Regional Centre LAC
As democratic governance expands downwards into sub-national governments young people have a tremendous potential and energy to promote human development and expand opportunities. There is a reemerging effort to understand the role of youth in shaping policies that affect their lives. Providing youth a voice to influence national and sub-national policy and budgets, as human development agents, has both opportunities and challenges. Political participation is a basic and substantive human right and an important dimension of citizenship, as clearly stated in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the current dynamics and state of democratic governance in many countries, in terms of its quality related to equitable prosperity, citizen security and participation, have prompted a number of international and national efforts to re-focus their attention on youth political participation. Political participation and democratic governance have become central to
the recent discussions of human development and governance specialists, practitioners and the public at large. Addressed varyingly under civil society, social capital, citizen’s democracy, deliberation, protest politics and governance, this
topic has lent renewed interest to a key question of how to ensure in democratic governance the effective involvement of citizens in the life and decision-making of their social and political communities. When thinking about the participation of young people in contemporary democratic governance, one finds a certain paradox. In theory, the spaces for youth involvement in political and,
more broadly, in public policy life appear to be more numerous than ever. However, there is mixed evidence as whether these opportunities have resulted in more widespread and effective participation of young people. It is common to read that youth political and policy involvement is not optimal, as evidenced by decreasing levels of youth participation in elections, political parties and civil/community organizations. This view offers a gloomy assessment, as it focuses on a scenario that young people are turning their backs on democratic governance. Other more optimistic analysis focus on the new emerging dynamics of youth political participation, that steers away from more conventional venues and is closer to analyzing youth political and policy engagement as an innovative phenomena. For example, many recent studies on social media show that contrary to the traditional notion of a technological digital divide, substantial numbers of young Continue next page
people across racial and ethnic groups in many countries are engaging in participatory politics — in actions such as starting a political group online, circulating a blog about a political issue, and/or forwarding political videos to friends. Like more conventional political actions, these new forms address issues of public policy. These new forms of youth participation are more interactive and have immediate outcomes, they are peer-based, and do not necessarily involve formal institutions. The faster digital communication platforms facilitate and expand opportunities for young people to participate not only at national levels of governance, but practically any level, as such potentially erasing any existing political and/or administrative divisions. These two assessments presented above on youth political participation, are probably reflecting two extremes of a much more complex and diverse political process. Nonetheless, these two assessments help to identify key issues in relation to understanding the opportunities and challenges of youth political participation in Latin America and the Caribbean today in the context of the dynamics of democratic governance. In practice, the two described analytical frameworks above, are in fact partial and do not necessarily reflect the underlying complexity of what motivates political participation in young people. The conventional argument is that since the youth condition can be interpreted as transitory, youth political participation cannot be considered an end in itself. The youth condition
does not necessarily structure political participation or constitute actors and political projects. There are specificities of youth political participation that need to be identified and analyzed. In fact, practice shows that youth get involved and/or participate in broader ways within the context and processes of democratic governance. As such, it is important to identify what motivates youth to participate, and how and where do they participate. Recently as part of a Workshop on Social Audit for Young Caribbean
Leaders and Entrepreneurs organized by the UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in Panama and the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean in New York, a survey on democratic values was applied to the participants representing 23 Youth Organizations of 13 countries. An interesting finding emerged from the responses to questions related to youth participation. For example, despite the fact that 88% of respondents indicated a desire to participate, the majority (53%) of the participants felt there were few opportunities to do so. Similarly, some 47% of respondents (the majority) felt that youth do not
