The region that pressed the mute button Who cares about aid effectiveness in Latin America and the Caribbean? Policy Brief
2014
Content Introduction
1
Reason 1 Aid is not a high priority
4
Reason 2 A plethora of regional platforms Reason 3 Lack of trust in the process
5
Reason 4 Failure to derive a common regional agenda
6
What next? Define responsibilities Insert the region’s structural themes into global affairs Share southern technical knowledge to impact other regions
7
About
8
Introduction The Latin America and Caribbean region has never seemed
Reason 1
set out in Paris and Accra. But since the launching of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) in 2012, the region’s silence has grown even
Aid is not a high priority
louder, despite the fact that Mexico and Chile are now OECD members and Colombia and Costa Rica are in the process of signing up. As the region prepares to host the 2014, we ask why the mute button has been pressed? Is it that Latin America and the Caribbean does not care about the Global Partnership for Effective Development
Reason 2
Cooperation? Or is it that the Global Partnership does not
A plethora of regional platforms
600 million inhabitants?
America and the Caribbean’s only partial engagement in the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, and then suggests next steps for the region if it wishes to improve the effectiveness of aid and development cooperation.
Reason 3 Lack of trust in the process
Reason 4 Failure to derive a common regional agenda
1
The region that pressed the mute button
A number of countries in the region have displayed outstanding leaderships in different moments in the aid effectiveness journey, before, during and after the seminal
Colombia co-chairs the Task-T
South Cooperation of the Worki Effectiveness.
Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua participate in the DAC-hosted Working Party on Aid Effectiveness.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Nicaragua hosts the Joint Country Learning Assessment (JCLA), promoted by the OECD DAC, which became one of the main inputs for 1
the Paris Declaration in 2005.
Since the GPEDC was launched after the meeting in the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness and the Accra
Busan in 2011, interest has ebbed even more. Peru was
Agenda for Action, few participated in the Paris Declara-
the only South American country to take part in the Busan
tion Monitoring Survey promoted by the OECD donors. In 2006 and 2008, only six countries engaged in the survey
Level Meeting in Mexico in April 2014, and Jamaica the
-
only Caribbean country. Three Central American countries
caragua and Peru). These numbers should have set off
took part as well. There are four main reasons for this lim-
alarms of little interest in this hemisphere. Interest rose af-
ited interest in Latin America and the Caribbean. We look at each of these in turn, before assessing what possible
participated in the 2010 Survey.
future scenarios on development effectiveness might be for the region
www.cepei.org
2
2008
Team on South-
ing Party on Aid
Guatemala led the preparation of a common
Honduras and Mexico are nominated sherpas
Position Paper prior to Busan, titled “The Road
to negotiate and contribute to define the Busan
to Busan. A common perspective� that some
Outcome Document, launched in December
countries in the region endorsed: Honduras,
2011 during the IV High Level Forum in Busan.
Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama,
These two countries are again sherpas in the
Dominican Republic and Bolivia.
Post-Busan Interim Group which later structured the GPEDC in 2012.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TO DATE
Bolivia and Colombia are part of the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration, conducted by an independent reference expert team.
Guatemala and Peru took over these two corresponding chairs in the GPEDC Steering Committee.
Mexico, Co-Chair of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.
1
Nicaragua was considered an important testing ground for
Paris donor coordination until the Sandinista government took over in January 2007 and made Venezuela, Iran and China their most important donors. 2
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador,El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico,Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. (OAS, 2012)
3
The region that pressed the mute button
Reason 1 Aid is not a high priority
Reason 2 A plethora of regional platforms
Development cooperation has always had a different streak
Latin America and the Caribbean is a middle income region
in Latin America and the Caribbean, though it shares the same geopolitical fundamentals of traditional aid.
MICs (one is low income whereas four are high income). Despite still being the most unequal region in the world,
The
most countries have experienced a relevant economic
Caribbean
Community
and
Common
Market
expansion in recent years that has delivered important practice economic and technical cooperation.
results in reducing poverty; they have implemented coherent public policies and access to services while
The Latin American and Caribbean Economic System
becoming immersed in an enthusiastic south-south exchange of good practices and new approaches to
Latin American and Caribbean countries and promote a coordination and consultation system for agreeing common public services still needs to be improved, and enormous
positions on economic topics among member countries in
gaps between the many poor and the few rich remain.
order to hold a common stance before others.
These challenges – common among middle income countries– are present in each country in the region, to a
The region has a longstanding tradition of knowledge
higher or lower extent.
exchange through south-south cooperation, strengthened with the Buenos Aires Declaration and its Action Plan to promote and develop Technical Cooperation among
Because of their MIC status, and despite large pockets of continuing poverty, most countries have long been nondependent on aid, and many have faced further donor exits
counted on regional platforms that support it.
Development Assistance (ODA) in the last two decades.
The Declaration of Tegucigalpa established the Central
This helps explain why there has only been limited interest
American Integration System (SICA) in 1991 after reforming
in the aid effectiveness processes to date – politicians
the 1962 Letter of Central American States.
and bureaucrats have more pressing issues to contend Mexico, in 1991, Latin America, Spain and Portugal have
The expansion of new actors – such as philanthropic
been discussing political, economic, social and cultural cooperation.
in the region in 2012 – is also prompting countries of the region to favour new alliances.
