EL BLOG DE LA FIIAPP. Cooperación Española

Individuals are affected differently by COVID-19. And it does not affect all territories to the same extent. Almost 60% of the population of Central America lives in urban areas, many of which are unplanned, according to UN-Habitat estimates. Neighbourhoods with high degrees of overcrowding and that are scattered, poorly connected and with hardly any services and infrastructures whose inhabitants have seen their vulnerability increased due to the pandemic. Specifically, the impact on informal settlements has been greater due to the inaccessibility of drinking water for proper sanitation, overcrowding in homes and the difficulty of access to health services. The pandemic has also had significant negative effects on the family economy since many people, mainly women, who live in settlements work informally. According to data from the International Labour Organization, 126 million women work informally in Latin America and the Caribbean. This represents almost 50% of the region’s female population. 

“Since the pandemic began, the situation in the neighbourhood has been chaotic because we live very close to each other and up to 15 people live in very small houses. In my house, which has three rooms, there were three of us and now there are eight because my daughter and my grandchildren have had to come to live with us.  I depend on a pension that the government gives me because of my disability, but it is very small”, Alicia Bremes explains to us from Pueblo Nuevo, a neighbourhood in the Pavas district of San José, Costa Rica. In August 2020, the districts of Pavas and Uruca together made up more than 15% of the entire country’s active COVID cases. 

“How are we going to wash our hands if we don’t have access to water? Or how are we going to disinfect ourselves with gel if the price is so high?” laments Bremes, who has suffered the consequences of the pandemic at home. “One of my sons fixes cell phones and has been out of work for many months. I have another son with a disability who used to go to a psychiatric workshop every day and has suffered a lot because he no longer had anywhere to go. As he was nearly always out in the street, he caught COVID, suffered a very high temperature and had great difficulty in breathing, but recovered. But I have many neighbours, of all ages, who have passed away”, she says. 

As Alicia Bremes explains, the situation in the poorer neighbourhoods is one of extreme vulnerability. “Many mothers in the neighbourhood had been working as cleaners in homes and were fired due to the pandemic. COVID has also reduced the street vending on which many families depend to be able to eat on a daily basis”, she says. Therefore, it is essential to focus on the needs of the most vulnerable groups and to try to cushion the effects of the pandemic that has quickly become a socio-economic as well as a health crisis. 

In this context, the Council for Social Integration (CIS) asked the Secretariat for Central American Social Integration (SISCA), with the support of the Programme EUROsociAL+ of theEuropean Union, managed by FIIAPP, IILA and Expertise France, and in partnership with agencies and programmes of the United Nations, FAO, ILO and UN HABITAT, to prepare a “Recovery, Social Reconstruction and Resilience Plan for Central America and the Dominican Republic”. The Plan is a common regional roadmap and is made up of a series of strategic projects articulated around three axes of intervention: social protection, employment and sustainable urban development. 

The Plan, which has been endorsed by the Councils of Ministers of Labour, Housing and Human Settlements of Central America and the Dominican Republic, focuses its efforts on reducing poverty and socio-spatial inequality, the most obvious territorial expression of which are the informal settlements, which are estimated to make up 29% of the Central American urban population. Despite national efforts over the last 15 years to reduce the population living in informal settlements, many people continue to live in this situation. In addition, there are risks derived from climate change, which exposes a growing number of inhabitants to the effects of extreme weather events such as hurricanes or landslides. 

There is an urgent need to broaden our view and think of the neighbourhood as the environment that enables us to implement basic rights within the city, for which we will have to attend not only to the provision of housing, but also to ensure that these houses have the necessary infrastructures, services and facilities. 

There are still many challenges ahead in order to turn the face of poverty and inequality into one of progress without leaving anyone behind. For this reason, additional financial resources must be urgently found for the implementation of the Recovery, Social Reconstruction and Resilience Plan, an instrument that will mitigate the effects of the pandemic and shape societies that are more resilient, socially more just and egalitarian and environmentally more sustainable. 

Cristina Fernández, Senior Town Planning Architect of EUROsociAL+ and collaborator with Fundemuca 

When approaching a public policy evaluation, one of the first commonly accepted methodological steps is to analyse the logic of the intervention: How was the policy designed? Does a clear relationship exist between your objectives (explicit or implicit) and your results, activities and outcomes, and among all the interlinking elements?

To address this complex situation, governments have adopted extremely different measures that affect very diverse sectors of society: health, the labour market, housing, mobility, taxation, and so on.

But what are their specific, general, medium, short, long-term objectives? In principle, we might think that the main objective would be to save as many human lives as possible, to prevent the collapse of the health system, to enable the population to keep its rights and purchasing power. However, to make a rigorous, exhaustive assessment, we need to establish clear goals against which to measure progress, achievements and failures. Against which criteria can the adopted measures be evaluated to determine their effectiveness, that is to say, against their capacity to achieve the proposed goals?

“Against which criteria can the adopted measures be evaluated to determine their effectiveness?”

 Of course, this leads to complex and politically and socially sensitive questions: What is the acceptable goal in terms of loss of human life? How many (non-temporary) unemployed people are acceptable? How many small and medium-sized companies can be expected to disappear? These are just a few examples.

In order to carry out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the adopted measures, we therefore need out governments to:

-Clearly define existing and potential social problems.

– Based on these, establish a Contingency Plan, ideally, inserted into the Decree on the Declaration of the State of Alarm (so that it forms part of the Legal System), with a set of approved measures that address the objectives in a clear manner, also defining process and result indicators for monitoring their evolution.

-Establish new measures to build a coherent master plan to achieve the objectives defined.

-Design a thorough monitoring system with flexibility to modify measures based on the results obtained and the evidence collected.

A mature society, the vast majority of which is behaving impeccably and following the recommendations deserves to know the parameters used by institutions to manage the situation for subsequent evaluation.

If we consider an impact analysis in the strict sense, the difficulty lies in the absence of a counterfactual argument: What would have happened if no measures had been adopted rather than taking this course of action? What would have happened if other measures had been taken or had been taken earlier? Which of the possible approaches would be most successful to deal with the crisis?

Every day and every hour that goes by, data and figures are being generated for drawing graphs and compiling statistics that evolve rapidly and are ever changing as they are analysed by country, by region and by continent. They provide valuable information and reveal developments on which to build hypotheses to test.

In view of the data and the context, countries have adopted different solutions, but the existence of too many variables that are difficult to control (strength of health systems, baseline citizen health, population pyramid, cultural habits, life expectancy, etc.), are preventing a comparative analysis with the necessary rigour to draw robust conclusions.  However, we do have similar previous experiences that can give us some analysis guidelines.

“The existence of too many variables that are difficult to control is preventing a comparative analysis with the rigour necessary to draw robust conclusions”

 Experts in the field have mentioned that during the SARS (2003) and influenza A (2009) crises, there was a breakthrough in research and the fight against these diseases. It is also evident that as the outbreaks were controlled and the emergency ended, the funds to continue research and development of different drugs either dried up or were drastically reduced, and these lines of work stopped. The work was unfinished. Unfortunately, we did not use those earlier crisis to slow the current pandemic earlier and better.

One of the benefits of evaluating public policies can be the lessons learned. Hopefully an ex post evaluation of the current crisis will teach us lessons that were previously lacking and we will use them to build strengths that, without being aware of it, we are all building these days.

The EVALÚA Project is attending to the new priorities of partner institutions to create a baseline that will serve as a reference point for  subsequent evaluation of current actions, with a comparative approach at the regional level.