participate as citizens because of a lack of resources, while 31% felt that youth had other better alternatives than participating as citizens through activities that took less effort and offered greater benefits. In spite of a certain level of skepticism about opportunities for participation, respondents indicated that they were active in several activities in their countries (for example, charity/voluntary work, community development, cultural, religious and sports). According to the results of the survey, the young leaders were active in more than one activity. Interestingly, despite their involvement in a variety of activities, and the fact that a totality of respondents said it was important to vote in elections, most indicated low to medium levels of participation in political parties (81%) and two-thirds (59%) said they participate moderately in influencing public policy. Another interesting finding was that a majority of respondents considered themselves group-oriented (91%) and were interested in innovation (97%). When both sets of choices are correlated, the results showed that all those who were predisposed to collective or group action were also predisposed to innovative objectives. There is emerging evidence that shows that many young people are increasingly avoiding traditional forms of political involvement, such as voting and political party membership, and instead turning to more direct and innovative mechanisms such as volunteerism, Continue next page
cultural and artistic expression, sports and social audit exercises. Despite evidence that young people may have low levels of electoral participation and party membership, there is little understanding of whether this is due to economic and social conditions or reflects dilemmas of democratic governance. As active political participation plays a vital role in the improvement of both human development and democratic governance, this represents an important gap in knowledge. As such, when analyzing youth participation in terms of opportunities and challenges, it may be as important to focus on the broader inputs they bring to democratic governance, individually or collectively, rather than only in the formal aspects of democratic governance. It may also be important to understand how youth are able to provide inputs, and under what condition. That is, the extent to which young people perceived democratic governance institutions are open to their concerns and demands, interests and involvement, and to what extent their engagement and participation depend on whether or not they see their voice reflected in the political process and its results. Conversely, the dynamic of democratic governance also challenges young people to recognize, understand and engage institutions and decision-making processes through their own participation, even if topics, processes and results are not always what they expect. Thus, youth political participation requires permanent accessibility, transparency and accountability on the part of democratic institutions, but also
sustained engagement on the part of young people. Also, it requires sustained engagement on the part of democratic institutions and decisionmaking processes to young people, but also strategies on the part of
youth to hold their governments accountable. These contrasting perspectives may indicate a need to better understand these relationships. Moreover, an array of participatory expressions among youth is taking roots in the reality of democratic governance in the Twentieth First Century, where the so- called “glocalized” platform is generating new modalities of expression and participation that are more appealing and natural to young people than those they inherited from their parents and grandparents. Information, communication and technology have not only expanded the participatory space, but have also exposed youth to “glocal” issues that seem to have appeal in their political communities. This perspective points to an apparent inadequacy of traditional democratic governance participatory arrangements for the youth of today. But it can also be pointing to another nuance that involves strong tendencies towards individualism among young people, at
the expense of a more conventional view of democratic governance that is about collective action and collaboration. Youth might see politics and policy through a prism that emphasizes more practice over power, and thus their reaction is less institutionalized and more individualized. However, a key question remains in terms of how these new forms of youth political participation relate to more conventional democratic governance institutions and actors. The analysis of youth political participation has been constrained by pre-conceived, adult-oriented, often narrow and formalistic conceptualization of politics as institutionalized processes of decision making, and thus of participation. Democratic governance places a more encompassing framework of politics as a means to enhance the public policy process, and offers a broad array of tools, contexts, and forms of expressions that constitute the public engagement of young people. Thus reviewing, some of the fundamental assumptions, concepts and approaches to youth political participation are timely and necessary to understand opportunities and challenges.