Secretariat (SEGIB) was formed to provide technical follow-up to agreements. It is interesting to note that fellow members never accused Spain of highly tied aid
3 Bolivia, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Peru and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines participated in the 2011 Monitoring Survey (OAS, 2012).
www.cepei.org
4
Reason 3 Lack of trust in the process
the fact that headquarters are in Madrid and Spain was
If the countries of the region had great faith in the aid
funding an obese bureaucracy and almost all operations.
effectiveness process it is conceivable that they would have prioritised it, despite low levels of aid, and despite
launched the Bolivarian Alliance for America (ALBA) in La
process has never been high. Politically speaking, some
countries in Latin America are members. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
experience i.e. disenchantment with political commitments for improving the quality of traditional aid and the seemingly
Caracas Declaration, was established as a representational
scant possibilities of complying with responsibilities
mechanism for political consensus, cooperation and integration of Latin American and Caribbean countries,
of development. The apparent lack of interest of high-level
and as a common locus to guarantee regional unity and integration.
leaders does not contribute to basic communication and trust. And the lack of proactive and strong leadership from
These are just an example of the many platforms that are functioning in the region to pursue cooperation and
synergies.
development. With separate agendas and work plans, they time of national aid bodies and government institutions. With so many regional platforms and networks to prioritise, time and interest available for the aid effectiveness agenda is limited.
5
The region that pressed the mute button
Reason 4 Failure to derive a common regional agenda
What next?
In addition to these factors and despite the ample menu
The above brief historical overview has painted a picture
of coordinating platforms, Latin American and Caribbean
of the region’s on-and-off relationship with the aid
countries too have faced certain tensions among
effectiveness agenda, which has sometimes resembled
themselves. At the heart of the problem are different
autism (some LAC countries which endorsed the Busan
political ideologies that, attempting to co-exist, tend to feed contradictions and fragmentations that devour the
example).
potential to establish a regional common approach, albeit different perspectives.
Given its low level of aid dependence, it is perhaps not surprising that the region’s engagement in the three generations of aid effectiveness reforms – via Paris, Accra and Busan – has been somewhat marginal. But the further issues of plentiful other regional processes, lack
endorsed as a region. Some countries objected to being
and a lack of clear common positions has only added to the barriers. Given all this, it is perhaps understandable
solution was the publication of two different statements.
that few leaders had time to cross the Atlantic and arrive in Paris, jet-lagged, at a meeting of the Working Party for Aid Effectiveness.
interest in south-south cooperation and demands that results from Busan should lead to the promotion of
But as the conference itinerary now takes the world to Mexico, it is worth considering what the future holds for the
second one is a special Communiqué endorsed by just six
aid effectiveness and development cooperation agendas in Latin America and the Caribbean both within the Global
Panama and the Dominican Republic) declaring that the
Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, and beyond it. We suggest three main directions that the
national efforts, that they have made efforts for aid effectiveness.
A. The intensely debated Paragraph 2 of the Busan Outcome Document currently sets the mood in the LAC region – it is that apply to South-South cooperation differ from those
in which we participate on the basis of common goals and shared principles. In this context, we encourage increased efforts to support effective cooperation based on our and actions agreed in the outcome document in Busan shall be the reference for South-South partners on a
www.cepei.org
6
Although the language of responsibility is used, there context, some of the most prominent countries in the responsibilities. Voluntary roles and functions ought to thus acquiring a new grasp of the old yarns of geopolitics mechanisms to contribute with high-quality and evidenceto a trend-setting south, considered by many as the new Busan demanded in 2011.
north. These countries, now engaged in the G-20 and other platforms, could proactively include the topics and
The
Global
Cooperation
Partnership is
now
for
Effective
focused
on
Development
interests of their less-favoured regional neighbours in their
“development
radars.
as the region recommended following three Organisation
C. Share southern technical knowledge to impact other regions
of American States (OAS)-supported workshops in the lead up to the Busan meeting in Barbados, Guatemala that the coming phase of development will focus strongly
Political leaders must understand that a strong regional taken in this direction at the GPEDC high level meeting in
agenda for effective development cooperation could on
Mexico. This will surely strengthen the region´s leadership
the one hand reinforce national capacities through south-
in the south-south provision of innovative development
south initiatives and, on the other hand, feed and shape
solutions for a world waiting for effective results and
international policies that have been mainly promoted by
impact. If this is the case, the region’s political leaders should seek consensus, in contrast to the region’s current its voice heard as a region to set a world trend. Middle that countries, sub-regions and regional platforms have, under the frame of the Global Partnership and beyond it,
the development cooperation paradigm and global
and possible should be willing to engage in the GPEDC’s
architecture and contribute with national and regional best
governance structure. If Latin America and the Caribbean
practices and experiences.
partnership, then it should propose something of its own.
These are only three ideas for the next Latin American and Caribbean steps in development effectiveness – but they could be the basis of a resurgence in the region’s
B. Insert the region’s structural More attention must be paid to the politics of a development partnership – much more than has been the case until
in order for it to be a breakthrough, middle income countries must guarantee that their essential topics for change are
7
The region that pressed the mute button
About CEPEI
Among other activities, it conducted the national evaluation of the implementation of Paris Declaration Principals in
high-level advocacy to increase Latin Americas and the
Colombia and acted as the academic coordinator of the
Caribbean involvement in the global development process. global level, CEPEI has participated at many initiatives CEPEI works closely with governments, civil society and Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. generating and transferring knowledge about the regional sustainable development agenda. CEPEI has been a lead agency in the regional development the past years, it has conducted numerous research and policy strategies
www.
www.cepei.org
.org
8
Social Media
@infoCEPEI
infoCEPEI
CEPEI
An iniciative of
WIth the support
Department for International Development
9
The region that pressed the mute button
Contact Philipp Schรถnrock, Director psm@cepei.org
www.
.org
Priscilla Miranda, Project Coordinator p.miranda@cepei.org