ASSESSMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DONOR COORDINATION IN EL SALVADOR ASSESSMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DONOR COORDINATION IN EL SALVADOR
Submitted by:
Randal Joy Thompson, PhD, Team Leader Gladys Soler, Communications Specialist Rosa Vargas, GIS Specialist Luis Castellanos, GIS Specialist
USAID Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Initiative Calle Circunvalación #261 Colonia San Benito San Salvador, El Salvador Tel: (503) 2423-7486
Cover Page: CEO of Agro-América, Fernando Bolaños, leads panel discussion with Johanna Hill Dutriz, Managing Partner of Salvadoran Exports; Diego Foseco, independent journalist; and Claudia Salmerón, Executive Director of Leadership Initiative of Central America, at the Central America Donors Forum held in Panama in October 2017. Source: Agro-América (www. Agro-América.com).
DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i METHODOLOGY ...... i FINDINGS I MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ii I.0 ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS ...... 1 1.1 ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ...... 1 I. 2 ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS ...... 1 2.0 ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND ...... 2 2.1 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND NEED FOR COOPERATION ...... 2 2.2 AID EFFECTIVENESS ...... 2 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 4 4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6 4.1 AQ 1: FORMAL OR INFORMAL INTERNATIONAL DONOR COORDINATION FRAMEWORKS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 6 4.2 AQ 2: REASONS FOR LACK OF DONOR COORDINATION ...... 17 4.3 AQ 3: DONORS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN ASSISTING EL SALVADOR WITH THE LINES OF ACTIONS OF A4P AND PESS ...... 17 4.4 AQ 4: PESS MUNICIPALITIES AND SECTORS IN WHICH DONORS ARE INVESTING RESOURCES AND WHERE THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR LEVERAGE WITH USAID ...... 17 4.5 AQ 5: PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF OTHER DONORS ABOUT CONDUCTING JOINT EVALUATIONS OF PROJECTS ...... 28 4.6 AQ 6: ORGANIZATIONS, DONOR COUNTRIES, AND SSC COUNTRIES WORKING WITHIN A TRILATERAL COOPERATION FRAMEWORK IN EL SALVADOR ...... 28 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 29 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 30 7.0 ANNEXES ...... 32 ANNEX A: REFERENCES AND REVIEW MATRIX OF DOCUMENTS...... 33 ANNEX B: THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION 2016 ASSESSMENT OF EL SALVADOR ...... 40 ANNEX C: LIST OF KEY DONOR PROJECTS ...... 50 ANNEX D: MAPS OF KEY DONOR PROJECTS ...... 83 ANNEX E: COMPARATIVE TABLE OF DONORS, SECTORS, AND MUNICIPALITIES ...... 118
TABLES Table 1: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ...... iii Table 2: Global Partnership Indicators and Their Measures ...... 3 Table 3: Donors in the GOES National Councils ...... 8 Table 4: Technical Secretaries of in the GOES National Councils ...... 9 Table 5: AECID ...... 17 Table 6: GIZ ...... 18 Table 7: EU ...... 18 Table 8: JICA ...... 19 Table 9: KOICA ...... 20 Table 10: Embassy of Taiwan ...... 20 Table 11: USAID ...... 21 Table 12: Summary of Major Documents Reviewed ...... 35 Table 13: EU Projects in El Salvador ...... 51 Table 14: AECID Projects in El Salvador ...... 57 Table 15: GIZ Projects in El Salvador ...... 61 Table 16: JICA Projects in El Salvador ...... 63 Table 17: Embassy of Taiwan Projects in El Salvador ...... 66 Table 18: KOICA Projects in El Salvador ...... 68 Table 19 AICS Projects in El Salvador ...... 69 Table 20: UN Projects in El Salvador ...... 72 Table 21: USAID Projects in El Salvador ...... 76 ACRONYMS Acronym Description A4P Alliance for the Prosperity in the Northern Triangle (acronym used by the U.S.) AAA Accra Agenda for Action AECID Spanish acronym for Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development) AICS Italian acronym for Agenzia Italiana per la Cooperazione allo Svillupo (Italian Agency for Development Cooperation) AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative AQ Assessment Question AT Assessment Team CA Central America CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEN Strategy U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America CIPA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CONAMYPE Spanish acronym for Comisión Nacional de la Micro y Pequeña Empresa (National Commission for Micro and Small Enterprises) COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSO Civil Society Organization ESCA Spanish acronym for Estrategia de Seguridad de Centro América (Central American Security Strategy) EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FOCAP Spanish acronym for Fondo Común de Apoyo Programático (FOCAP) al Programa Comunidades Solidarias [Common Fund for Program Support (FOCAP) for the Solidarity Communities Program] GIZ German acronym for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Corporation for International Cooperation) GOES Government of El Salvador IDB Inter-American Development Bank JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KII Key Informant Interview KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency Lux-Dev Luxembourg Development Cooperation Agency MINED Spanish acronym for Ministerio de Educación (Ministry of Education) MIREX Spanish acronym for Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) MOF Ministry of Finance NGO Non-governmental Organization OAS Organization of American States OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OVOP One Village One Product OXFAM Oxford Committee for Famine Relief PESS Spanish acronym for Plan El Salvador Seguro (Plan for a Secure El Salvador) PREVENIR Spanish acronym for Programa Regional- Prevención de la violencia juvenil en América Centr (Prevention of Youth Violence in Central America Regional Program) RDCS Regional Development Cooperation Strategy Acronym Description SDG Sustainable Development Goal SETEPLAN Spanish acronym for Secretaría Técnica y de Planificación de la Presidencia (Technical and Planning Secretariat of the Presidency) SICA Spanish acronym for Sistema de Integración Centroamericana (Central America Integratio System) SICDES Spanish acronym for Sistema de Información de Cooperación para el Desarrollo en El Salvad (Information System for Development Cooperation in El Salvador) SME Small and Medium Enterprise SSC South-South Cooperation UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund UNODC United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime U.S. United States USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VMCD Spanish acronym for Viceministerio de Cooperación para el Desarollo (Vice-Ministry of Cooperation for Development) WB World Bank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the International Donor Coordination Assessment, funded by the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) in El Salvador, is to provide: 1) a baseline general overview of current donor and South-South Cooperation (SSC) systems practiced in El Salvador in response to the Government of El Salvador (GOES) needs, strategies, and priorities; 2) an inventory of projects implemented by other donors; 3) several examples of good practice on donor coordination (case studies); 4) recommendations to USAID on how to engage with other donors in a more effective and efficient way; and 5) maps of donor assistance to El Salvador.
METHODOLOGY The Assessment Team (AT) employed a mixed-method methodology that included document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), and quantitative data gathered from donors. The AT reviewed 12 key documents and information for major donors from their websites. The AT conducted 47 KIIs with key stakeholders from 24 different organizations. Quantitative data regarding donor projects and assistance was obtained from websites as well as from donors and analyzed in order to create project lists and maps.
FINDINGS Bilateral Cooperation: The GOES has established a comprehensive donor coordination framework in response to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and subsequent agreements signed at Accra and Busan. The GOES is also currently a member of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, a follow-on group to the Paris Declaration responsible for promoting effective aid and cooperation. The overall framework for assistance and cooperation within the GOES includes the Vice- Ministry of Cooperation (VMCD) within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MIREX), the Governance Committee and the Committee on Technical Cooperation within the Technical and Planning Secretariat of the Presidency (SETEPLAN), and the Ministry of Finance (MOF). The GOES has issued a number of studies and policy statements to define the nature of donor assistance and cooperation. The VMCD calls an annual meeting of donors to discuss the needs of El Salvador and to encourage donor coordination and harmonization of programs and projects. The Governance Committee of the Presidency has organized three commissions on key issues facing the country, namely security, education, and environmental sustainability, and has invited donors to participate in meetings to discuss their initiatives. The Technical Cooperation Committee of the Presidency is responsible for coordinating donors and, until recently, led an effective donor group on social issues. Each technical ministry also has an office responsible for donor coordination. The MOF leads a successful donor coordination committee on fiscal policies. Regional Cooperation: Since 2009, when El Salvador became a middle-income country, regional cooperation has been emphasized, especially after the crisis of irregular migration of unaccompanied children to the United States (U.S.). The Central America Integration System (SICA) coordinates donors who have regional assistance programs. The Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle (A4P), a regional program that includes El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, is coordinated in El Salvador by SETEPLAN and the MIREX. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) serves as the Technical Secretariat of A4P. The IDB organizes four committees to coordinate the A4P objectives, namely: 1) accelerate the productive sector; 2) further develop human capital; 3) build institutions; and 4) public safety and access to the legal system. A fifth committee on migration has also been more recently organized. Trilateral Cooperation: Donors are increasingly employing trilateral cooperation by including South- South donors. In addition to USAID, the European Union (EU), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Embassy of Brazil, and Embassy of Mexico reported delivering assistance via this approach. Both the Embassy of Brazil and the Embassy of Mexico are involved in trilateral assistance with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). USAID’s Regional Trilateral Cooperation Activity organizes trilateral cooperation with other USAID activities. As of October
i 31, 2017, they had completed 14 interventions in the Democracy and Governance and Economic Growth sectors with Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Chile, and planned 10 new interventions in the same sectors with Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Chile, and Peru. The Activity published an assessment in April 2017 that analyzed the potential for Trilateral Cooperation with countries throughout Central and South America. Effectiveness of Cooperation: The latest report of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation reported that the GOES and donors have not yet achieved the goals for aid effectiveness initially established by the Paris Declaration. The Fiscal Donor Committee facilitated by the MOF operates more effectively than other committees because of the active involvement of the Ministry as well as the importance of fiscal issues. All key informants reported that they work most closely with the GOES and the Technical Ministry relevant to their projects and that they support GOES’ Five Year Plan. The Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID), German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), EU, JICA, Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), and the Embassy of Taiwan all reported that they are active in supporting the Plan for a Secure El Salvador (PESS for its Spanish acronym). They contact each other when designing new projects to ensure that their efforts are complementary, not duplicative. Three donors indicated that they would be open to joint evaluations with USAID, depending upon the project. Three donors also reported that they would be willing to cooperate in Trilateral Cooperation with USAID. USAID effectively collaborates in the areas of fiscal, education, and youth prevention of violence. Further, USAID is already reaching out to donors when there is an opportunity for collaboration. For example, on November 8, 2017, USAID met with JICA to discuss collaborating on the “One Village One Product Initiative” as well as on vocational training and assistance to youth.
MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the main findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this assessment are presented in Table 1, below:
ii
Table 1: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Assessment Findings Conclusions Recommendations Question AQ 1: What formal or informal international donor coordination frameworks exist in El Salvador? The GOES has established a comprehensive formal donor A comprehensive framework for USAID relevant staff should meet with donors, the GOES, and coordination framework that includes the VMCD within the MIREX, donor cooperation already exists SICA to present USAID’s program and to discuss possible the Governance Committee, and the Committee on Technical in El Salvador but it is not cooperation. Cooperation within the SETEPLAN and the MOF. functioning according to its USAID should work closely with the United Nations (UN) and intentions. It would be beneficial Regional cooperation is handled by SICA. The Presidency and the the VMCD on organizing donors to unify their programs in if GOES institutions take more MIREX coordinate A4P and the IDB serves as the Technical support of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and the UN’s Sustainable initiative to actively coordinate all Secretariat for A4P and organizes four committees along the lines of Development Goal (SDG)s. key donors. action of A4P as well as a fifth committee on migration. USAID should recommend to the GOES institutions to There is a need for the Technical The 2016 assessment of El Salvador by the Global Partnership for appoint a responsible person to be Donor Coordinator Cooperation Directorate of the Effective Development Cooperation showed that El Salvador has immediately below the position of Vice Minister, so that s/he VMCD to update the MIREX’s made progress in achieving the targets for each of the 10 global has more authority than the Directors and they have to follow Information System for indicators but that they still need to make more progress in order to his/her directives. Development Cooperation in El meet global standards for effective donor collaboration. Salvador (SICDES), their online An informal donor coordination Committee for Fiscal Issues was donor information system, in established by donors and is now led by the MOF. A donor order for donors to be able to coordination Committee for Social Issues was led by the Committee know what each is implementing on Technical Cooperation but was disbanded when GOES’ policy as well as to look for changed. opportunities to collaborate. The annual donor meetings initiated by the Technical Cooperation Directorate could be an opportunity to facilitate donor coordination if appropriately conducted. Highly successful examples of donor coordination exist in the Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee, currently led by the MOF, and the Social Equality Donor Coordination Committee, led by the Presidency. However, a change in GOES policy led to the disbandment of the Social Equality Committee.
