EL BLOG DE LA FIIAPP. Cooperación Española

What is the purpose of this book?

It’s important to keep in mind that this is a textbook for students in upper-level and graduate courses. I’ve taken some of the practical projects carried out in diverse countries around the world as examples. Everything from community projects, to asset-building projects and education projects, starting at the preschool level, and I’ve tried to describe the work. In addition, I’ve tried to provide some theoretical bases to explain how practice is linked to certain conceptual theoretical perspectives. That’s the purpose of the book and the reason why it’s called Theory and Practice.

On a practical level, how is social development done?

The book has five or six chapters devoted to different strategies for putting it into practice. The first strategy I cover involves human capital projects, which include education from preschool to university, also including health. There’s an entire chapter on community projects. It also deals with the topic of employment, job creation. There’s another on how to utilize resources, and another on the practical side of social protection, cash transfers, which many governments are now using, like Brazil in its “Bolsa Familia” project to provide money for families with children. I also talk about planning.
All of these practical strategies should go together in a system that we call “National Planning” to be used in combination with coordination mechanisms and to make countries more effective.

Which countries or regions have made the most progress in social development since their beginnings, and which still have a long way to go?

I believe there are basic principles that allow countries to succeed. First of all, to make progress in social development, countries with strong governments are necessary. The government has the capacity, the political commitment and the means to promote the social needs of the population. The majority of the most successful countries have been democratic, with a western-style democracy, and they are receptive and responsible with their population.

There are some countries that are raising their populations’ standards of living. In the first group we would include very small countries, certain islands like Mauricio and countries like Costa Rica, which have less population and therefore an easier time. But in some of the larger countries we’ve seen significant improvements in living standards, such as in the case of Chile or Brazil. Including countries where there is a high level of poverty and the government is making a commitment and the standard of living is improving.
The World Bank has published data showing that in South Africa the poverty rate has declined significantly while equality has improved; there is some research on Brazil that shows these same results.

These are just examples, of course there are other countries where the story is not so nice, for example South Sudan was a country with many opportunities, but it turned into an independent country where the members of the political elite started to fight among themselves, took up arms and started killing. There are countries with many disadvantages because they have poor agricultural development and some disasters are occurring, for example the Ebola virus, which is causing huge problems. A good example is Liberia, where they have terrible armed conflicts, deaths, poverty… and we go to them to study how to tackle the Ebola crisis.

In my opinion, this is a constant problem and there is no magical solution to the problem; we have to try to improve constantly.

In the introduction to your book, you say that “social development proposes a gradual social change”. Where is social development now?

In general, there are differing opinions on this. There are people who think that everything is going terribly and others who think that everything is great. In my opinion, it’s a mixture of the two, nothing is that wonderful or that awful.
The year 1995 was a very important time with the “World Social Summit for Social Development”. The conference held in Copenhagen hosted 117 presidents and ministers from all over the world, and they signed an agreement to create what are known as the Millennium Development Objectives. It’s sounds crazy that all the world leaders actually got together to solve the problem of poverty, but it happened. They united and said we’re going to reduce poverty and improve the health and situation of women, of education, and the results now, 15 years later are pretty positive.
There’s no magical solution, but we can see some improvement. So I’m optimistic, but not thinking that there are no problems and that everything is ok. We have to keep trying to fight to improve conditions for people all over the world.

What role do public administrations play in social development?

My opinion is very critical. There are people working on social development who say that development has to come from the people and the community, and I agree with that, but people can’t do it without help from the government. The government has great power to obtain resources and plan, so, in my opinion, I think the community and the government should work together. That’s why there has to be some type of democratic participation and operators so that the local community is represented and can participate, but for this you have to have a good government.

The author has sole responsibility for the opinions and comments expressed in this blog

In 2006, a total of 57 European and African countries started the “Rabat Process”to address the challenges of migration and also the development opportunities it generates. Why did these countries decide to join the “Rabat Process”?

The approval of the first Declaration of the Rabat Process in 2006 recognized that Euro-African migration routes, especially the West African route, represent a complex phenomenon that requires the close collaboration of all the states involved. In addition, it placed the emphasis on the search for formulas that boost the positive effects migration can have on development in African countries. Thus the Rabat Process opened up a new era in understanding the phenomenon of migration and provided a new and comprehensive approach to managing it appropriately and collaborativelybetween the countries of West and Central Africa, the Maghreb and Europe, that is, between the countries of origin, transit and destination for migration.