To comment on this article, please click on the Teamworks Logo
teamworks
Indigenous Government and Provision of Services in Indigenous Municipalities in the State of Chiapas, Mexico Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor UNDP Mexico, 2012
Open Data: A New Challenge for Governments in the Region Gastón Concha and Alejandra Naser Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES), 2012
This publication shows the results of a research that was done for the United Nations Development Programme´s Bureau for Development Policy of (BDP/DGG) to better understand and have an in-depth analysis of the element that converge in this context. This publication “Indigenous Government and Provision of Services in Indigenous Municipalities in the State of Chiapas,” takes into account the local, state and national institutional structures, and also analyzes all aspects of governance in indigenous territories (indigenous rights, self-determination, normative indigenous systems, etc.). The document contains two parts: the first is the assessment of service provision in 3 municipalities in Chiapas, as well as the indigenous Governance. The second addresses a proposal to enhance and improve the effectiveness of these services. [To download click here]
This document presents good practices that have been developed in some countries of the world along with a proposal for a methodology to measure the results of the establishment of an Open Data Policy. The intention is to motivate decision makers in governments regarding the enormous changes that this new paradigm is bringing for citizens. Also to show the new challenges that this new wave of change is bringing, which breaks with the trajectory that the evolution of electronic or digital government has had until now. The document shows how open data is broadening its scope to reach beyond the simplification of paperwork, towards more transparency in information regarding government administration. [To download click here]
Towards Climate Finance Transparency Maya Forstater with Rachel Rank Aidinfo and Publish What You Fund, 2012
How Close Is Your Government to Its People? Worldwide Indicators on Localization and Decentralization Maksym Ivanyna and Anwar Shah The World Bank, 2012
This paper maps the broad landscape of funding to enable adaptation and mitigation of climate change, and the systems for monitoring it. These include systems which label the money as “aid” as well as those that have been developed to assess climate finance specifically. This paper seeks to provide a background and framework on transparency and reporting that makes sense to both those focused on tracking climate finance and improving aid transparency. Greater transparency can help to reduce the high transaction costs, inefficiencies and fragmentation associated with multiple tracking systems covering overlapping actors, objectives, activities and financing streams. The document proposes a set of recommendations which would offer a pathway towards appropriate convergence around a more coherent set of tools for publishing and sharing data, while maintaining the proper role of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in agreeing definitions and setting the terms for Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of action against international climate finance commitments. A key lesson from aid transparency is that while high quality statistics are crucial, so too is detailed, accessible and timely information to meet the needs of different information users. [To download click here]
This paper is intended to provide an impact assessment of the last three decades of silent revolution on moving governments closer to people to establish fair, accountable, incorruptible and responsive governance. To accomplish this, a unique data set is constructed for 182 countries by compiling data from a wide variety of sources to examine success toward decentralized decision making across the globe. An important feature of this data set is that, for comparative purposes, it measures government decision making at the local level rather than at the sub-national levels used in the existing literature. The data are used to rank countries on political, fiscal and administrative dimensions of decentralization and localization. These sub-indexes are aggregated and adjusted for heterogeneity to develop an overall ranking of countries on the closeness of their government to the people. The resulting rankings provide a useful explanation of the Arab Spring and other recent political movements and waves of dissatisfaction with governance around the world. [To download click here]
The 2012 UN report “From Transition to Transformation: Sustainable and Inclusive Development in Europe and Central Asia” highlights that despite growth in Gross Domestic Product over the past decade, the region has witnessed a deterioration of the social conditions of vulnerable segments of its population, widening of the income gaps between rich and poor as well as a growing army of young unemployed people. Growing inequalities are found in the access to health, housing and education. Prevailing gender inequality in the region has contributed to the growing inequalities in both economic and social sectors. Gender stereotypes keep hampering a better use of men and women’s potentials that could increase economic growth, reduce poverty, and enhance social well-being of all. Major challenges towards achievement of gender equality such as equal access of women and men to economic resources, including equal pay, and equal access to the decision-making positions both at local and national levels impede the transformation process towards sustainable and inclusive societies. Implementing sustainable development at the local level requires a certain level of devolution of authority to local governments so that they are empowered to work with their community on addressing priority issues, and yet very few countries in the former Soviet Union have taken significant steps towards decentralization. In the countries of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, decentralization exists from the legal perspective, but local governments are still severely constrained by their limited staff professionalization and in many cases by the very small population sizes of the jurisdictions, known as fragmentation. This inhibits their ability to specify policy
