Sections:

Consultation Event on Latin America Regional Assistance Plan 2008-11, Canning House

June 5th, 2007

On June 5th, Canning House and DFID co-hosted a consultation event on DFID’s plans for the next 3 years in the Latin America region. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (PUSS) for International Development, Gareth Thomas, opened the event by setting the scene and addressing questions from guests. There was a broad range of partners at the event, ranging from Latin American ambassadors, to academics and representatives from Non-Governmental Organisations. This wide range of perspectives ensured we had a lively discussion, and the DFID team benefited from really useful comments which will considerably strengthen the drafting of the final Regional Assistance Plan.

The meeting opened with welcoming words from The Lord Brennan QC on behalf of Canning House. After the PUSS spoke, Martin Dinham (head Europe, Middle East, South East Asia and Americas Division) invited questions and comments directly for the Minister. Some specific comments to Mr Thomas included:

Mr Victor-Bulmer Thomas warned DFID against spreading itself too thin in the region, and proposed a focused approach such as the Dutch had adopted in their work with Suriname. Specifically, he saw the role of DFID as key partners in Nicaragua and Bolivia, and questioned DFID’s role in relation to Brazil. He warned that it would be important to carefully define DFID’s value-added in Brazil vis a vis that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr Bulmer-Thomas also welcomed the proposal to work closely with the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), but questioned how strategic such a partnership with the World Bank would be in the region

Mr Michael Reid, of the Economist highlighted the key challenges of development in lower Middle Income Countries (such as Honduras, Bolivia, Haiti). He noted that there was still a challenge of basic state capacity to deliver, and called for DFID to focus its efforts on such countries. Specifically he questioned the decision to work closely with Brazil, noting that DFID’s should work with countries that needed DFID expertise.

Ms Lauren Phillips, of the Overseas Development Institute, welcomed the DFID proposal to work closely with Brazil. However, she pointed out that while the regional and global leadership of Brazil was a useful entry point for DFID engagement, it was also important to note that Brazil still has millions of poor people, and there were still significant development challenges there too.

Mr Steve Lewis of the International HIV Alliance also welcomed the emphasis on Brazil’s role globally, but reminded guests that Brazil also has an important leadership role in Latin America, especially on addressing HIV and AIDS. He also pointed out that Brazil is not the only model for successful working on HIV and AIDS- the way some small countries had approached it was also interesting, and worthy of dissemination.

Mr Colin Armstrong expressed his dismay at the proportion of DFID’s overall budget targeted at Latin America- he questioned what proportion of global spend on development was targeted at the region. He expressed the view that the small amount of resources targeted at the region was symptomatic of the UK Government’s continual ‘downgrading’ of Latin America’s importance as a partner region.

Dr Stephen Wilkinson of the International Institute for the study of Cuba suggested that DFID might consider the experience of other donor partners in facilitating transfer of skills between Cuban doctors and other needy health systems in the world. Dr Wilkinson emphasised the sustainability and value of this way of working, and called for DFID to seriously consider it as a modus operandi.

In response, the PUSS emphasised that finding will be at least maintained and probably increased, and that DFID would keep the same strong advisory presence in the region. He explained that the proposed, building on that of the current Regional Assistance Plan, enabled DFID to enhance the poverty impact of much larger, more influential investments of other partners. Specifically, he cited an example where DFID had been able to effectively improve the focus of World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank in Nicaragua by working closely with cooperatives. He explained that our commitment to working with primarily the poorest countries in the world, mostly in Africa, meant that DFID had to make some tough decisions, for example on allocations of aid to Latin America. This also partly dictated the need to work in this more strategic, indirect fashion.

The PUSS also explained that DFID had already been working with Brazil to undertake South-South experience exchange, mostly in Africa, and this, along with the increased leadership role Brazil was taking on trade and climate change convinced us that working closely with Brazil could reap large benefits.

The PUSS expressed an interest in hearing more about the Cuba skills exchange experience, and compared it to the work done by Voluntary Services Overseas in many parts of Africa. He asked that he be kept informed of progress.

After the departure of the PUSS, a short slideshow was shown entitled ‘Latin American perspectives on Development- in their own words’. This slideshow contained a number of quotes from across the region over the last 10 years, from poor people, about their own daily struggles, and their views on pathways out of poverty. Some were citations from the World Bank ‘Voices of the Poor’ studies throughout the region- others were more recent ‘real’ testimonies of valued DFID partners in the region.

This was followed by a presentation from Paul Spray, Head of the Latin America and Caribbean Department for DFID. Copies of the presentation are available upon request. This presentation explained some of the conclusions of an ODI evaluation of DFID’s work in Latin America over the last couple of years, and laid out some contextual considerations, both in the UK Government and in Latin America itself. Paul also presented the key elements and ways of working proposed in the ‘Moving Forward’ document.