iii
Assessment Findings Conclusions Recommendations Question AQ 1.1. How effective is the current international donor framework perceived to be and what are suggestions for ways to strengthen coordination? The three commissions organized by the Governance Committee Donors are capable of initiating Relevant USAID staff should consistently attend the meetings coordinate donors that are on the Technical Committees but not all successful and effective donor of the three councils (Security, Education, and Environmental donors. The Committee on Technical Cooperation managed an coordination groups. Sustainability) run by the Governance Committee in the effective Social Sector donor coordination Committee but changes Presidency and build stronger collaborative relationships with Donors are, in general, open to in GOES’ policy led to its disintegration, much to the chagrin of other donors attending the meetings. collaboration and most likely donors. would be open to other donors USAID Program Office should share information about where The Donor Coordination Committee for the PESS began who take the initiative. and in which sectors other donors included in this assessment enthusiastically and now needs an effort by the GOES to re-create work so that Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) All key informants the AT met that enthusiasm. and Agreement Officer’s Representatives (AORs) can decide with requested that USAID where collaboration makes sense. The CORs and AORs can The Fiscal Coordination Committee has functioned for many years present the USAID bilateral and also work with their activities to reach out to donors and their successfully. regional program; receive a full projects and begin collaborative arrangements and possibly briefing regarding their program SETEPLAN works only with the U.S. on the A4P. joint evaluations. and/or way of operating; and USAID effectively collaborates in the areas of fiscal, education, and discuss further cooperation. USAID should review the requirements for donor youth prevention of violence. Further, USAID is already reaching out coordination established by the Global Partnership for to donors when there is an opportunity for collaboration. For Effective Development Cooperation and develop a Plan of example, on November 8, 2017, USAID met with JICA to discuss Action to implement it. For example, USAID could develop a collaborating on the “One Village One Product Initiative” as well as strategy to work within the framework established by the on vocational training and assistance to youth. According to one VMCD that includes specific results indicators and plan joint USAID key informant, collaboration often works more effectively evaluations with GOES counterparts. when donors organize it themselves and do not depend upon the GOES could play a stronger role in facilitating donor GOES to lead it. coordination especially since donors are overall willing to cooperate of they have leadership from the government. AQ 2: Where there is no coordination mechanism in place, why has this not been pursued? The AT found that where there are no coordination mechanisms in Lack of coordination derives Develop a donor coordinating committee in areas where place, neither donors nor the GOES have taken the initiative to from lack of will both on the part USAID perceives there is potential and high value in establish and/or maintain such coordination and collaboration. of donors and the GOES. cooperating. This is how the Fiscal Committee, which is very SETEPLAN effectively coordinated donors in the social sector until successful, was initiated. GOES’ policy shifted from social programs to economic growth programs.
iv
Assessment Findings Conclusions Recommendations Question AQ 3: Which are the donors that are actively engaged in El Salvador with the lines of action of the A4P Plan and the PESS and to what extent are they doing it? A4P: GOES collaborates only with the U.S. on A4P. Mexico stated A4P: The majority of donors A4P: Negotiate with GOES to initiate their planned that they work closely with the U.S. on A4P, although they are not perceive A4P as a U.S. initiative information campaign that strengthens the GOES’ ownership officially involved. GIZ stated that they work in the same areas as and do not want to participate. of the A4P. Work with GOES so they reach out to other A4P. Other donors reported that they do not know what A4P is or, However, they are working on donors to invite them to identify with the A4P in order to that they know what it is, but view it as exclusively a U.S. initiative. initiatives similar to the A4P. increase its impact. However, all donors interviewed work in the four lines of action of PESS: AECID, GIZ, the EU, PESS: As stated in the recommendation for AQ4, contact A4P because these are similar to the objectives in the GOES Five JICA, KOICA, and the Embassy of other donors that are already working in PESS municipalities Year Plan. Taiwan are potential in order to collaborate. See the list of PESS projects in Tables PESS: AECID, GIZ, EU, JICA, KOICA, and the Embassy of Taiwan collaborators to work on 5 to 11 of this report and maps. are investing considerable resources in the municipalities included in projects in PESS municipalities. PESS. Areas into which donors are investing include: prevention of violence; community policing; crime prevention; rehabilitation and integration of women and youth; employment preparation and promotion; health and education; small farmer production; cultural initiatives including art and dance; building a peace culture; and civil society development. USAID and GIZ already collaborate on prevention of youth violence programs. AQ 4: In which PESS and non-PESS municipalities and sectors are the donors investing resources and where is there potential for leverage with USAID? Other donors are working in many of the same PESS and non-PESS Given the fact that the USAID Take the initiative to contact and offer to collaborate with municipalities as USAID. In PESS municipalities, donors are working and other donors are working in other donors working on similar projects in the same PESS directly in the security sector as well as in sectors thought to help many of the same PESS and non- and non-PESS municipalities in order to leverage USAID prevent violence, such as education, human rights, and economic PESS municipalities in the same projects and create synergy. development. sectors, there is a great potential Meet with UNDP regarding their recent study on PESS and to to collaborate. In non-PESS municipalities, donors are working in economic seek further cooperation with donors involved.
development, security and violence prevention, human rights, Meet with GIZ to expand their collaboration in prevention of democracy and governance, health, and education. youth violence in the Department of San Miguel and possibly USAID and donors are working on similar initiatives in many non- in other departments. PESS municipalities where more collaboration is possible. Consider collaboration with the Embassy of Taiwan1 on the “One Village, One Product Initiative” in addition to possible collaboration with JICA already initiated. Consider collaborating in higher education with the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS) since AICS’ main focus is higher education and the two donors have much in common.
1 The U.S. Government has a One-China Policy and any potential collaboration with Taiwan should be regulated under this policy. v
Assessment Findings Conclusions Recommendations Question AQ 5: What are the practices and perceptions of other donors about conducting joint evaluations of projects? UNDP conducts joint evaluations with the GOES. GIZ conducts joint Only a minority of donors After collaborating on specific projects, USAID should request evaluations with the Ministry of Economy. JICA stated that they interviewed conduct joint joint evaluations with the donors with which it collaborates. would be willing to conduct a joint evaluation with USAID depending evaluations with other donors. For example, PESS affords a good opportunity to conduct joint upon the sector and project. UNDP also stated their willingness to evaluations on similar projects, for example, prevention of Donors more often conduct joint conduct joint evaluations after discussions with USAID about youth violence projects, in municipalities in which USAID and evaluations with their GOES particular projects. other donors work. counterparts. The Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee conducts a joint internal USAID could consider a joint evaluation with GIZ of the evaluation of their fiscal projects annually to determine what they prevention of youth projects in San Miguel. USAID could meet have accomplished as a group. with GIZ and draft a scope-of-work for the joint evaluation and contract it out to a joint U.S.-German evaluation team. USAID might also consider a joint evaluation of the status of higher education in El Salvador with AICS.
vi
Assessment Findings Conclusions Recommendations Question AQ 6: Which organizations, donor countries, and SSC countries are working within a trilateral cooperation framework in El Salvador? USAID, Embassy of Mexico, JICA, UNDP, and the Embassy of Brazil Mexico, JICA, Brazil, and UNDP See the recommendation for AQ 6.1. reported that they are working through some trilateral assistance. are working through trilateral assistance and appear to be open to more of such assistance. AQ 6.1: Do these organizations, donor countries, and SSC countries see potential in trilateral cooperation work with USAID? In which areas? UNDP, the Embassy of Brazil, the Embassy of Mexico, and JICA are Donors mentioned in findings are Meet with the UNDP, JICA, Embassy of Brazil, Embassy of open to trilateral assistance with USAID in areas to be determined interested in trilateral assistance Mexico, and SSC countries identified by the assessment through discussions. USAID’s Trilateral Assistance Activity has with USAID. The Assessment of conducted by USAID Trilateral Assistance Activity to expand conducted an assessment of the possibility of trilateral assistance with the Potential for Trilateral their trilateral collaboration. SSC countries. It was published in April 2017 and provides extensive Assistance conducted by USAID’s Program Office COR for the USAID Trilateral Activity should information on the possibilities of trilateral cooperation. Trilateral Assistance Project also meet with the Activity to request that they meet with donors lays out in detail the possibility of to expand their recommendations for Trilateral Cooperation, trilateral assistance with many especially in PESS municipalities and in areas such as countries in Central and South prevention of youth violence and in initiatives such as “One America. Village, One Product.”
vii
I.0 ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1.1 ASSESSMENT PURPOSE The purpose of the International Donor Coordination Assessment, funded by the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) in El Salvador, was to: • Provide a baseline general overview of current donor and South-South Cooperation (SSC) systems practiced in El Salvador in response to the Government of El Salvador (GOES) needs, strategies, and priorities; • Have an inventory of projects implemented by other donors; • Describe in detail several examples of good practice on donor coordination; • Provide recommendations to USAID on how to engage with other donors in a more effective and efficient way; and • Provide maps of donor assistance to El Salvador. USAID/El Salvador is interested in strengthening donor coordination for a number of reasons. First, such coordination eases the administrative burden of the GOES in managing assistance. Second, it reduces duplicative efforts. Third, coordination maximizes the comparative advantage of other donors where they possess sectoral expertise/experience or strong ties/special relationships in the partner country. Lastly, donor coordination reduces the operational burden for USAID by utilizing the operational capacity of other donors in implementing/managing activities. Furthermore, USAID is interested in mapping all of the donor projects in order to visually determine where targets of donor coordination make the most sense. Mapping these projects would be useful to the USAID Mission in El Salvador and all current and future donors.
I. 2 ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS AQ 1: What formal or informal international donor coordination frameworks exist in El Salvador? AQ 1.1: How effective is the current international donor framework perceived to be and what are suggestions for ways to strengthen coordination? AQ 2: Where there is no coordination mechanism in place, why has this not been pursued? AQ 3: Which are the donors that are actively engaged in assisting El Salvador with the lines of actions of the Alliance for Prosperity (A4P) Plan and Plan El Salvador Seguro (PESS) and to what extent are they doing it? AQ 4: In which PESS and non-PESS municipalities and sectors are the donors investing resources and where is there potential for leverage with USAID? AQ 5: What are the practices and perceptions of other donors about conducting joint evaluations of projects? AQ 6: Which organizations, donor countries, and SSC countries are working within a trilateral cooperation framework in El Salvador? AQ 6.1: Do these organizations, donor countries, and SSC countries see potential in trilateral cooperation work with USAID? In which areas?
1
2.0 ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND
2.1 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND NEED FOR COOPERATION GOES, as well as multilateral, bilateral, and South-South donors, have constructed a number of different and complementary strategies to assist El Salvador expand its economy, improve its security, and help the country provide a healthier, more prosperous life and opportunities for all its citizens. The GOES’ Five Year Plan (Plan Quinquenal de Desarollo – 2014-2019) provides the overall framework for the country’s priority development goals. The Plan for a Secure El Salvador (Plan El Salvador Seguro-PESS), Plan for an Educated El Salvador (Plan El Salvador Educado), Plan for a Sustainable El Salvador (Plan El Salvador Sustentable), A4P, Ministry of Finance (MOF) Strategic Plan, and other technical ministries’ plans provide more sector-focused overall priorities. The United States Government (USG) and USAID have developed the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), the Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RDCS), the USG Strategy for Engagement in Central America (CEN Strategy), and other plans. Given the fact that many donors are supporting the same strategies and development frameworks, donor coordination makes sense in order to synchronize efforts and ensure that projects are complementary rather than overlapping and redundant, and that more beneficiaries can be served.