goals, introduce efficient and computerized operations or manage land use, physical planning and investment efficiently. The experience of Eastern Europe shows that four strategic issues need to be incorporated into sustainable local development programming. These are fostering political will and right incentives, creating capacity for collective action, supporting multilevel governance and scaling up, and enabling partnerships and inter-territorial cooperation. The last two in particular are key elements to any local development strategy. Multilevel governance implies a flexible and participatory form of governance which allows different levels of government to participate in the decision making processes. This should be mutual strengthening of the institutions involved, and not create unhealthy competition. Multilevel governance requires a certain level of decentralization or subsidiarity (meaning that policy is created and applied at the most appropriate level), including sufficient financial independence of the local governments. Multilevel governance is another way of saying that a bottom-up approach needs to be combined with a top-down approach to achieve “policy coordination, budget synchronization and a shared commitment.”1 Scaling up refers to expanding, adapting and sustaining successful policies, programmes and projects on different places and over time to reach a greater number of people. Continue next page
Scaling up may refer to a horizontal process, which extends the benefits of the programme to a greater number of people, as well as to a vertical process, which implies helping building an institutional capacity and policy framework for a broader effect. One way to scale up local development project results is through replication of activities using project funding. A more effective way, however, is to use multilevel governance to harness political and financial support from higher levels of government to address the issue in cooperation and coordination with local government. Sustainable development will require new policies and new allocation of investment funds; the best manner for achieving this is to integrate a strategy for multilevel governance into the program approach. According to the UN Guidance Note: Scaling Up Support for Local Development for MDG Achievement, the success of the scaling up can be illustrated through the following:2 1. Empowered communities and local governments, enabled to demand and address their own development priorities. 2. Strong national-local connections, feedback and linkages. 3. Improves accountability systems for service delivery and access to information. 4. Strengthened capacities of local governments and service delivery providers. Also, Horizontal Integration, through partnerships and intra-territorial cooperation can also be an important pillar
of sustainable local development in particular aimed at rural areas or secondary cities. Furthermore, the involvement of the private sector in the formulation and implementation of local or regional development strategies is essential. There are economic, social and ecological arguments for coordinating decision-making among groups of regional or local governments, with the most common form perhaps between an urban area and its hinterlands. The economic argument follows from regional economic geography. Some joint economic development districts will share tax revenues among the jurisdictions to be used for infrastructure investments that address their joint issues. Others have joint investment promotion strategies. Typical among the social reasons to cooperate is the provision of social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals as rural areas may neither have the resources to fund these, nor the level of demand for such services that require specialized expertise. The ecological argument for such cooperation rests in natural boundaries for watersheds and environmental externalities such as air pollution or contamination of water resources from mining and industrial activities. Protecting migration routes of animals is another area in which jurisdictions should cooperate. The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is an opportunity for municipalities, regions and states to establish cross-border, transnational or interregional cooperation with similar players of another member state and to fulfill their common objectives this way. The EGTC Continue next page
is the first legal instrument of the European Union that provides legal personality and frame to the cooperation of European municipalities and regions and the efficient use of Union grants. In 2006 the Committee of Regions initiated the creation of a new European legal instrument, the EGTC to facilitate the cooperation of local players and the more efficient use of Union sources. The aim of the Grouping is to follow a non-distinction policy: local actors must have equal opportunities on national and cross-border level as well. It is a legal entity, it has its own budget, it employs people and it can sign agreements. Some Territorial Cooperation projects have created:
Cross-border hospital Joint strategies on spatial planning, socioeconomic development, employment, tourism etc. Collaboration on water treatment plans for rivers Cross-border education, sports events, cultural events
Within UNDP, concerted efforts have recently focused on how local development should be integrated with the participatory processes, institutional capacity development, and decentralization policy work happening under the local governance portfolio. The approach is being analyzed further in a forthcoming Handbook for Sustainable Local Development Programming being produced in our region, and it is compatible with the new (now being elaborated) UNDP Strategy for Integrated Local Governance and Local Development. Sustainable local development is a systemic and a crosspractice endeavor, necessarily bearing certain ramifications to those who are involved to make sure that the initiatives are managed in a holistic manner. We hope aspects of the Easter European experience can provide inputs and lesson to promote it.
Inter-municipal cooperation can take more or less complex forms. The most commonly used types of intermunicipal cooperation arrangements are:
Joint service production (joint agreements)
Notes
Joint (shared) administration Selling and buying of services (service agreements) Joint planning and development Joint funding
1
Committee of the Regions. (2012). Delivering on the Europe 2020 Strategy: Handbook for Local and Regional Authorities.