The FIIAPP supports this dialogue. How is this support manifested?

The objective is to facilitate debate and the implementation of the third phase of the Euro-African Dialogue on Migration and Development (Rabat Process) by giving the members an open framework for consultation, coordination and cooperation; strengthening institutional capacities; and allowing participation in a constructive dialogue on migratory affairs.
Since 2008, the European Commission has been supporting the Rabat Process through the execution of “Support Projects” that address the political process. The first, from 2008 to January 2011, was supported with funding from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID). Since 2008, the FIIAPP has been part of the Support Projects for facilitating dialogue. Currently we are in the third phase of the process, supporting implementation of the Dakar Strategy.

A Ministerial Conference is being held this month in Rome within the framework of the process. What is the objective of this Conference?

The Ministerial Conference aims to approve the political declaration and its annexes, the Rome Cooperation Programme for 2015-2017.

It’s not the first…

Since 2006, three political declarations have been approved and put into practice with their respective programmes or action plans: Rabat in 2006, Paris in 2008 and Dakar in 2011. In these years, the political debate was focused on including measures oriented towards fighting irregular migration and leveraging, in cooperation with third countries, the benefits of legal migration. There was also a desire to boost the synergies between migration and development by boosting the role of the diaspora, among other actions.

What will the objectives of the Rome declaration be?

The Rome declaration emphasizes, among other things, the need to adapt to changes and new contexts, such as South-South cooperation at the regional level. In addition, the central role played by stakeholders such as local authorities (e.g., municipalities), the diaspora, civil society and the academic sector in developing a body of knowledge about migratory affairs was highlighted. The need to increase their cooperation and collaboration with authorities at both the national and regional level was also noted.

At the moment, the “Rabat Process” has worked within the political framework of the migrants’ countries of origin and the receiving countries. Will this new phase work on more concrete aspects?

In effect, this new phase of the Rabat Process seeks to bring a political dimension to concrete issues on the ground by making them operational. The aim is to do this by strengthening different thematic priorities.

One example of the main priorities to be tackled during this
phase of the Process are:

– Strengthen the migration-development nexus for contributing to sustainable development in the countries of origin and destination. Along these lines, there is a desire to involve the organizations representing the diaspora to a greater degree, as well as to increase the positive effect of remittances while respecting their private nature.

– Prevention of and the fight against irregular migration and, specifically, human trafficking. In this context, there is a desire to strengthen cooperation in the management of borders and in return policies.

What is the purpose of the CBRN 35 project?

The purpose of the project is to improve (or initiate) best practices in the management of hazardous chemical and biological wastes in the countries of the African Atlantic façade region (Ivory Coast, Gabon, Liberia, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal and Togo) and Tunisia.

In the field of civil protection, all the countries in this region have intensified their cooperation with each other and are ready to exchange best practices with the European Union, both in the area of prevention of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear disasters (whether natural or provoked) and in terms of preparedness and response. The European Union finances a wide variety of projects related to this issue, and 40 are already underway in this and other regions.

What is the project plan for achieving this objective?

To simplify, we plan to provide training to everyone involved in the management of hazardous chemical and biological wastes. In addition to this training process, we are attempting to raise public awareness of the problem. 

The project is being implemented in eight countries, and each country is very different and has its own priorities. Some, for example, are interested in hazardous chemical waste, such as that generated in chemical laboratories. But all countries have a strong interest in protecting their populations and environment.

It’s worth mentioning that we have a small team of experts in each country dedicated to working with us.

Do they have a special interest in Ebola?

The Ebola outbreak started a few months after the project was launched and, since then, the focus has shifted to management of hazardous biological wastes.* In research visits in Sub-Saharan countries in West Africa, our team found only one modern incinerator that was operating and capable of eliminating hazardous wastes without causing contamination. The majority of the countries in the region have small incinerators or are incapable of destroying hazardous wastes, and this is not a good thing.

In most cases, these types of wastes are sent to landfills where they are mixed with ordinary wastes and probably filter into the ecosystem. The World Health Organisation recommends cremation of people who die of Ebola and the incineration of all associated wastes. Cremation is not culturally accepted in West Africa, and there are no facilities. In addition, incineration of wastes at a temperature high enough to destroy them is impossible in most of the affected countries. I’m not an epidemiologist, but clearly this would seem to be a very serious problem and may have contributed to the current epidemic. Our team has brought this dilemma to the attention of the World Bank, which is considering financing a modern incinerator for these countries.

