multinationals. Growth alone is not enough: MCA countries must look at the distributional effects of that growth. We do not see evidence that this is being done in El Salvador, in spite of the well-phrased presentation offered by the Saca Administration.
3) Impact of the MCA on the budget process: We are concerned about the potential for MCA funds to replace core humanitarian funds in the US foreign aid budget."
As always, I would love to hear other views from the field that can constructively inform the MCC compact development process.