2.2 AID EFFECTIVENESS Due to the recognition that a great number of donor projects did not directly support the development objectives of developing countries and that many of these projects did not achieve their goals, coupled with the strengthened negotiating position of developing countries, the aid effectiveness movement began in the late 1990s in the United Nations (UN). The document that initiated this movement, the Monterrey Consensus, was signed in 2002, at the UN International Conference on Financing for Development held in Mexico, by over 50 Heads-of-State, including El Salvador’s. The Consensus called on the international community to increase aid as a percentage of gross domestic product. The first formal meeting on aid effectiveness was the High-Level Forum on Aid Harmonization convened by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) held in Rome in 2003. The Rome Declaration listed the following priority actions: 1) development assistance should be based on the priorities and timing of the countries receiving it; 2) donor efforts should concentrate on delegating cooperation and increasing the flexibility of staff on country programs and projects; and 3) good practice should be encouraged and monitored, backed by analytic work to help strengthen the leadership that recipient countries can take in determining their development path. In 2005, the second High-Level Meeting was held in Paris, resulting in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness signed by over 100 countries, including El Salvador. The Paris Declaration established five principles of aid effectiveness, including: 1) ownership: developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions, and tackle corruption; 2) alignment: donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems; 3) harmonization: donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures, and share information to avoid duplication; 4) results: developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured; and 5) mutual accountability: donors and partners are accountable for development results (OECD, 2005). At the Third High-Level Forum in Accra, Ghana, in 2008, the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) was drafted to deepen and strengthen the Paris Declaration. This agenda added the following principles: 1) ownership: countries have more say over their development processes through wider participation in development policy formulation, stronger leadership on aid coordination, and more use of country systems for aid delivery; 2) inclusive partnerships: all partners, including donors in the OECD Development Assistance
2
Committee2 and developing countries, as well as other donors, foundations, and civil society participate fully; 3) delivering results: aid is focused on real and measurable impacts on development; and 4) capacity development: build the ability of countries to manage their own future—this also lies at the heart of the AAA (OECD, 2008). At the Fourth High-Level Forum in Busan, South Korea, in 2011, SSC was highlighted, and the Busan Partnership Document was signed. It included the following principles: 1) ownership of development priorities by developing countries: countries should define the development model that they want to implement; 2) a focus on results: having a sustainable impact should be the driving force behind investments and efforts in development policymaking; 3) partnerships for development: development depends on the participation of all actors and recognizes the diversity and complementarity of their functions; and 4) transparency and shared responsibility: development cooperation must be transparent and accountable to all citizens. At Busan, participants also recognized that: a) aid had changed its form from a bilateral relationship between developed and developing countries to a complexity of relationships and emerging forms of assistance through the private sector, private donors, countries in the south, and civil society; and b) the rules of engagement had changed, with developing countries having significantly more control over the aid process. Terminology changed from that of “aid effectiveness” to that of “effective development cooperation.” Monitoring frameworks were established at national and global levels that included 10 standard indicators established by the developing countries themselves. Developing countries were also charged with establishing country-led donor coordination arrangements. In addition, at Busan, the decision was made to establish the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation to take over in 2012. The partnership includes 81 countries who receive aid and 100 countries/territories/organizations that provide development cooperation. This Partnership is an inclusive representational forum in which developing countries have more influence and strategic decision-making over assistance. The partnership measures countries’ progress on the 10 indicators agreed on at Busan. Table 2, below, includes the Global Partnership 10 indicators and their measures. Table 2: Global Partnership Indicators and Their Measures
Global Partnership Indicator How Measured 1a. Development partners use country/government-led Alignment of new interventions to national results frameworks. priorities—reported as a percentage of partners who develop their interventions based on the national development plan; institutional or ministry plans; sector plans and strategies; and other government planning tools. 1b. Development partners use country/government-led Reported as a percentage of results indicators drawn results frameworks to design, monitor, and evaluate from government results frameworks; monitored new interventions. using government monitoring system; percentage of interventions that plan a final evaluation and plan a final evaluation with government involvement. 1c. Countries/governments set their own development Existence of country/government-led results priorities and results. frameworks reported as “yes” or “no” answer whether they have a long-term vision; national development plan; and sector strategies for education, healthcare, transport, and public finance. 2. Civil society operates within an environment which Measured by an assessment of civil society maximizes its engagement and contribution to organization (CSO) enabling environment building on development. qualitative, multi-stakeholder information.
2 The OECD Development Assistance Committee is comprised of the major donors. The Committee sets the policies regarding development assistance.
3
Global Partnership Indicator How Measured 3. Public-private dialogue promotes private sector Measured on a scale of 0 to 10 for the following engagement and its contribution to development. criteria: private sector willingness to engage; government willingness to engage; existence of potential champion; availability of instruments to facilitate dialogue. 4. Transparency: information on development Measured by percentage of development cooperation cooperation is publicly available. providers who are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive, and forward-looking information on development cooperation. 5a. Development cooperation is predictable (annual). Measured by annual predictability of development cooperation according to whether it was as scheduled or beyond-scheduled. 5b. Development cooperation is predictable (medium- Measured as medium-term predictability for one year term). ahead, two years ahead, three years ahead. 6. Development cooperation is on budget. Measured as share recorded on budget and share over-recorded on budget. 7. Mutual accountability is strengthened through Measured as “yes” or “no” for following criteria: aid inclusive reviews. or partnership policy in place; local targets for development cooperation; joint regular assessment toward targets; involvement of non-executive stakeholders; results made public. 8. Governments track public allocations for gender Measured as “yes” or “no” to following criteria: equality and women’s empowerment. government statement defining the tracking system; gender allocation systematically tracked; system oversight by central government unit; gender-related budget information publicly available. 9a. Governments strengthen budgetary and public Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CIPA) financial management systems. score (1.0 to 6.0). 9b. Development partners use government budgetary Measured by percentage of development partners and public financial management systems. who use government systems for budget execution, financial reporting, auditing, and procurement. 10. Aid is untied. Measured by share of untied aid as a percentage of total aid. 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The Assessment Team (AT) employed a mixed method approach and collected both quantitative and qualitative data in order to construct an inventory of donor projects; create maps of the projects; directly observe at least one project where donor coordination is being practiced; determine the scope and success or failure of existing donor coordination; and make recommendations regarding potential donor coordination. Qualitative information was collected from document review and Internet research as well as from Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with donors, USAID Technical Program and Officers, and GOES Ministry officials. Quantitative data was obtained from the Internet research. The assessment consisted of three phases, as explained below.
4
Phase 1: Desk Review – Compilation of Information from the web and final instrument design The Team consulted a broad range of background documents provided by USAID and available online. Included in the list are: 1) USAID CDCS 2013-2017; 2) USAID RDCS 2016-2020; 3); the CEN Strategy; 4) A4P; 5) the GOES PESS; 6) GOES’ Five-Year Plan; 7) USAID Trilateral Assistance Assessment; and 8) Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-Operation Progress Reports. In addition, the AT researched information available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ (MIREX) Information System for Development Cooperation in El Salvador (SICDES) and assessed its reliability, timeliness, and practicability when conducting interviews with the Ministry as well as with donors. The AT also researched donor websites in order to chart out the projects they list as currently active. This information was validated and expanded during interviews with the donors. The AT created a Literature Review Matrix that summarizes key documents (see Annex A). The AT also compiled the current/ongoing cooperation projects of the main international organizations in El Salvador and analyzed to what extent these strategies and projects are aligned with USAID/El Salvador development objectives (DOs). The list of donor projects identified is included in Annex C and their comparison with USAID projects is included in Annex E. Donor maps in Annex D also illustrate donor projects and where donor projects and USAID projects exist in the same sectors and/or municipalities. In addition, the Team designed KII protocols for donors and for representatives of GOES’ Vice-Ministry of Cooperation (VMCD), Technical and Planning Secretariat of the Presidency (SETEPLAN), and the MOF. The AT prioritized the visits to the major donors and scheduled the interviews with donors who have the largest assistance fund first. Phase 2: Field Work The AT conducted 47 KIIs with key stakeholders from 24 different organizations, including the MIREX, the Presidency, the MOF, the Central America Integration System (SICA), and bilateral and multilateral donor agencies. These included the European Union (EU), German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA,) Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS), Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development (AECID), Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), Embassy of Taiwan,3 Embassy of Mexico, Embassy of Brazil,4 and principal multilateral donors, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank (WB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Phase 3: Data Analysis The AT analyzed the interview data in order to answer the Assessment Questions (AQs) and consolidated the answers from key informants to determine dominant overall response. Interview data was compared to quantitative data collected online and from organizations in the form of their brochures, project descriptions, and reports that they gave the AT.
3 El Salvador is one of the 20 countries in the world that has full diplomatic relations with Taiwan. 4 Both Mexico and Brazil have cooperation agencies but they do not have offices in El Salvador. For this reason, the AT met with the Embassies of these countries. 5
4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS Donor Assistance to El Salvador The OECD reported that El Salvador received $219,910,000 of assistance in 2010 and a reduced level of assistance in 2014 in the amount of $169,140,000. The MIREX VMCD reported that international cooperation from 2009 to 2014 was predominately focused on social protection (16 percent); followed by justice, security, and prevention of violence (11.5 percent); government and political system (11.5 percent ); environment and climate change (8.3 percent); human rights and equality (6.9 percent); education, science, and technology (6.3 percent); health (6.2 percent); water and sanitation (5.6 percent); civil society (5.6 percent); decentralization and regional development (5.3 percent); trade and business (4.1percent); employment and income generation (3.4 percent); agriculture, agro-forest, cattle-raising, and fish (2.3 percent); humanitarian aid (2 percent); culture, sport, and tourism (1.9 percent); urbanism and living spaces (1.5 percent); business and other services (1.5 percent); and generation and supply of energy (.6 percent). 5 Major donors in El Salvador include the United States (U.S.), the EU, UNDP, AECID, GIZ, JICA, the Embassy of Taiwan, KOICA, and AICS. A list of the current projects of these major donors is included in Annex C. Maps of major donor assistance are contained in Annex D. The table in Annex E compares the sectors and municipalities in which donors are working. In 2009, according to interviews, there was a major shift in the orientation of major donors from a purely bilateral perspective to a regional one. This shift was made because El Salvador became a middle-income country6 and, hence, was not eligible for the large amount of bilateral aid it had heretofore received. GIZ, for example, ended all bilateral assistance in 2009 and, currently, only has regional projects, which include El Salvador, except one bilateral fiscal project with El Salvador that is ending soon. The U.S. assistance to El Salvador increased in 2015 due to the irregular migration of large numbers of children unaccompanied by their parents to the U.S., but still was provided regionally, largely through the A4P. Donors that provide loans to El Salvador are currently having difficulties getting the GOES National Assembly to approve those loans. Further, because of El Salvador’s serious fiscal problems, donors such as the WB currently have their proposed loans on hold. Donors are working closely with the MOF and the GOES to solve these critical fiscal issues.
4.1 AQ 1: FORMAL OR INFORMAL INTERNATIONAL DONOR COORDINATION FRAMEWORKS IN EL SALVADOR El Salvador has a comprehensive formal framework for donor coordination involving the Presidency, the MIREX, and the MOF. Further, El Salvador is a signatory to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the AAA, the Busan Agreement, and the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation and has organized its donor coordination framework in accordance with principles of these agreements. Moreover, there exists a comprehensive framework for regional cooperation, SICA, which follows the mandates of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and subsequent agreements. SETEPLAN and the MIREX coordinate the A4P while the IDB serves as the Technical Secretariat of the A4P.