Could you mention some consequences in these countries related to hazardous chemical and biological wastes?

In Senegal, Hann Bay, located just north of the industrial zone of the Port of Dakar. This is a small fishing village. Hann beach turned into an attractive recreational area near downtown Dakar. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, 71 factories are discharging wastes along the Hann coastline, earning the area the nickname “Garbage Bay“.

In January 2009, the Senegalese government announced a request for a loan of 50 million euros from France and the European Research Bank to finance a national office to handle decontamination in Senegal. This project would clean up Hann Bay. It would be the first large-scale industrial clean-up project. The plan covers everything from cleaning up the area to building a canal to divert industrial discharges to a new waste treatment plant.

Perhaps the most serious issue is what happened in Ivory Coast in 2006: a ship registered in Panama, the Probo Koala, which had been chartered by an oil company based in the Netherlands, discharged toxic wastes in the Port of Abidjan. The wastes were discharged by a local company at 12 locations around the city of Abidjan in August 2006. The United Nations and the government of the Ivory Coast blamed the gas released by those chemical products for the death of 17 people and the harm caused to over 30,000 Ivorians, with effects that ranged from slight headaches to serious burns to people’s skin and lungs. Nearly 100,000 Ivorians required medical attention due to the effects of these chemical products.

We have made a series of visits to the United National Environmental Programme, which intends to inspect what remains of this pollution and clean it up.

The first phase of the project concludes at the end of the year. What were the main outcomes achieved in this period.

By the end of the year, we should have a clear idea of how chemical and biological wastes are managed in the countries where we are working. This will allow us to direct the activities of the second phase to achieve optimum result in each country. We will also have a new best practices manual that will supply a basic outline of the know-how for the second phase.

What are the differences between the first and second phase?

Thefirst phase consists of the following:

– Research missions to establish for each country: a) the baseline in terms of hazardous chemical and biological waste management; b) an inventory of its capacities in the area of hazardous chemical and biological waste management.

– A review of best practices in hazardous chemical and biological waste management.

On the other hand, the second phase consists of training courses at the national and regional level to increase public awareness and strengthen the capacities of laboratories.

Further information about the project and its progress: www.cbrncoe35.eu

*Polluting discharge from a ship, hospital utensils, bed sheets, scalpels, needles, liquid wastes, etc….

The agenda for change that European cooperation is promoting is focused on good governance, inclusive and sustainable growth, and human development. Is territorial cohesion a priority in this agenda?

In fact these are the main aspects of our new approach to cooperation for development. Although territorial cohesion is not mentioned specifically, if we ask how all these new and ambitious programmes are going to be carried out, our new cooperation approach involves local authorities and local agents through regional development.

And if we examine all these policies, whether in the area of democratic governance or social development, overall they must be implemented on a local scale. This is what the Member States and the Parliament have asked us for, and clearly these are programmes that can make a real difference.

Is there an example of work in this line?

If we look at the large countries we are working with, and in Latin America there are more large countries than small ones, whether we’re talking about Peru, Colombia or Ecuador, it’s at the regional and local level where progress can be made. In Peru, for example, we set up a very effective regional programme to combat childhood malnutrition, and the government has reproduced it in all the regions. So, to fulfil the agenda for change through territorial and local agents, it’s necessary to have a satisfactory example.

The experiences of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European Commission are being utilized by some cooperation programmes like EUROsociAL. What do you think about this collaboration?

I’m enormously grateful to have solid partners like DG Regio for the application of new policies. Something we Europeans are undoubtedly proud of is our regional policy for its capacity to have a positive impact on people, on regions, and on countries overall. I recall that 60 years ago, Spain was still considered a developing country, but that’s no longer the case. We have problems in Eastern Europe, but it will catch up with the rest. And this is because of the very important role regional policies play. Of course, DG Regio, as the owner of these policies, has the experience and the historic memory that confirm it.

How will this cooperation be in the future?

For us, it’s absolutely essential to work with the key partners we trust. But this trust can only be achieved if they provide some added value in the regions. Therefore, working with DG Regio represents an enormous advantage for our Latin American partners. It’s hard to know what the future holds, but we have several agreements that we must develop with DG Regio.

I think we have plenty of ideas we would like to pursue in coming years in the area of territorial and regional policy in Latin America, be it in investment for the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises, or in the area of social inequality and environmental problems. All these areas are part of DG Regio’s scope of action and represent the basis for our future work in Latin America.