2
United Nations. Guidance Note: Scaling Up Support for Local Development for MDG Achievement
*Policy Specialist, UNDP Europe and the CIS, Bratislava Regional Centre
The Democratic Governance Practice Area of the United Nations Development Programme´s (UNDP) Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Regional Office for Central America and the Caribbean of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) organized the First Regional Workshop: “From the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) to AntiCorruption Policies in Latin America,” was held in Panama City on August 23rd and 24th.
The rich regional experience of the last few years shared by the workshop participants, helped the goal of exchanging national anti-corruption policy experiences institutional and legal frameworks related to preventive measures to fight against corruption. In fact, government officials, civil society representatives and UNDP and UNODC practitioners, with the support of experts, who facilitated the workshop, were able to analyze national progress through the prescriptions of the UNCAC.
It is worth noting that the UNCAC entails the recognition, at the global level, of the negative consequences of corruption, as manifested in the erosion of government institutions and the insufficient allocation of resources. These entails an obvious obstacle to equitable human development processes. The UNCAC is broad and covers aspects of prevention and criminalization, dedicates several articles to international cooperation and anticipates the recovery of assets. It is a valuable tool that allows the eventual re-allocation of resources that have been obtained illegally. Following the lead of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development´s (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption of the Organization of American States (OAS), the need to implement a mechanism for follow up for the UNCAC was recognized to be of great importance at the First Conference of States Parties in 2006 and was later approved as a Review Mechanism. Since the UNCAC is binding, the Review Mechanism provides the opportunity to show the progress that has been made in the implementation through national revision processes while, at the same time, providing an opportunity to involve government, academic and private sector institutions as well as civil society organizations in discussions about the need for legal and institutional change and reform.
The main aspects of the discussion covered the Review Mechanism, specifically Chapter II, which includes policies and practices to prevent corruption, anti-corruption prevention bodies, codes of ethic/conduct for public officials, access to public information and civil society participation, and Chapter IV, which is dedicated to aspects of International Cooperation. A significant portion of the workshop was allocated to the analysis of the existence, the design, the scope and the challenges of anticorruption policies as well as the importance of the access to public information as a policy to prevent corruption. Key questions were: What makes an anti-corruption policy effective and sustainable? What still needs to be done, and taking into consideration the current experiences with anti-corruption policies in Latin America, and current opportunities? These and other similar questions were an important part of the deliberations during the workshop. Additionally, the role of UNDP and UNODC supporting national efforts to implement the UNCAC were analyzed. What follows are key aspects and consensus issues that were covered throughout the Workshop. The Review Mechanism is a useful tool not only to monitor the fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the States Parties, but also because it creates an opportunity to strengthen national anti-corruption policies. In terms of Continue next page
publicity and promotion of the theme and on-site visits, the mandatory inclusion of both would have been desirable. States do not have major impediments to complete national reports. On the other hand, advances in the implementation of the UNCAC are not uniform throughout the region. In most cases, the States have established some policies to prevent corruption – sometimes as part of other policies – and they have established specialized agencies to implement them. However, even though that several countries have experiences in the design and implementation of anti-corruption policies, these are not encompassing of all public sector areas. Similarly, the level of institutional development of these specialized anti-corruption agencies. In some cases, their functional and budgetary autonomy is not guaranteed, thereby limiting the sustainability and independence necessary to fulfill their assigned functions. The effectiveness of the implementation of anticorruption policies was broadly discussed and there was agreement about the need to use indicators to measure the advance and impact of the measures that have been adopted. The existence of legal and institutional frameworks to guarantee access to public information, values education, transparency and accountability are some of the key elements that should be considered when evaluating the results of anti-corruption policies. Some countries have invested significant financial resources in campaigns to promote transparency in public administration and the fight against public and private sector corruption. However, there was no agreement as to what or how much these activities have achieved. Finally, progress in the classification of crimes according to the international standards set in the UNCAC has also been diverse. Some countries have including behaviors such as bribing national and international public officials, money laundering, misappropriation of funds, etc., as