5 These figures were provided by VMCD, which rounded off decimal points, so percentages add up to 100.5%. 6 A middle-income country is defined as a country having a per capita gross national income of $1,026 to $12,475 (2011). See: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mic/overview
6
Through UNDP’s influence, El Salvador has been selected as one of the countries that will accelerate implementation of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) and the UN Agenda 2030. UNDP and all its agencies are working closely with the GOES to institute policies and programs in support of the 17 SDGs. Approximately 85 percent of the SDG goals are currently included in the GOES’ Five Year Plan, which stresses poverty reduction and inclusive economic growth. According to UNDP, the UN Agenda 2030 and the SDGs should be the defining framework for donor coordination and the private sector should be a key actor in helping to achieve this Agenda. 4.1.1 Donor Coordination Framework in El Salvador The GOES made a number of significant institutional changes in 2009 in response to the Paris Declaration and subsequent agreements of the High-Level Fora. In 2009, the GOES reactivated the main inter- institutional mechanism in charge of development cooperation, integrated by SETEPLAN, the VMCD within the MIREX, and the MOF. Several coordination spaces were also developed, such as a group of donors in the fiscal area, bringing together the VMCD, MOF, and the donor community, and also in the area of universal social protection where the VMCD facilitated the coordination between a group of donors/development partners and the ministries that were involved in social protection. The GOES has two budgets: 1) the National General Budget; and 2) the Extraordinary Budget that includes cooperation funds. The MIREX is the administrative body of the Extraordinary Budget and manages, negotiates, and signs all non-refundable cooperation, that is, grants and technical assistance projects, not loans. The MOF also plays a key role in donor coordination. It manages all agreements/commitments related to cooperation funds that are allocated for public investment (capacity building and infrastructure). 4.1.2 Roles of GOES Organizations in the Donor Coordination Framework The Presidency The Presidency plays a key role in donor coordination. Both the SETEPLAN of the Presidency and the Secretariat of Governance of the Presidency are important players in this issue, as explained below. SETEPLAN SETEPLAN plays mostly a political role and attempts to coordinate donors at a policy level in order to address the fragmentation of technical assistance and harmonize donor projects to achieve the goals of the GOES’ Five-Year Strategic Plan. In 2016, SETEPLAN, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and donors at a political-strategic level (Ambassadors and Directors of Cooperation Agencies) established the global dialogue mechanism to facilitate the coordination and management of the operational plans of all donors. Each technical ministry has a donor coordinator who is in charge of managing the assistance provided in their sector. SETEPLAN works with all of the technical ministries to incorporate their annual operational plans into an integrated national operational plan. This national plan includes all of the technical ministries’ work with donors so that SETEPLAN is able to negotiate with donors to better coordinate their work during the global dialogue. Previously, the GOES formulated a plan based on the budget. Now, the GOES designs its overall plan, and from there, formulates the budget. This new approach is focusing on programs individually and on the delivery/supply of goods and services to the population in a concerted, coordinated manner. SETEPLAN is also focusing on long-term oversight of donor cooperation in order to ensure sustainability of development programs. Further, SETEPLAN is instituting “planning with results” in order to ensure that donor projects achieve the results required to support the GOES’ Five Year Plan. Since 2009, with the help of the EU, SETEPLAN has been monitoring public and private investments to determine whether results are being achieved. Unfortunately, no report or other information was available to see what this monitoring process has found. SETEPLAN is also building a tool that will allow the establishment of a repository of all the work SETEPLAN is doing, including process systematizations, evaluations, reports,
7
data, etc. Before the GOES signs international cooperation agreements, SETEPLAN makes an analysis, especially regarding bilateral strategies and development banks, to assure good development and implementation throughout the project cycle. The AT was unable to obtain any information regarding these analyses. In 2010, the GOES released its Partners for Development National Plan, which included 86 partners for development, comprised of donors and GOES institutions. At that time, the priority was the social sector, social inclusiveness, and communities of solidarity. The notion of communities of solidarity was conceived in order to build strong integrated communities that would work together to end social inequality, injustice, and violence. Until the most recent change of the government in 2014, SETEPLAN coordinated the donor Committee on the Social Sector. This Committee was extremely effective, but it was disbanded because economic growth replaced social equality as the overall GOES objective in the GOES’ Five-Year Plan, which superseded the Partners for Development National Plan in 2014. The Secretariat of Governance The Secretariat of Governance of the Presidency is in charge of coordinating three broad councils in which the guidelines of the country’s policies and actions are defined around three prioritized topics: Citizen Security, Education, and Environmental Sustainability. In these councils, representatives of different sectors of the country participate and, therefore, the products that arise from them can be considered representative of the citizenship. Led by the Presidency, each council has a Technical Secretariat that includes key donors. Other donors attend the meeting but do not have the influence of those donors on the Technical Secretariat. The Security Council, which supports the PESS, has a Technical Secretariat that includes the UNDP, EU, Organization of American States (OAS), and GOES officials. The Technical Secretariat of the Education Council, which supports the Plan for an Educated El Salvador, includes UNICEF, OAS, EU, and UNDP, in addition to GOES officials. The Environmental Sustainability Council, supporting the soon-to-be completed Plan for a Sustainable El Salvador, has a Technical Secretariat that includes UNDP, OAS, EU, AECID, and GOES officials. Table 3 lists each council, the members of their Technical Secretariat, and the donors that participate in the council meetings. The Citizen Security Council is the most active council with the longest history. The Presidency chose the donors to be included in the Technical Secretariat based on a recommendation of the MIREX. UNDP required that all its agencies incorporate into their budgets and plans their alignment with the PESS and, for this the reason, they play a much more key and active role than the rest of the donors. The Council does not function as a channel of donor resources. On behalf of the GOES, the Ministry of Justice is the main reference and responsible within this Council. It is incumbent upon this Ministry (and specifically upon the Vice Ministry of Prevention) to report to the Council the progress of the actions of the Plan. But the Ministry also reports the actions that other ministries carry out within the framework of PESS. Table 3: Donors in the GOES National Councils
Donors/International National Councils Organizations Security Council Education Council Sustainability
Council EU AECID Organization of Ibero- American States UNDP UNICEF
8
Donors/International National Councils Organizations USAID OAS GIZ
Table 4: Technical Secretaries of in the GOES National Councils
Technical Secretary of Technical Secretary of Technical Secretary of Security Council Education Council Sustainability Council UNDP Ministry of Education EU (MINED) OAS UNICEF OAS EU UNDP UNDP Organization of Ibero- AECID American States OAS EU VMCD The function of the VMCD is to improve the management of international cooperation and ensure that this cooperation is aligned with national development priorities. The VMCD is divided into two overall directorates: the Directorate for Economic Cooperation, and the Directorate for Technical Cooperation. From 2009 to 2014, the GOES established three funds to further manage international cooperation. These included: • Common Fund for Program Support for the Solidarity Communities Program (FOCAP): This fund was developed to support the principal national strategy to ameliorate poverty and social inclusion. The fund applied the principals of the Paris Declaration by aligning with the national plan; employing national systems of finance and harmonization with donors; and executing collaborative missions and studies. • Salvadorean Fund for SSC: The purpose of this fund is to facilitate South-South and Triangular initiatives to provide technical assistance. • Fund for Salvadorean CSOs: This fund was designed to strengthen CSOs and their capacity to fight poverty through early childhood and primary education; and provide support to the productive sector through “One Village, One Product” Initiative,7 as well as provide support to improve health, nutrition, and women’s equality. One of the major steps taken by VMCD to ensure that international cooperation supported national priorities was to lead a dialogue in 2009 with the participation of different actors, including the central government, local governments, civil society, business sector, and cooperative sector. This one-time dialogue helped set the stage for donor coordination. The VMCD was also created to ensure the participation of all international donors in the National Agenda for the Effectiveness of Cooperation designed in 2012. The agenda includes the following components:
7 One Village One Product (OVOP) is a development strategy that stimulates the local economy. The National Commission of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (CONAMYPE) has been working on the OVOP Movement to stimulate local economy over 75 municipalities and continuing to extend to 100 municipalities in El Salvador at country level. OVOP promotes local products, such as agricultural and artisanal products, and other measure, such as local tourism, that can be recognized through the logo of OVOP as products for sale in local area. See: https://www.jica.go.jp/elsalvador/english/activities/activity01.html
9
• Reform of the United Nations – Delivering as One: This reform supports closer collaboration between agencies of the UN and the GOES to establish mechanisms and programs to support national development. • National Strategy for Decentralization (Estrategia Nacional de Cooperación Descentralizada): The purpose of this strategy is to deploy development programs to the local level to strengthen the collaboration between the central government and local governments, and to strengthen the municipalities in order to support their development. • Performance Framework of South-South and Triangular Cooperation (Marco de Desempeño de la Cooperación Sur-Sur y Triangular): This framework is intended to improve the exchange of knowledge with other countries in the region. • Regional Agenda for the Effectiveness of Cooperation (Agenda Regional para la Eficacia de la Cooperación): This Agenda defines approach to enhance regional cooperation through SICA and other regional agencies. • National Plan for the Effectiveness of Cooperation (Plan Nacional para la Eficacia de la Cooperación): This plan describes how the GOES will implement its commitments under the Paris Declaration and subsequent declarations. The plan has been promoted through a series of discussions by SETEPLAN, the VMCD, and the MOF, with the purpose of establishing GOES’ actors involved in international cooperation. In the process of structuring the plan, nine principles were established that include commitments assumed by GOES and CSOs: 1) Focus based on results; 2) Appropriation and inclusive association; 3) Transparency; 4) Predictability; 5) Mutual responsibility; 6) Gender equality; 7) Development of the capacities and systems of the countries; 8) Alignment; and 9) Harmonization. According to the VMCD, as of 2014, a high number of partners for development8 aligned their goals with the country results frameworks and conducted joint evaluations of projects; with the GOES and more than half used these frameworks to define indicators of the results of their projects. However, the percentage of alignment in the results decreased from 60 percent in 2012 to 56 percent in 2013, and less than 40 percent of the partners used tracking systems and evaluations. Japan was the partner who employed the results frameworks most consistently, but JICA reportedly does not much use the monitoring and evaluation systems established by the GOES because they have their own system determined centrally in Japan. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), reportedly, has performed well in both aligning their goals with the GOES country framework and using this framework to define their results indicators. Approximately 80 percent of donor projects planned a final evaluation. Fifty-eight percent of these projects also planned that their final evaluation would take place jointly between the external partners and the government. The VMCD themselves evaluated donor coordination in 2014. As described below, the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation has conducted the most recent evaluation of El Salvador’s performance on the 10 global indicators of effective cooperation. Directorate for Technical Cooperation within the VMCD The Directorate for Technical Cooperation within the VMCD is the operational arm of the VMCD, charged with coordinating development assistance. The Directorate is organized into six offices, each dealing with different types of cooperation: 1) Bilateral Cooperation; 2) Multilateral Cooperation; 3) SSC; 4) Trilateral Cooperation; 5) Decentralized, Non-Official Cooperation; and 6) Regional Cooperation. The Head of the Directorate for Technical Cooperation within the VMCD confirmed that the GOES has made significant efforts since 2009 to comply with the Paris Declaration and subsequent agendas and is an active member of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. The Head of the
8 The GOES does not use the term “donor.” In accordance with the collaborative approach espoused by the Paris Declaration, the GOES uses the terms “partners for development” or “cooperants.”
10
Directorate reported that a number of cooperation partners support or supported El Salvador’s strategic FOCAP, conceived to support joint programs among cooperation partners willing to adhere to this effort, complying with agreements and convention. FOCAP was established with the objective of supporting the Government's National Strategy to fight against poverty and social exclusion, through the implementation of the Solidarity Communities Program aimed at improving opportunities and living conditions of families and people living in extreme poverty in urban and rural areas of El Salvador, identified in the national maps of rural and urban poverty. This operation was carried out jointly between AECID, the EU, Luxembourg Development Cooperation Agency (Lux-Dev), and the UN System, with whom a commitment letter was signed. The EU’s contribution to this fund, as for the majority of its assistance, was non-targeted budget support. For this fund, their contribution was channeled directly to a special account opened in the Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador FOCAP. The fund closely coordinated donor assistance and conducted joint monitoring and evaluation. This fund was a highlight of the previous El Salvador government that emphasized social programs as the most important focus of the GOES. However, the current government emphasizes economic development as the highest country objective. The Directorate abides by the Marco del Cumplimiento de Acuerdos Internacionales (Framework for International Agreements Compliance) when bringing together partners for development. The framework promotes coordination between the GOES and the partners for development. It opens a political space allowing the discussion of development mechanisms of each partner while letting the Directorate decide with the different countries what areas, initiatives, or projects the GOES will work on with their support. The GOES decides, and this favors the cooperation’s effectiveness. The Directorate also works with the annual meeting of donors, Global Dialogue Table with Cooperation Partners where the Directorate establishes working agendas of cooperation partners by themes. The dialogue table also works within the framework of the OECD in which all cooperation partners are members. Another point of the agenda is to contribute to the Reform of the UN. The Directorate has established a monitoring system with indicators to measure the efficacy of cooperation as developed by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. These indicators are presented in the Background section of this report. The 2016 assessment of El Salvador’s achievements vis-à-vis these indicators is presented in Annex B and summarized in the section below. Assessment of Progress in El Salvador on Effective Cooperation As described in the Background section of this assessment, the High-Level Forum at Busan established common global indicators to measure the effectiveness of development cooperation according to the principles established by the Paris Declaration and subsequent agendas. These indicators have also been adopted by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. In 2016, the Global Partnership conducted an assessment of the status of member countries in achieving the indicator targets.9 The results of this assessment for El Salvador are presented in Annex B. As will be noted in that Annex, although El Salvador has made progress toward achieving the goals of donor effectiveness, the country has not yet met these goals. Development is not yet country-led as seen by the fact that only the minority of donors (39 percent) are designing their assistance in order to help achieve the GOES’ Five Year Strategy or Ministry strategies. Slightly more than one half of donors (56 percent) employ similar results indicators as the GOES. Eighty percent of donors do plan evaluations as part of their new initiatives, which illustrates that they are implementing results-oriented management. However, the Paris Declaration and other accords require joint evaluations between donors and the GOES to illustrate that both are working together to achieve development results. Slightly less than one half (46.7 percent) implement joint evaluations. El Salvador has established the required framework within which donors can work, and slightly less than one half are working within this framework or collaborating to achieve it. This result is consistent with the information the AT gathered from KIIs. These interviews illustrated that although donors meet with the technical ministries with which they work and believe they are working to support both ministry
9 See http://effectivecooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/El_Salvador.pdf
11
and GOES strategies, they do not necessarily employ the GOES-established framework, nor collaborate with other donors to design and implement their initiatives. The Paris Declaration required that assistance-receiving countries strengthen their country financial and management systems so that donors have sufficient trust in the transparency and effectiveness of such systems within which to deliver their assistance. Unfortunately, no data is available regarding whether El Salvador has met this requirement, as of the recent monitoring exercise. However, data is available to illustrate that donors are not employing GOES financial and management systems to deliver their assistance. Only 35.9 percent of development assistance is implemented through these systems. The EU is one of the major donors who provide the majority of their assistance as budget support for specific results. They provide this assistance via a system that closely monitors and evaluates the results achieved by the GOES and augments the amounts only if such results are in fact met. El Salvador has met the gender standards established by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, although they still do not implement gender budgeting, which ensures that budgets do not disproportionately hurt women. An inclusive development approach in which the GOES involved the private sector in development is also a requirement of the partnership. El Salvador has not yet achieved such inclusiveness and scores low on the involvement of the private sector. Coordination Framework for the A4P of the Northern Triangle SETEPLAN and MIREX serve as the coordinating body for the implementation of A4P in El Salvador. In 2017, they conducted a process of categorizing all projects in El Salvador according to the A4P four lines of action to: 1) strengthen the productive sectors; 2) provide security and access to justice; 3) build transparent institutions; and 4) develop human capital. The GOES has established a Consultative Group, “the Consultative Group of the Alliance for Prosperity of the Northern Triangle,” which serves as an institutional forum for dialogue and monitoring. The Group has the authority to provide non-binding recommendations regarding the alignment of objectives of the Plan to the USG and the GOES. At this point in time, the Group only provides recommendations to the USG and not to other donors. The Group collaborates in the identification of priorities through the work of the committees that are created for each topic; monitors the expected results; and communicates with civil society and the general public. Specifically, the Group serves to: • Ensure a regular and independent space for dialogue among the members of the Consultative Group on the contents of the Plan and its implementation. • Submit to the plenary consideration the inclusion of new issues related to the implementation of the Plan. • Provide input for the establishment and development of the Monitoring and Evaluation system that is required to measure progress in the implementation of the Plan. • Monitor performance and provide feedback on the topics submitted for consultation, interventions under the Plan, and progress towards the metrics and indicators selected in the respective monitoring plans. • Review biannually the objectives and goals at the macro level of the strategic lines of the Plan. • Provide feedback on the content, results, and implementation of programs under the Plan, which must be done every six months, based on the information provided by governments. • Provide concrete and high-impact recommendations to advance the objectives of the Plan. • Organize, on an annual basis, a public forum with civil society to publicize the progress and/or obstacles of the Plan. • Participate in the forums for regional coordination that are defined in the framework of the Plan, and which are expected to be held at least once a year.