*This interview was videotaped and can be watched in its entirety at this link: Interview with Jolita Butkeviciene

Next year will reveal which of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDO) have been achieved in 15 years of work. This initiative will have a second part: the Post-2015 Agenda with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

The backdrop for this second part is already in place and, in terms of gender, according to Nava San Miguel, one dual objective has already been achieved: the existence of a goal in this area in the SDG proposal to construct the Post-2015 Agenda and integration of the gender focus into the rest of the goals.

Spain did its part to make this happen. With Nava San Miguel, we review the course of Spanish Cooperation in this area and its international commitment, which is mainly rooted in the two-pronged strategy, proposed back in 1995 by the Beijing Platform, of mainstreaming gender issues and undertaking specific actions to empower women.

What type of cooperation is Spain pursuing in this area?
Spanish cooperation includes gender equality as a defining characteristic in its development policy, and this is reflected in its last three master plans. In multilateral terms, Spain became the number one United National donor for gender issues such as UN Womenin the first years after its creation (2010), and has supported many gender projects in non-specific bodies, such as education for UNICEFand regional funds for ECLAC, supporting the gender observatory in Latin America for example. In Africa it has supported projects involving gender issues for the NEPADand the African Union. Also, in bilateral terms, we’ve supported many gender-focused subsidies and agreements, and specific gender projects, for NOGs… and we’re trying to ensure that there is a mainstreaming process in everything we do in the cooperation system.

What does mainstreaming mean?
That the issue of gender is integrated in everything done in Spanish cooperation— from policy definition to planning, management and assessment. We are working on different methodologies and processes like the Country Association Frameworks and, at the moment, are developing a mainstreaming manual for the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID)for example. We’ve been working on this since the Second Master Plan, and the aim is to consolidate it in the current Fourth Master Plan for 2013-2016.

And do these represent parameters to be followed in each of the countries we cooperate with?
Yes, gender must be integrated into all Spanish cooperation instruments. To define the priorities with our partner countries, a series of guidelines have been created for integrating gender into the definition of the Country Association Frameworks (CAF) currently being applied.
Within the Cooperation Council, there is a gender group responsible for making sure that any development policy document that comes before the council includes a greater gender perspective.

What are Spain’s partner countries?
The number has gone down considerably. There were 50 countries and now, with the cutbacks, the new master plan and a policy of geographic concentration will leave us with 23. Many Technical Cooperation Offices are being closed. Above all, we are in Latin America, North Africa and certain Sub-Saharan African countries; in Asia there are also cooperation projects in Vietnam and the Philippines.

What line will the Post-2015 Agenda follow in this area?
The most important thing is that we have achieved an international consensus to include a specific goal in the area of gender. In negotiations, this issue is always very complicated. In this case, since the beginning and to the surprise of almost everyone working on gender and development issues, almost no one questions the fact that gender equality and empowerment of women is essential for the development of any country. But the process will remain open until September of 2015.

This issue was already present in the MDGs… what difference is there in the SDGs?
In the first place, it took a lot of work to get it into the MDGs. The concept was not as well defined because people talked more about equality between men and women, and talking about gender equality and the empowerment of women is much more correct; and next, the gender focus was not mainstreamed in rest of the goals. To the point that in some of them, such as in issues related to sexual and reproductive health, sexual health was not even included. This was a goal that was achieved years later and in the wake of criticism from feminist and women’s organizations all over the world. At the moment, the debate is open, but the goals proposal includes that of integrating a goal on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, as well as the goal of universal health coverage.

In these 15 years of work on the gender goal in the MDGs, what gives you the most satisfaction?
The progress made in establishing equality mechanisms. They may be weaker or stronger, but great progress has been made in adopting them as a public policy and in defining regulatory frameworks in almost all the countries that have signed the major agreements and which ratify international regulations. Progress has also been made in education in the area of reducing the equality gap in education for girls. Nevertheless, despite having roadmaps like Cairo-Beijing, women’s inequality continues to be universal, and the defence of sexual and reproductive rights continues to be a problem and the major workhorse in gender issues. In issues related to violence against women, I believe there is a much greater awareness of the problem, although the statistics are still horrifying, and this continues to be the tip of the iceberg of a much harsher reality for women. Awareness has been raised in the world, gender has been given a more central place in discussions and there is a greater availability of information and programmes, and a clearer direction for moving forward in reducing violence. But there is still much left to be done in the issue of gender, and it’s impossible to talk about development and democracy without including women and building gender democracies.