criminal offenses in their legislations. In other cases, it is difficult to meet international standards due to constitutional and/or legal restrictions. At any rate, the UNCAC offers to the State Parties the possibility of requesting technical assistance with national implementation and the evaluation of results. It is here where the United Nations System (UNS), through its different specialized agencies, particularly UNDP and UNODC, has the capacity to contribute to national efforts to honor international commitments. The contribution of UNDP in this area is derived from the mandate to support countries in their efforts to overcome the obstacles to human development, including the provision of technical assistance to strengthen capacities within the framework of democratic governance. In this, UNODC and UNDP play complementary roles. While UNODC focuses on intergovernmental processes and the enforcement of the Convention, UNDP emphasizes prevention by means of development. The scourge of corruption weakens democratic governance, has a disproportionate impact on already vulnerable groups and hinders the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The Rio +20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development produced a document adopted by the States Parties that affirmed that “...national and international corruption and the illicit flow of funds inhibits effective mobilization of resources and diverts funds from development.” With the adoption of this document, the State Parties committed themselves to “combat corruption in all of its manifestations,” recognizing that “strong institutions at all levels are necessary.” In this context, the organization of workshops to share experiences, technical assistance, South-South cooperation and the promotion of expert networks, could be effective means to support countries in their fight against corruption.
*Coordinator, Democratic Governance Practice Area, UNDP-Argentina.
I'm a City Changer
I'm a City Changer is a worldwide campaign with the aim of sensitizing and creating awareness among citizens on urban issues to achieve better cities and better life fostering proper sustainable urban development through six key core components: a) Resilient City: to prepare cities for change, managing adversity, resilience and take action to reduce risk; b) Green City: to build environmentally sound and carbon efficient cities; c) Safe and healthy city: to make cities safer and healthier; d) Inclusive city: to build socially inclusive, accessible, pro-poor, equitable and gender sensitive cities; e) Planned City: to plan the cities of tomorrow for sustainable decision-making processes; and f) Productive City: to make cities more efficient and better places to ensure decent work. The website allows share and spread individual, corporate and public initiatives that improve the live in cities. To date, the website has over 140 stories around the word, and also has a Blog which the city changers can post news, events and topics to discuss.
We are pleased to welcome Adriana Ballestín who since September has incorporated to the Democratic Governance Team in the Regional Centre. Adriana was born in Valencia, Spain, and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law and Political Science, and a Master degree in Development and International Cooperation. Local governments and decentralized aid have been part of her professional experience in last years. She made an internship in the Secretariat of a City Council of Manises (Valencia-Spain) and worked as a technical assistant in project management in the International and Cooperation Area of the Generalitat Valenciana. Through these experiences she gained more knowledge in the public sector and in the development field. Additionally, she has experience in the private sector as a lawyer in civil, commercial and banking law.
According to the Word´s Bank Report What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management, which analyzes the state of municipal solid waste around the world (SMW), the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) will rise from the current 1.3 billion tons/year to 2.2 billion tons/year in 2025, this represents a significant increase in per capita waste generation rates, from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per person per day in the next fifteen years, with much of the increase coming in rapidly growing cities in developing countries. It estimates that the annual cost of solid waste management is projected to rise from the current $205 billion to $375 billion, with cost increasing most severely in low income countries. In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean Region, the total amount of waste generated per year is 160 million tons, with per capita values ranging from 0.1 to 14 kg/capita/day, and an average of 1.1 kg/capita/day. The largest per capita solid waste generation rates are found in the islands of the Caribbean.
Central America and Dominican Republic Forum for Transparency, October 10th and 11th, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Democratic Governance Community of Practice, October 16-18, Distrito Federal, Mexico. Fifth UNDP Global Anti-Corruption Community of Practice. November 5-6, Brasilia, Brazil. 15th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2012. November 7-10, Brasilia, Brazil. “Governance and Accountability in the Water Sector,” Regional Workshop. November, Panama City, Panama. Inter-Agency Training on the United Nations Convention against Corruption, December, Panama City, Panama.
http://www.regionalcentrelac-undp.org/en/