12
Membership of the group includes: Full Members - Participation in the Consultative Group: Government of El Salvador: • SETEPLAN • MIREX • Ministry of Economy • Ministry of Justice and Public Security • MOF • Ministry of Public Works • MINED Local Government: • Association of City Halls Private Sector/Civil Society: • American Chamber of Commerce • National Association for Private Sector Enterprises • National Foundation for Development (Local Chapter of Transparency International) • Salvadoran Foundation for Economic and Social Development • El Salvador Association of Microfinance Organizations • National Council for Growth Strategic partners: • USG o U.S. Embassy o USAID Observer Member: • IDB Executive Secretary: • Academic Institution: Higher School of Economics and Business The IDB serves as the Technical Secretariat of the A4P and also coordinates the committees for the four Alliance lines of action. A fifth committee has also been constituted to deal with the migration issue. The committees consist of representatives from the U.S. Embassy and USAID as well as from the MIREX, non- governmental organizations (NGOs) who work with USAID or who seek funding from USAID, the American Chamber of Commerce, and the private sector. No other donor participates in the committees. Regional Coordination Framework – Central American Integration System Due to the fact that donors are increasingly channeling their assistance regionally, they commonly work with SICA. SICA has a Secretary General, eight member countries, a Parliament, and a council. SICA also has observer countries, including Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Chile, Peru, and India, among others. Their delegates are free to participate in SICA council meetings as well as in the ministers’ meetings. The Council may invite cooperation observer countries to the meetings or country observers may request meeting participation. The embassies of Germany and Spain in San Salvador have SICA specialists in their missions. SICA holds an annual meeting of the Presidents of member countries. This meeting, along with SICA’s General Secretariat, provides the opportunity to address issues and decisions based on SICA’s
13
management mechanism and on regulations that govern cooperation. The “mechanism” is based on concepts and principles of the Paris Declaration, which the members “tropicalize” for application in Central America. SICA also hosts an annual meeting with all SICA donors and observer countries to address political and cooperation issues. SICA also takes advantage of other “ad hoc” spaces to address security issues, for example, such as the meetings they have with “Amigos de la Estrategia de Seguridad de Centro América ESCA” (Friends of the Central American Security Strategy).10 A great amount of U.S. funds are destined to security under this ESCA strategy. SICA’s biggest donors are European, including Germany, the EU, and Spain. Taiwan, Japan, and Korea are the second largest donors and are the most important regarding technical assistance. The EU provides funding for projects that promote development in low-income communities. Their assistance includes promoting the development of micro and small enterprises. SICA has its own system of approval of assistance. Approvals are made by consensus of each of the member countries. SICA’s Secretary General manages assistance coordination at MIREX in El Salvador for assistance that includes El Salvador. Another aspect of SICA system of assistance approval includes approval of the action plans of projects and activities submitted by each of the countries to SICA’s Secretary General. In coordination with USAID, SICA is working on: 1) security framework; 2) economic development/strategy; and 3) environmental and natural disasters’ issues. With USAID funds for cooperation, SICA prepares the Plan de Acción de los Directores de Cooperación del SICA (SICA Cooperation Directors’ Action Plan). Within the framework of the A4P, northern triangle countries benefit from USAID funds, specifically for security and economic initiatives. Themes that are for now cross-cutting for SICA include institutional strengthening and gender equity. SICA key informants reported that they need more coordination among donors to better harmonize and articulate donors’ areas of intervention and avoid duplication. SICA is increasingly trying to promote meetings with donors to express concerns in a consensus. The Europeans have a strong interest in leading these meetings. Currently, Nicaragua is SICA’s representative in these meetings and speaks for all of SICA. SICA is also committing to results-based management and better tools for project formulation. SICA is also pursuing triangular cooperation with Chile, Mexico, and Panama (all high middle-income countries) and other countries that have capacity to provide SSC. Japan employs triangular coordination and cooperation with Mexico and Chile in regional programs such as JICA’s Project on Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Management, which addresses natural catastrophes, and One Village One Product (OVOP). El Salvador’s National Commission for Micro and Small Enterprises (CONAMYPE) is already implementing OVOP. Also, JICA carried out a Regional Forum through their Knowledge Co-Creation Program on “Risk and Catastrophes Remediation.” Panama and Costa Rica are country members of SICA and at the same time they offer regional SSC on the topics of ports and ocean transportation (Panama), and on coffee harvest, agricultural techniques, coffee export, etc. (Costa Rica). Annually, SICA organizes a “South-South Cooperation Fair” for cooperating countries and observers in order to develop more SSC and strengthen relationships between countries in Central and South America. South-South and Trilateral Cooperation
10 The ESCA was formally presented at the XXXI Regular Meeting of Heads of State and Government of the SICA Countries, in Guatemala, on December 12, 2007. It is a fundamental instrument for the coordination and harmonization of actions among the countries of the region, with the purpose of facing the main threats to its security, seeking to guide the coordinated actions that the countries of Central America adopt in terms of security, always taking into account the laws and regulations of each country. The Group of Friends of the ESCA is formed by: Germany, Australia, Canada, Colombia, South Korea, Chile, Spain, United States, Finland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, in addition to the European Union, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the IDB, OAS, International Organization for Migration, IOM UNDP, and the United Nations Office against Drug and Crime. See: https://www.gob.mx/sre/acciones-y-programas/estrategia-de-seguridad-de-centroamerica-esca 14
South-South and Trilateral Cooperation are growing forms of donor cooperation in El Salvador and the region. As stated previously, the Directorate for Technical Cooperation in the MIREX has a unit devoted to this form of cooperation. Brazil participates in SSC with El Salvador and Trilateral Cooperation with several donors, including JICA and FAO. Mexico is involved extensively in trilateral cooperation with USAID, UNDP, FAO, AECID, and other donors, in addition to SSC with El Salvador. UNDP works closely with the GOES to help them provide trilateral assistance to countries in the region. USAID’s Regional Trilateral Cooperation Activity organizes Trilateral Cooperation through other USAID Activities. As of October 31, 2017, they had completed 14 interventions in the Democracy and Governance and the Economic Growth Sectors with Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Argentina Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Chile, and planned 10 new interventions in the same sectors with Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Chile, and Peru. 4.1.3 AQ 1.1: Effectiveness of the Current International Donor Framework and Suggestions for Ways to Strengthen Coordination El Salvador has established a comprehensive donor coordination framework. Coordination could be improved with a stronger leadership from GOES and with a two-way communication promoted. 4.1.3.1 Cases: Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee and School Violence Working Group Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee: The AT collaborated with the evaluation team conducting the ex-post performance evaluation of USAID Fiscal Policy Development Activities to interview key informants who play a key role in the Donor Fiscal Committee. Hence, findings in this section are the same as those included in the afore-mentioned evaluation report.11 The Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee’s roots began in 2010 when different donors working with the Funes Administration on fiscal policy reform were invited by the MOF to participate in the Ministry’s strategic plan. According to key informants, up to that point, donor efforts were scattered without a coherent or consistent strategic focus. In response to the Ministry’s invitation, donors created a Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee for the purpose of aligning their activities with the Ministry’s strategic plan and avoiding duplication of efforts. The first cooperating agencies involved in the meeting were the WB, IDB, and EU, followed by USAID, AECID, and GIZ. Initially operated as a donor initiative, the donors invited the MOF to participate in the Committee in 2013. In 2014, they invited the Ministry to join the Committee as a permanent member to serve a coordinating role. Since then, the Director of the Directorate for Economic and Fiscal Policy has served as the Coordinator of the Committee. The main objective of this group is to harmonize donor cooperation with GOES’ Five Year Plan as well as the MOF’s Strategic Plan. The MOF meets with this group monthly to discuss the main themes and challenges faced by the Ministry and donors. The group has a rotating chair that serves for six months. Currently, the IDB chairs the group. Previously, USAID served as Chair. The Lux-Dev12 and JICA have recently joined this cooperation agency’s group. Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (OXFAM) also frequently attends the meetings. Projects presented by the different cooperators must fall into the Ministry’s strategy. According to one key informant, every December the donors involved in the group conduct an informal internal evaluation of their work to determine the collective impact they are having on the MOF and on fiscal policy. According to two key informants, working through a single coordinating entity at the MOF was a more efficient way for members to engage with the different Directorates at the MOF as opposed to coordinating with each one individually. As they said:
11 See Ex-Post Performance Evaluation of USAID’s Fiscal Activities, December 2017. 12 Lux-Dev’s Regional Office is in Managua, Nicaragua, but they have a representative in El Salvador who attends. 15
“In a sense, the Committee has become like a front for the different Directorates, so that instead of talking to one Directorate by itself, we can reach a lot more Directorates by going through the Committee.” – Donor Committee Member “With the new arrangement, there is a direct line to the Vice Minister through the Committee.” – Donor Committee Member As the Minister’s representative to the Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee, the Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that donors are working coherently, and without duplication of efforts, to achieve the Ministry’s priorities as described in its new Strategic Plan. The Committee Coordinator acts as the conduit through which the Ministry Directorates make requests for assistance to Committee members, and through which Committee members propose and initiate work with the Ministry. The Coordinator is assisted by the Head of the Strategic Institutional Planning Unit of the Economic and Fiscal Policy Directorate, who tracks the implementation of all the donor projects. According to Committee members, the Donor Committee has traditionally acted more as a project management entity as opposed to a planning, collaboration, or mutual learning entity. Committee members have continued to develop their own intervention strategies and activities independent of other Committee members in which case the Committee has served as a mechanism for sharing their plans with other members and ensuring that other members are not planning similar activities. To the extent that Committee members do collaborate on activities, this collaboration has, for the most part, been a product of side discussions among its members rather than the product of agreements reached during Committee meetings or as a result of Committee deliberations. As such, Committee members agree that the Committee has proven valuable in terms of coordinating donor fiscal policy assistance, avoiding duplication of donor efforts, and ensuring that donors work collectively toward fulfilling the Ministry’s strategic plan. Members also agree that donor coordination efforts in fiscal policy have been, overall, successful. Since the Ministry came on board in the coordinator role, it has successfully channeled members’ activities so that they are consistent with the Ministry’s strategic plan and policy priorities. Under the Ministry’s leadership, the Committee has been transitioning from a project management committee to one with an increasing focus on policy dialogue and advocacy (while retaining its project management function). In recent months, for example, the Committee Coordinator has explicitly requested Committee members to take an active role advocating with GOES for fiscal policy and legal reform given the country’s serious fiscal situation. In response to this request, Committee members collaborated to put on two fiscal policy reform seminars for key policy stakeholders (e.g., GOES, National Assembly, academics, business, etc.) in June and July of 2017 in which donors and their invited guests discussed the economic problems facing the country and possible solutions to address them. According to Committee members, the Committee is also taking on more of a learning role with more emphasis being placed on mutual learning. As noted by one member, “Mutual learning has not really been a huge function of the Committee; it has been mostly about sharing information on what different donors are doing. But the mutual learning is increasing. For example, members are making presentations to other members and the MOF of their work for learning purposes and not just to coordinate what they are doing.” When asked why this Committee has been successful while other donor committees have not, one key informant from GIZ asserted that the active involvement of the GOES in this committee has been an essential element of its success compared with other committees. School Violence Working Group USAID is involved in the school violence working group, which includes Organization of Ibero-American States; UNICEF; the United Nations Population Fund; the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; OXFAM; AICS; AECID; and GIZ. This working group is doing well according to
16
the GIZ. The reason for the success of this group is that all the donors have agreed to form a group and to keep it active. The group meets periodically to discuss the progress they are making in their youth violence prevention projects and to share lessons learned. The group also discusses ways they can work together to leverage their work and enhance their results.