And how is this panorama of cutbacks being confronted?
What we’ve tried to do is to consolidate gender as a priority in development policy, to learn, and bring together all that’s been learned in Spanish cooperation in this area, and then to make a proposal for a minimum progressive improvement in the area of gender issues in the Equal Opportunities Strategic Plan so that the mark of Spanish cooperation in this is not lost. In addition, Spain is advocating for this priority in the international context and, especially, in the process of constructing the Post-2015 Agenda.

And where is Spain focusing its efforts then?
The challenge in institutions remains, and in support for projects for real equality and for mainstreaming in the other sectors.

In the situation you describe, what is the role of the FIIAPP in promoting the gender issue?
I believe it is key. With the capacity this foundation has for managing European Union projects, it could contribute a great deal by mainstreaming the gender issue is its projects and obtaining specific gender projects, backed by the baggage and recognition Spain has achieved in gender and development in the work done by the SGCID and with the learning of the AECID and of Spanish cooperation overall. I believe it can play a fundamental and far-reaching role. The gender issue must be present in everything.

How would you characterize the reform of the healthcare system in Uruguay?

The healthcare reform, along with the reform of the tax system, is considered the most important structural reform Uruguay has undertaken since 2005 to date. But, what’s more, it’s also the reform that has had the greatest redistributive impact.

And how was this reform achieved?

Before in Uruguay, constitutionally, the government only had the obligation to provide healthcare to indigents, and therefore it had a public hospital network and public services with very poor quality, almost in a state of neglect. Uruguay has not only made a strong investment in these public services but in turn has built a health insurance model based on contributions by citizens in proportion to income, by employers according to the size of their workforce, and by the government. This funding makes it possible to care for 75% of the population now, and in 2016 we will reach 80%.

What types of coverage does this new health care system provide?

They are related to the second major reform: a comprehensive healthcare system that includes all services and all medications, and which is mandatory at all healthcare centres. Universal coverage is guaranteed, including catastrophic care: transplants, cardiac surgery, oncology drugs and, in the case of HIV, anti-retrovirals.

The other effort is focused on making healthcare more accessible and more equitable.

In this reform process, we’ve considered implementing the recommendations of the World Health Organisation (HMO) and of the Rio+20 Conference for certain social determinants and their impact on the health of the population. One of the recommendations is to generate evidence, information that demonstrates the inequities and which makes it possible to review public accounts and have an impact on policy. While Uruguay has good indicators, they are still average, for example, for mortality. This system we’re developing with the support of EUROsociAL—the health equity monitoring system—is about showing that these good results still are problematic.

And what role does EUROsociAL play in these reforms?

Already in the first EUROsociAL phase, participating in the hospital governance group allowed us to see what others were doing and how they were doing it. This gave us a vision of other models, mainly that of Spain, but also of France and Italy, etc., to then look at which could be applied in our case.
In EUROsociAL II we’ve had the opportunity to allow the health line to choose this equity monitoring system project for health policy as a pilot project. This has made it a fundamental engine of the reform, both from the conceptual discussion to the most direct advising during implementation.

And what is the next step in the Programme?

Our commitment to EUROsociAL is to spread the word about the project: there have been regional activities, meetings with countries in which we are showing how we do things, and we’re trying to transmit our enthusiasm about what it means to have a tool applicable to equity in health policies to other countries. We have some countries that are interested, such as Colombia, Costa Rica and, more recently, Peru. We are proud that EUROsociAL thinks we can transfer the methodology.

How would you characterise this South-South experience  in the programme

There’s a lot of talk about South-South Cooperation but, in reality, this cooperation requires a partner to help organize each part, because one of them knows what it’s doing and the other knows what it wants to do, but in the middle there is actually a cooperation methodology that we don’t have in Latin America. As we say in Uruguay: someone has to set the table so others can sit down to eat. EUROsociAL sets the table, generates the areas, the knowledge and the exchanges of experiences. And in the case of Uruguay and other Latin American countries that are starting to become middle-income countries, and therefore no longer just recipients of direct development cooperation efforts, EUROsociAL gives us the “know-how” of doing cooperation, the “know –how” of transferring knowledge.

And is there some other added value that you’ve received from EUROsociAL?

EUROsociAL has given us something that’s very important for us, which is human capital. In both the first and this second phase, we’ve made friends for the country and for the healthcare system through which we exchange information, publications, visits, experiences, etc., and this is very important for us.