To stimulate discussion, and contextualise the discussion further, the meeting benefited from the comments from two invited panellists. Clare Dixon from the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) spoke about what it means to be poor in Latin America; highlighting issues of gender, lack of access to justice, especially for mine workers, violence in daily life, and lack of impunity among powerful institutions across the region. Jos Wheatley from the Climate Change team in DFID explained how DFID is currently working on climate change mitigation and adaptation, and specifically how DFID seeks to link initiatives and policies at country level with global initiatives and agreements.

There then followed an open discussion, where participants highlighted specific concerns and queries.

Comments made, and questions raised are summarised as follows;

Climate change

Climate change is an area with many complex angles- glacial melt in the Andes being just one very important aspect. It will be difficult with limited resources to define what specific angle/ set of partners to focus on. How will DFID go about deciding on focus areas?

There is good evidence that building micro-dams is an important way to protect the vulnerable from the effects of climate change, including flooding. Could DFID consider investing in micro-dams throughout the region?

Civil society can play an important role in climate change in the region. However, there are big challenges of coordination, defining what needs to be done, etc. Could DFID consider supporting a pooled civil society fund for climate change- to make linkages and create space for more effective dialogue with governments? This could be an important complement to partnering with Brazil.

Given the similarity of circumstances in climate change adaptation that are shared between small vulnerable countries in Central America and the Caribbean, what are the chances of linking DFID’s work in these two regions on disaster risk reduction?

A key challenge facing the region- and one which DFID should be addressing- is how to make global or regional facilities- for example on climate change- relevant for tangible investments, or actors on the ground.

Any discussion of poverty and climate change in Latin America will inevitably lead to the issue of water stress. How will DFID address water stress in its plans?

Choice of geographical partners

Mexico presents some interesting lessons for global development- it is often considered one of the laboratories of the region. How will DFID capitalise on these important development lessons emerging from Mexico in the way it plans to in Brazil?

Is DFID considering working more on Haiti as part of the Regional Assistance plan?

It is welcomed that DFID sees the global and regional role of Brazil in development processes. But has DFID considered other regional ‘drivers’? Why not engage in wider processes and partners who are often just as influential as Brazil?

DFID’s engagement with Brazil has been largely based on the good work of the previous bilateral programme, for example on race and gender. How can DFID re-orient itself to work more strategically on global issues?

Governance

DFID are often considered pioneers of politics and development. In Latin America, has DFID been able to influence the World Bank and IADB to take politics more seriously in their work?

World Bank and Brazil in particular have always encouraged mining as an important economic activity. But mining has very negative consequences for communities involved- why has DFID not explicitly addressed this through its partnerships?

The decision to work directly on governance and democracy is quite questionable- this is probably not DFID’s comparative advantage and is best left to governments. Nor is the decision to work with World Bank and IADB wise. Why don’t you invest in a number of small-scale projects that will help farmers and other rural poor?

Other issues

In the consultation note ‘Moving Forward’, indigenous peoples are notable by their absence. How will DFID explicitly address the issues of indigenous people being unable to exercise their rights in this new RAP?

What is the role of educational institutions in the implementation of DFID’s plans in Latin America?

The consultation note is very vague on HIV and AIDS. How exactly will DFID work on HIV and AIDS in Latin America?

There has been no mention of gender in the consultation note or the discussion. How will the Latin America RAP meet DFID’s global commitments to mainstreaming and championing gender?

How will this new RAP address the economic consequences of the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America, as well as the implementation of CAFTA? There are many social issues around it that we need to address to protect the poor.

Partnerships ad ways of working

How does DFID see the European Commission- and strategic member stages such as Spain and Portugal- as partners in Latin America? How will DFID work with these important actors over the next 3 years?

The decision to work with the Banks is ill-advised. The Banks, by definition, are in competition and are interested only in lending. This means it’s very difficult for grassroots partners such as NGO’s to access their resources and implement programmes. IFI money never reaches the poorest- how will this strategy help DFID address the key issues of, for example, street children.

The consultation note makes reference of working on HIV and AIDS through a silent partnership. But there are grave concerns with that- silent partnerships often imply a decline in commitment, with fewer staff dedicated to learning the lessons over time. On HIV in Latin America, it would be a real shame to allow the important work that has gone before this to die out slowly like this.

The evaluation found that working on intensive processes through local staff in country is the most effective means of influencing the international financial institutions. It is acknowledged that it’s a very staff intensive way of working- but it has demonstrated its effectiveness. How, then, can DFID justify reducing overall staff numbers in Latin America, if the proposed approach of this RAP will follow the first one?

There wasn’t time to address all the questions posed during the meeting. Paul Spray would be happy to follow-up on specific queries and concerns raised bilaterally- he can be reached at p-spray@dfid.gov.uk.

DFID greatly appreciates the enthusiastic input of all participants at the consultation event. We will carefully consider all of the comments expressed at the meeting, and sent to us individually. If you have not had a chance to comment, or you feel your point has not been well-enough captured, there’s still time to feed into the process. Please send additional comments to RAP-LatinAmerica@dfid.gov.uk.

Last updated: 12 June 2007