4.2 AQ 2: REASONS FOR LACK OF DONOR COORDINATION The majority of key informants reported that they work directly with technical ministries to design their assistance programs in accordance with the GOES’ Five Year Plan. They also meet periodically with the VMCD. They reported that they conduct an unofficial survey of donor programs to ensure that their newly designed programs do not overlap but that they do not regularly coordinate with other donors. The VMCD reported that donor coordination is not easy because not all donors report their initiatives to them.
4.3 AQ 3: DONORS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN ASSISTING EL SALVADOR WITH THE LINES OF ACTIONS OF A4P AND PESS No other donor interviewed is actively engaged in assisting El Salvador with the Lines of Action of the A4P. As illustrated earlier, SETEPLAN, the MIREX, and the IDB, all of whom play key roles in coordinating the A4P, only work with the USG. The majority of donors interviewed, with the exception of Mexico and GIZ, who were aware of the A4P, perceive it as a purely USG initiative in which they are not directly participating, nor have any intention of supporting. Several donors interviewed do not know what the A4P is. Mexico was the only donor the AT met with that stated that they support the A4P but are not involved in the committees that the IDB has organized. The GIZ reported that they are supporting the A4P, but their participation is not reflected in the committees headed by the IDB. Several of the donors are supporting similar lines of action of the Alliance with their regional programs. However, they run their programs typically through SICA. Donor programs in similar areas as the A4P Lines of Action are shown in the list of donor projects included in Annex C. The opposite is true with regard to PESS. Spain, Germany, the EU, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are investing considerable resources in the municipalities included in PESS. Areas into which donors are investing include: prevention of violence; community policing; crime prevention; rehabilitation and integration of women and youth; employment preparation and promotion; health and education; small farmer production; cultural initiatives, including art and dance; building a peace culture; and civil society development. There are a number of donors who are working in the same municipalities as the USG and who participate on donor coordination committees together. USAID and GIZ already collaborate on prevention of youth violence programs.
4.4 AQ 4: PESS MUNICIPALITIES AND SECTORS IN WHICH DONORS ARE INVESTING RESOURCES AND WHERE THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR LEVERAGE WITH USAID A listing of the donor projects in PESS municipalities is included in Tables 5 to 10 below. A complete list of the municipalities in which donors are working is included in Annex C. Table 5: AECID
Municipality Department Project Santa Ana Santa Ana Direct participation of Salvadoran youth in the management, implementation, and monitoring of public policies related to the Zacatecoluca La Paz prevention of violence.
17
Municipality Department Project Tecoluca San Vicente Ayutuxtepeque San Salvador Cuscatancingo San Salvador Strengthening civil society through comprehensive education, guaranteeing children, adolescents, and youth full participation in Mejicanos San Salvador the cycle of public policies for a life free of violence. Nejapa San Salvador San Marcos San Salvador Mejicanos San Salvador Cuscatancingo San Salvador Adult and young women working for the right to autonomy of Cojutepeque Cuscatlán their bodies and the prevention of violence. Tecoluca San Vicente Zacatecoluca La Paz Strengthening the Network of Institutional Foster Entities (Red de Soyapango San Salvador Entidades de Acogimiento Institutional). Mejicanos San Salvador Tonacatepeque San Salvador Transforming education in Latin America. Inclusive Integral Acajutla Sonsonate Education for the prevention of violence in 10 schools in El Santa Ana Santa Ana Salvador. San Miguel San Miguel
Table 6: GIZ
Municipality Department Project San Miguel San Miguel Zacatecoluca La Paz Ahuachapán Ahuachapán San Pedro Masahuat La Paz Santiago Nonualco La Paz Cojutepeque Cuscatlán Prevention of Youth Violence in Central America Regional Program (PREVENIR) Quezaltepeque La Libertad Santa Tecla La Libertad Col n La Libertad Olocuilta La Paz Usulután Usulután Jiquilisco Usulután
Table 7: EU
Municipality Department Project Ciudad Arce La Libertad Forging Secure Citizens with Imagination, Participation, and Action. Col n La Libertad Quezaltepeque La Libertad
18
Municipality Department Project Ilopango San Salvador Supporting the rehabilitation of women deprived of liberty in their integration into the labor market, as well as the integration Santa Ana Santa Ana into the labor market of their sons and daughters in the departments of La Libertad, Santa Ana, and San Salvador. Ilopango San Salvador Creating employment, art, and a culture of peace for young women deprived of liberty. San Vicente San Vicente Building a violence-free society in El Salvador.
Soyapango San Salvador Development of cultural initiatives and artistic training using free time for children and young people from school centers located in areas of social risk. Mejicanos San Salvador Culture of Peace Through the Arts Ciudad Delgado San Salvador Strengthening the capacities of local governments in the processes of citizens participation for a culture of peace. Sonsonate Sonsonate From producer to consumer: for a sustainable value chain of coffee, indigo and vegetables. Tecoluca San Vicente Promotion and application of the human rights of women in the Municipality of Tecoluca with a projection of the Nonualcos Region. San Salvador San Salvador Promoting a Community Integral Attention Model for resilient and constructive youth.
Table 8: JICA
Municipality Department Project Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Jiquilisco Usulután Project for the Consolidation of the Implementation of the New Police Model based on the Philosophy of Community Apopa San Salvador Police. Izalco Sonsonate Projects in the education area, in the framework of the non- Ahuachapán Ahuachapán reimbursable Financial Assistance for Community Projects of Human Security. La Uni n La Uni n Project for the Improvement of Profitability of Vegetable Usulután Usulután Producers in the Eastern Region of the Republic of El Salvador. San Miguel San Miguel Technical Advisory for the strengthening of institutional San Martín San Salvador capacities for the exercise of rector of the normative framework of substantive equality at territorial level.
19
Table 9: KOICA
Municipality Department Project San Salvador San Salvador Installation of video surveillance cameras in the metropolitan Ciudad Delgado San Salvador area of San Salvador. Project of the El Salvador Health Center - Korea, in Soyapango San Salvador Soyapango.
Table 10: Embassy of Taiwan
Municipality Department Project San Juan Opico La Libertad Strengthening the control of Huanglongbing disease (HLB) Ciudad Arce La Libertad and integrated pest management in citrus. San Juan Opico La Libertad La Unión La Unión Promotion of the Development of Family Aquaculture in the Conchagua La Unión Municipalities of Poverty in El Salvador. San Miguel San Miguel Acajutla Sonsonate Creation of the Mariculture Center in El Salvador. Promotion of the National Movement OVOP for the Ilobasco Cuscatlán development of distinctive local industry, with an emphasis on pottery and clay figures in El Salvador. Building capacities of Farmer Organizations in Agricultural Tonacatepeque San Salvador Marketing of El Salvador. State Transformation Program in the Framework of the Five- San Salvador San Salvador Year Development Plan 2014-2019. Promotion of the local industry in the framework of the San Vicente San Vicente Movement OVOP in El Salvador. USAID has projects in all municipalities of three phases of Security Plan of El Salvador “Plan El Salvador Seguro” (PESS), an exception of San Pedro Masahuat municipality where no projects have been identified. This list includes projects that ended in 2017 but that were still active when the donor assessment began.
20
Table 11: USAID
Municipality Department Project Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
Apopa San Salvador
Chalchuapa Santa Ana Ciudad Arce La Libertad
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
Colón La Libertad Conchagua La Unión Cuscatancingo San Salvador Ilobasco Cabañas Jiquilisco Usulután La Libertad La Libertad
Mejicanos San Salvador Metapan Santa Ana Justice Sector Strengthening Project Olocuilta La Paz Quezaltepeque La Libertad San Juan Opico La Libertad San Marcos San Salvador
San Miguel San Miguel
San Vicente San Vicente
Santa Ana Santa Ana
Santa Tecla La Libertad Sonsonate Sonsonate
Soyapango San Salvador Tecoluca San Vicente Zacatecoluca La Paz
Zaragoza La Libertad
21
Municipality Department Project Armenia Sonsonate Cojutepeque Cuscatlán Guazapa San Salvador Nejapa San Salvador Olocuilta La Paz Panchimalco San Salvador Government and Integrity Project San Miguel San Miguel San Pedro Perulapán Cuscatlán Santo Tomás San Salvador Sonsonate Sonsonate Zacatecoluca La Paz Acajutla Sonsonate Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Armenia Sonsonate Atiquizaya Ahuachapán Ciudad Arce La Libertad Colón La Libertad Izalco Sonsonate Jiquilisco Usulután La Libertad La Libertad Nahuizalco Sonsonate El Salvador National Cacao Initiative San Juan Opico La Libertad San Luis Talpa La Paz San Miguel San Miguel San Vicente San Vicente Santiago Nonualco La Paz Sonsonate Sonsonate Tecoluca San Vicente Usulutan Usulután Zacatecoluca La Paz
22
Municipality Department Project Ciudad Arce La Libertad
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador Colón La Libertad
Mejicanos San Salvador San Miguel San Miguel Bridges to Employment San Salvador San Salvador
Santa Ana Santa Ana Santa Tecla La Libertad Soyapango San Salvador
Zacatecoluca La Paz Acajutla Sonsonate Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Apopa San Salvador Armenia Sonsonate Atiquizaya Ahuachapán
Ayutuxtepeque San Salvador Chalchuapa Santa Ana Ciudad Arce La Libertad Ciudad Delgado San Salvador Education for Children and Youth Coatepeque Santa Ana
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
Colón La Libertad Ilobasco Cabañas
Ilopango San Salvador Izalco Sonsonate
Jiquilisco Usulután La Libertad La Libertad
Mejicanos San Salvador
23
Municipality Department Project Nahuizalco Sonsonate
Nejapa San Salvador Panchimalco San Salvador
Quezaltepeque La Libertad San Juan Opico La Libertad
San Martín San Salvador
San Miguel San Miguel San Pedro Perulapán Cuscatlán San Salvador San Salvador
San Vicente San Vicente Santa Ana Santa Ana Santa Cruz Michapa Cuscatlán Santa Tecla La Libertad Sonsonate Sonsonate Soyapango San Salvador
Tecoluca San Vicente Tonacatepeque San Salvador Usulután Usulután Zacatecoluca La Paz Zaragoza La Libertad
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
Ciudad Arce La Libertad Colón La Libertad
Conchagua La Unión Adopt a School El Congo Santa Ana
Ilobasco Cabañas Ilopango San Salvador
Izalco Sonsonate
24
Municipality Department Project La Libertad La Libertad
La Unión La Unión Metapán Santa Ana
Nahuizalco Sonsonate Nejapa San Salvador
San Juan Opico La Libertad
San Luis Talpa La Paz San Marcos San Salvador San Miguel San Miguel
San Salvador San Salvador Santa Ana Santa Ana Santa Tecla La Libertad Santiago Nonualco La Paz Santo Tomás San Salvador Sonsonate Sonsonate
Soyapango San Salvador Tecoluca San Vicente Tonacatepeque San Salvador Usulután Usulután Zacatecoluca La Paz
Zaragoza La Libertad
San Miguel San Miguel San Salvador San Salvador
Santa Ana Santa Ana Higher Education for Economic Growth Santa Tecla La Libertad
Soyapango San Salvador Atiquizaya Ahuachapán Sustainable Agro-Alimentary Sector Program Coatepeque Santa Ana
25
Municipality Department Project El Congo Santa Ana
Metapán Santa Ana Sonsonate Sonsonate
San Juan Opico La Libertad San Miguel San Miguel
Santa Tecla La Libertad Superate Sonsonate Sonsonate Soyapango San Salvador Tonacatepeque San Salvador
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Chalchuapa Santa Ana Cojutepeque Cuscatlán Conchagua La Unión Clean Energy Initiative Metapán Santa Ana San Salvador San Salvador
Sonsonate Sonsonate Soyapango San Salvador Acajutla Sonsonate Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Apopa San Salvador
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán Colón La Libertad Crime and Violence Prevention
Conchagua La Unión Ilobasco Cabañas
La Union La Unión Mejicanos San Salvador
Nejapa San Salvador
26
Municipality Department Project Olocuilta La Paz
Panchimalco San Salvador Quezaltepeque La Libertad
San Vicente San Vicente Santa Cruz Michapa Cuscatlán
Soyapango San Salvador
Tecoluca San Vicente Usulután Usulután Zacatecoluca La Paz
Ciudad Arce La Libertad Ciudad Delgado San Salvador La Libertad La Libertad San Salvador San Salvador SolucionES Sonsonate Sonsonate Tonacatepeque San Salvador
Zacatecoluca La Paz Armenia Sonsonate Ciudad Arce La Libertad Mejicanos San Salvador Olocuilta La Paz
San Juan Opico La Libertad Youth and Community Development Program
San Marcos San Salvador San Salvador San Salvador
Santa Tecla La Libertad Santiago Nonualco La Paz
San Martín San Salvador Forced Displacement by Violence North Triangle of Central Cuscatancingo San Salvador America San Vicente San Vicente
27
Municipality Department Project Usulután Usulután
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Mejicanos San Salvador
La Unión La Unión Improved Coastal Watersheds and Livelihoods Project Conchangua La Unión
San Miguel San Miguel
Usulután Usulután Return and Reintegration in the Northern Triangle Program Zacatecoluca La Paz Sonsonate Sonsonate
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Better Coffee Harvest Santa Ana Santa Ana
4.5 AQ 5: PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF OTHER DONORS ABOUT CONDUCTING JOINT EVALUATIONS OF PROJECTS The UNDP Office of El Salvador has had some experiences in conducting joint evaluations. In addition to providing an opportunity to harmonize evaluations, reduce transaction costs, and reduce the burden on the management of evaluations for counterparts, a joint evaluation offers an opportunity to linearize initiatives and give greater legitimacy to the findings and recommendations, according to the General Director of UNDP. In the past, UNDP conducted joint evaluations with the EU, IDB, and other agencies and programs of the UN System, which, while not exempt from challenges (especially administrative in the hiring of evaluators), have been positive. According to a UN key informant, USAID is a valuable partner for UNDP, according to one UN key informant, and the UN and USAID could conduct joint project evaluations if they would meet and discuss sectors and projects where this would make sense. A key informant from JICA stated that they would be open to a joint evaluation with USAID, depending upon the sectors, the locations, and whether they have coordinated their efforts and have instituted a joint system of monitoring. GIZ conducts joint evaluations with their main counterpart in El Salvador, the Ministry of Economy. GIZ’s evaluation framework is developed at their Home Office in Germany. They reported that this framework is currently under revision and once finalized, they will employ it in El Salvador in collaboration with the Ministry of Economy.
4.6 AQ 6: ORGANIZATIONS, DONOR COUNTRIES, AND SSC COUNTRIES WORKING WITHIN A TRILATERAL COOPERATION FRAMEWORK IN EL SALVADOR Donors, including USAID, are increasingly working within a trilateral cooperation framework in El Salvador. Japan is cooperating with the Embassy of Brazil in El Salvador on community policing and with Chile regionally. The UNDP office works hand-in-hand with the GOES to provide SSC to countries in the region and the African continent on issues of productive development, especially the Supplier Development Program. Recently, the UNDP has signed trilateral agreements with Chile and Colombia on
28
issues of citizen security and peace building. The Embassy of Mexico has trilateral cooperation with USAID, FAO, GIZ, AECID, and other countries. The Embassy of Brazil has discussed trilateral cooperation with USAID, but the proposed activities have never actually begun. Dev-Lux also has a robust SSC and trilateral cooperation framework.13 4.6.1 AQ 6.1: Organizations, Donor Countries and SSC Countries Who See Potential in Trilateral Cooperation Work With USAID UNDP is specifically interested in cooperating with USAID on trilateral work in the area of governance with issues related to citizen security and also elections. These issues are critical for the consolidation of democracy in El Salvador. JICA also reported that they are interested in working with USAID on Trilateral Cooperation. The Embassy of Mexico already works with USAID. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AQ 1: What formal or informal international donor coordination frameworks exist in El Salvador? AQ 1.1: How effective is the current international donor framework perceived to be and what are suggestions for ways to strengthen coordination? • A comprehensive framework for donor cooperation already exists in El Salvador but it is not functioning according to its intentions. It would be beneficial if GOES institutions take more initiative to actively coordinate all key donors. • There is a need for the Technical Cooperation Directorate of the VMCD to update SICDES, their online donor information system, in order for donors to be able to know what each is implementing as well as to look for opportunities to collaborate. • The annual donor meetings initiated by the Technical Cooperation Directorate could be an opportunity to facilitate donor coordination if appropriately conducted. • Highly successful examples of donor coordination exist in the Fiscal Donor Coordination Committee, currently led by the MOF, and the Social Equality Donor Coordination Committee, led by the Presidency. However, a change in GOES policy led to the disbandment of the Social Equality Committee. • Donors are capable of initiating successful and effective donor coordination groups. Donors are in general open to collaboration and most likely would be open to other donors who take the initiative. • All key informants the AT met with requested that USAID meet with them to present the USAID bilateral and regional program; receive a full briefing regarding their program and/or way of operating; and to discuss further cooperation. AQ 2: Where there is no coordination mechanism in place, why has this not been pursued? • Lack of donor coordination derives from lack of communication and information sharing from both donors and the GOES. AQ 3: Which are the donors that are actively engaged in El Salvador with the lines of action of the A4P and the PESS and to what extent are they doing it? • The majority of donors perceive A4P as a U.S. initiative and do not want to participate. However, they are working on similar initiatives as the A4P.
13 See http://managua.mae.li/es/Cooperacion-en.El-Salvador
29 • AECID, GIZ, the EU, JICA, KOICA, and the Embassy of Taiwan are potential collaborators to work on projects in PESS municipalities because all of these donors are already actively involved in PESS municipalities. AQ 4: In which PESS and non-PESS municipalities and sectors are the donors investing resources and is there potential for leverage with USAID? • Given the fact that the USAID and donors are working in many of the same PESS and non-PESS municipalities in the same sectors, there is a great potential to collaborate in specific municipalities, based on discussions. AQ 5: What are the practices and perceptions of other donors about conducting joint evaluations of projects? • Only the minority of donors interviewed conduct joint evaluations. JICA stated that they would be willing to conduct a joint evaluation with USAID depending upon the sector and project. UNDP also stated their willingness depending upon sector and project. AQ 6: Which organizations, donor countries, and SSC countries are working within a trilateral cooperation framework in El Salvador? • Three of the donors are working through trilateral assistance and appear to be open to more of such assistance. AQ 6.1: Do these organizations, donor countries, and SSC countries see potential in trilateral cooperation work with USAID? In which areas? • JICA and UNDP are interested in trilateral assistance with USAID. The Assessment of the Potential for Trilateral Assistance conducted by USAID’s Trilateral Assistance Project also lays out in detail the possibility of trilateral assistance with many countries in Central and South America. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Mission can engage with donors more effectively and efficiently by taking the following steps: AQ1 and AQ1.1: • USAID relevant staff should meet with donors, the GOES, and SICA to present USAID’s program and to discuss possible cooperation. • USAID should work closely with the UN and the VMCD on organizing donors to unify their programs in support of the UN Agenda 2030 and the UN SDGs. • USAID should recommend to the GOES institutions to appoint a responsible person to be Donor Coordinator immediately below the position of Vice Minister, so that s/he has more authority than the Directors and they have to follow his/her directives. • Relevant USAID staff should consistently attend the meetings of the three councils (Security, Education, and Environmental Sustainability) run by the Governance Committee in the Presidency and build stronger collaborative relationships with other donors attending the meetings. • The USAID Program Office should share information about where and in which sectors other donors included in this assessment work so that Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) and Agreement Officer’s Representatives (AORs) can decide where collaboration makes sense. The CORs and AORs can work with their activities to reach out to donors and their projects and begin collaborative arrangements and possibly joint evaluations. • USAID should review the requirements for donor coordination established by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation and develop a Plan of Action to implement
30 it. For example, USAID could develop a strategy to work within the framework established by the VMCD that includes specific results indicators and plan joint evaluations with GOES counterparts. • GOES needs to play a strong role in facilitating donor coordination especially since donors are overall willing to cooperate if they have leadership from the government. AQ 2: • Develop a donor coordination committee in areas where USAID perceives there is potential and high value in cooperating. This is how the Fiscal Committee, which is very successful, was initiated. AQ 3: • A4P: Negotiate with GOES to initiate their planned information campaign that strengthens the GOES ownership of the A4P. Work with GOES so they reach out to other donors to invite them to identify with the A4P in order to increase its impact. • PESS: As stated in the recommendation for AQ4, contact other donors working in PESS municipalities in order to collaborate. See the list of PESS projects in Tables 4 to 10 of this report and maps in Annex D and the list of common municipalities in Annex E. AQ 4: • Take the initiative to contact and offer to collaborate with other donors working on similar projects in the same PESS and non-PESS municipalities in order to leverage USAID projects and create synergy. • Meet with UNDP regarding their recent study on PESS and to seek further cooperation with donors involved. • USAID should meet with GIZ to expand their collaboration in prevention of youth violence in the Department of San Miguel and possibly in other departments. • USAID should consider, under the parameters established in the U.S. Government’s One-China Policy, collaboration with the Embassy of Taiwan on the OVOP Initiative, in addition to possible collaboration with JICA already initiated. • USAID should consider collaborating in higher education with AICS since AICS’s main focus is higher education and both donors have much in common in terms of their strategies. AQ 5: • After collaborating on specific projects, USAID should request joint evaluations with the donors with which it collaborates. For example, PESS affords a good opportunity to conduct joint evaluations on similar projects, such as prevention of youth violence projects, in municipalities in which USAID and other donors work. • USAID could consider a joint evaluation with GIZ of the prevention of youth projects in San Miguel. USAID could meet with GIZ and draft a scope-of-work for the joint evaluation and contract it out to a joint U.S.-German evaluation team. • USAID might also consider a joint evaluation of the status of higher education in El Salvador with AICS. AQ 6: • Meet with the UNDP, JICA, the Embassy of Brazil, and the SSC countries identified by the assessment conducted by the USAID Trilateral Activity to expand their trilateral collaboration. • The Program Office COR for the USAID Trilateral Activity should meet with the Activity staff to request that they meet with donors to expand their recommendations for Trilateral Cooperation, especially in PESS municipalities and in areas such as prevention of youth violence, and in initiatives such as OVOP.
31 7.0 ANNEXES Annex A: References and Review Matrix of Documents Annex B: The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation: 2016 Assessment of El Salvador Annex C: List of Key Donor Projects Annex D: Maps of Key Donor Projects Annex E. Comparative Table of Donors, Sectors, and Municipalities
32 ANNEX A: REFERENCES AND REVIEW MATRIX OF DOCUMENTS
33 Documents Reviewed USAID/El Salvador Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2013-2017 USAID/Central America and Mexico Regional Development Cooperation Strategy 2015-2020 USAID Central America Regional Trilateral Cooperation (RTC) Assessment of Potential Trilateral Cooperation, IBTCI, April 2017. U.S. Government Strategy for Engagement in Central America Plan of Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle GOES Plan for a Secure El Salvador GOES Five-Year Plan (2014-2019) Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation Progress Reports GPEDC, Nairobi Outcome Document, 2016 OECD, Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/busanpartnership.htm OECD, Making Development Cooperation More Effective. 2016 Report. Retrieved from file:///Users/randal/Downloads/2016%20progress%20report%20synthesis.eng.pdf
34 Table 12: Summary of Major Documents Reviewed
Name of Key Main Points Strategic Documents
GOES Five Year Plan Chapter 1: The Well-Being and Human Development in El Salvador (2014-2019) Chapter 2: Transformation of the State, Action Plan for Development, and Citizen Participation Chapter 3: El Salvador: A Country of Opportunities and Challenges. The First Results of Change. Chapter 4: Future Vision and Strategic Steps Toward 2024 Chapter 5: The Objective of Well-Being: Framework of the Five-Year Plan Five Axes and 124 actions to take in the short, medium, and long term to enhance the life of communities, Plan El Salvador Seguro increase access to justice, and reduce and prevent violence in an initial group of 50 municipalities: (PESS) 1. Improve the lives of people in the territories to reduce the incidence and impact of violence and crime. Plan for a Secure El 2. Establish a system of criminal investigation and criminal justice that citizens trust. Salvador 3. Remove the influence of criminal groups in pockets of poverty and ensure that the law is followed in incarcerating and rehabilitating them. 4. Establish a legal framework and an institutional system to guarantee comprehensive care and protection to Authors: National victims with the purpose of reducing the impact of violence and crime. Council for Citizen 5. Create a coherent system of crime prevention and incarceration/rehabilitation that citizens have confidence in. Security and Coexistence. Composed of State institutions, COMURES, churches, media, private enterprise, political parties, members of civil society, and the international community
Alliance for Prosperity in Four Objectives: the Northern Triangle 1. Dynamize the Productive Sector Plan (A4P) • Promote strategic sector with employment potential • Access to finance • Enhance connectivity and logistics • Energy sector
35 Name of Key Main Points Strategic Documents
Governments of El 2. Improve Citizen Security and Access to Justice Salvador, Honduras, and 3. Develop Human Capital Guatemala • Reduce migration and trafficking of persons and work to reintegrate returnees USG • Enhance education • Improve health • Women’s equality 4. Strengthen Institutions and Improve Transparency • Enhance tax collection and expense management El Salvador Country Goal: Broad-based Economic Growth in a Secure El Salvador Expanded Development Strategy DO 1: Citizen Security and Rule of Law in Targeted Areas Improved (CDCS) IR 1.1: Justice, transparency, and accountability in key institutions improved • Sub IR 1.1.1: Targeted policies and legislation reformed • Sub IR 1.1.2: Effectiveness and public service professionalism enhanced IR 1.2: Crime and violence in targeted municipalities reduced • Sub IR 1.2.1: Broad-based engagement in crime prevention efforts at the local level increased • Sub IR 1.2.2: Community policing in high-risk municipalities expanded • Sub IR 1.2.3: Youth access to quality education opportunities increased DO 2: Economic growth opportunities in tradables expanded IR 2.1: Business Enabling Environment Improved • Sub-IR 2.1.1: Institutional capacity to promote trade and investment improved • Sub IR 2.1.2: Tax revenue and expenditure administration strengthened IR 2.2: Productivity of targeted businesses increased • Sub IR 2.2.1: Higher education and workforce competencies increased • Sub IR 2.2.2: Business Development services for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) increased • Sub IR 2.2.3: Sustainable production of key agro-tradables expanded Regional Development Goal: A More Inclusive, Prosperous, Transparent, and Safe Central America Region Cooperation Strategy DO 1: Regional Economic Integration Increased (RDCS) for Central IR 1.1: Regional trade expanded America and Mexico • Sub-IR 1.1.1: Trade facilitation improved 2016-2020 • Sub-IR 1.1.2: Transportation modernized and logistics efficiency improved • Sub-IR 1.1.3: Technical barriers to trade reduced IR 1.2: Regional markets and investment in key sectors increased
36 Name of Key Main Points Strategic Documents
• Sub-IR 1.2.1: Agriculture value chains enhanced • Sub-IR 1.2.2: Private sector productive and competitive capabilities strengthened DO 2: Regional Climate Smart Economic Growth Enhanced IR 2.1: Low-carbon development increased • Sub-IR 2.1.1: Regional climate-smart land use practices scaled-up • Sub-IR 2.1.2: Investment in low-emissions solutions expanded IR 2.2: Resiliency of humans and the environment to climate change impacts increased • Sub-IR 2.2.1: Access to quality climate data for decision-making increased • Sub-IR 2.2.2: Evidence-based climate-resilient practices adopted • Sub-IR 2.3.1: Regional environmental governance improved • Sub-IR 2.3.2: Environmentally sustainable livelihoods expanded • Sub-IR 3.1.1: Increased regional capacity for citizen security data collection and analysis IR 2.3: Transboundary natural resource management strengthened • Sub-IR 3.1.2: Dissemination of citizen security best practices through regional networks expanded • Sub-IR. 3.1.3: Sustainable regional capacity for violence prevention and interruption increased DO 3: Regional Human Rights and Citizen Security Improved IR 3.1: Regional capacity to address citizen security through more coordinated governance systems improved • Sub-IR 3.1.1: Increased regional capacity for citizen security data collection and analysis • Sub-IR 3.1.2: Dissemination of citizen security best practices through regional networks expanded • Sub-IR. 3.1.3: Sustainable regional capacity for violence prevention and interruption increased IR 3.2: Human rights standards and protection systems strengthened • Sub-IR. 3.2.1: Enabling environments for prevention of human rights violations strengthened • Sub-IR. 3.2.2: Responsive actions to address human rights violations expanded • Sub-IR 3.2.3: Sustainable early warning and protection systems for key vulnerable groups developed DO 4: HIV prevalence in Central America contained IR 4.1: Effectiveness of comprehensive prevention, care, and treatment services increased • Sub IR 4.1.1: HIV prevention and diagnosis services focused on key populations increased • Sub IR 4.1.2: Positive populations’ enrollment, retention, and treatment in HIV qualified health care centers and community services improved IR 4.2: Health systems strengthened and sustained • Sub IR 4.2.1: Capacity and competency of governmental and non-governmental health organizations to respond to the increased demand built
37 Name of Key Main Points Strategic Documents
• Sub IR 4.2.2: Non-health sector organizations involved in the HIV response increased and strengthened • Sub IR 4.2.3: Sustainable national investments in HIV increased IR 4.3: Knowledge management system adopted • Sub IR 4.3.1: Geographic and population focused planning strengthened • Sub IR 4.3.2: Innovation and research on interventions for key populations and people living with HIV/AIDS developed USAID Regional The assessment highlights potential opportunities for trilateral cooperation with Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Trilateral Cooperation Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica and highlights the themes and subject areas, in alignment with the CEN Strategy Project Initial and relevant regional and Central American countries strategies. Additionally, the assessment identifies best Assessment of the practices and successful models from potential donor countries that are ripe for replication. The Assessment Potential for Trilateral proposes targeted and appropriate opportunities for trilateral cooperation over the lifetime of the project. Assistance Project strategy includes supporting USAID existing projects with trilateral cooperation study tours, workshops, and other collaboration with countries listed above. U.S. Strategy for Objective: the evolution of an economically integrated Central America that is fully democratic; provides Engagement in Central economic opportunities to its people; enjoys more accountable, transparent, and effective public institutions; and America ensures a safe environment for its citizens. Objective 1 - Prosperity Region is more prosperous Strategic Objective (SO) 1.1: Improved trade and transport. a) Existing Free Trade Agreements facilitate and regulate the increased movement of goods, services and investment among Central American nations and regionally, and promote economic integration, while protecting basic human rights and minimizing damages to the environment. a) Ground, air, and maritime cross-border transportation through Central America is expedited for legal trade. SO 1.2: Diversify and connect electric grids. Electrical grids are diversified and connected throughout Central America to decrease energy prices and attract investment. SO 1.3: Reduce poverty Central Americans living below the poverty line are able to meet their basic needs. SO 1.4: Improve quality of education Central American youth receive higher quality secondary education. SO 1.5: Resilience Central America economies and citizens have the ability and resources to recover losses and return to normalcy following a natural disaster (resilience). Objective 2 - Governance Region is well governed SO 2.1: Professionalize civil service Host nation governments create a competent civil service that provides nonpartisan continuity and service.
38 Name of Key Main Points Strategic Documents
SO 2.2: Improve fiscal accountability Host nation governments increase revenues and are accountable for investing public resources responsibly. SO 2.3: Governments uphold democratic values Central American civil society demand government accountability without reprisal of their rights and are able to influence policy outcomes. Host nation governments uphold the values and practices of liberal democracy; citizens hold their governments accountable for these responsibilities. SO 2.4: Implement justice reforms Central American host governments and the justice sector within each implement meaningful institutional reforms to decrease impunity. Objective 3 - Security Region is more secure SO 3.1: Professionalize civilian police. Host nations professionalize the civilian police in areas of responsiveness, transparency, and community-based operations. SO 3.2: Reduce violence at local level. Trusted security forces, civil society, and municipal governments reduce violence at the local level through place-based approaches. SO 3.3: Professionalize regional military. Central American militaries transition from supporting internal law enforcement to other missions that reflect civilian control of the military, improving regional defense cooperation while maintaining respect for human rights. SO 3.4: Reduce influence of organized crime and gangs. Host nation governments, law enforcement, and multilateral organizations collaborate to decrease the level of influence of organized criminal groups and gangs on elected bodies, territory, financial institutions, and citizens in Central America.
39 ANNEX B: THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION 2016 ASSESSMENT OF EL SALVADOR
40 INDICATORS
Table A.1a: Development Partners Use Country/Government-Led Results Frameworks: Alignment of New Interventions to National Priorities
38.9% 22.2% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0% 11.1% 11.1%
… from the national development plan …from institutional or ministry's plans …from development partner's strategy agreed with the government …from sector plans and strategies …from other government planning tools No response No
As can be seen in the table above, a relatively small group of donors employ the GOES-led results frameworks or align their new interventions to national priorities. This finding differs from what key informants of the major donors reported. They reported in interviews that they base their development strategy on the GOES Five Year Strategy or other GOES strategies such as The Plan for a Secure El Salvador.
41 Table A.1b: Development Partners Use Country/Government-Led Results Frameworks to Design, Monitor, and Evaluate New Interventions – El Salvador % of results indicators % of results Average which are drawn indicators which will % of new % of new interventions Number of number of Amount from be monitored using interventions that that plan a final evaluation interventions results (USD million) country/government- government sources plan a final with government assessed indicators per led results and monitoring evaluation involvement intervention frameworks systems 18 327.3 6 56.1% 49.9% 80.0% 46.7% The tables above and below illustrate that more than more than half of development partners use results indicators drawn from the GOES-led frameworks. The score illustrates that 80 percent of donors plan final evaluations but only 46.7 percent of these donors plan a joint evaluation with the GOES.
Table A.1b: Development Partners Use Country/Government-Led Results Frameworks to Design, Monitor, and Evaluate New Interventions
42 Table A.1c: Countries/Governments Set Their Own Development Priorities and Results: Existence of Country/Government-Led Results Framework(s) – El Salvador Countries/governments that have established priority-setting mechanisms at the national and/or sector level Sector strategies A country/government-led results Long-term National Public frameworks is present and includes Education Healthcare Transport vision development plan finance priorities, targets and indicators Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes, in a single strategic document According to Table A.1c. above, El Salvador has met the requirements of establishing a development framework to lead their own development process and which donors can support.
Table A.3: Public-Private Dialogue Promotes Private Sector Engagement and Its Contribution to Development – El Salvador*
Private sector willingness to Government willingness to Existence of potential Availability of instruments to engage engage champion facilitate dialogue 3 4 0 0 * Score from 0 (weak) to 10 (strong) According to Table A.3, on a scale of 0 (weak) to 10 (strong), El Salvador has not made much progress in involving the private sector in development.
43
Table A.5a: Development Co-Operation Is Predictable (annual) – El Salvador Indicator 5a: Annual predictability of development co-operation Total direct 2015 2010 Scheduled disbursements in Disbursement disbursements for the country/ for the public (%) (for reference) the public sector territory sector a= “as b= “beyond a= “as b= “beyond (USD m) (USD m) (USD m) scheduled” scheduled” scheduled” scheduled” 306.09 228.71 163.00 74.2% 47.1% 93.2% 17.6% The table above and the following tables below illustrate that the GOES cannot plan in the medium term for development assistance that they will receive, which would allow them to develop plans that donors could support. In the short-term in 2015, the GOES received a consider amount of unplanned aid in 2015. This could be the result of the Alliance for the Prosperity of the Northern Triangle, which initiated an additional influx of development assistance.
44 Table A.5a: Development Co-Operation Is Predictable (annual)
100.0%
93.2%
74.2%
50.0% 47.1%
17.6% 0.0% 2015 2010 as scheduled beyond as scheduled beyond scheduled scheduled
Table A.5b: Development Co-Operation Is Predictable (medium term) – El Salvador Indicator 5b. Medium-term predictability One year ahead Two years ahead Three years ahead 2015 2013 A B C d=(a+b+c)/3 (for reference) 51.6% 22.0% 1.2% 24.9% 2.0%
45 Table A.5b: Development Co-Operation Is Predictable (medium term)
Three years ahead
Two years ahead
One year ahead
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Table A.6: Development Co-Operation Is on Budget – El Salvador Indicator 6. Development co-operation on budget Funds recorded in Scheduled disbursement for 2015 2010 (for reference) government annual budget the public sector Share recorded Share over- Share recorded on Share over-recorded (USD m) (USD m) on budget recorded on budget budget on budget 98.98 228.71 66.2% 25.2% 16.3% 30.0%
46 Table A.6: Development Co-Operation Is on Budget
Share over-recorded on budget
Share recorded on budget 2010 (for reference) (for 2010 Share over-recorded on budget
2015 Share recorded on budget
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
El Salvador has made significant progress in instituting joint GOES and non-executive stakeholders-donor reviews, a key requirement of the Paris Declaration that illustrates that governments, other sectors, and donors are all collaborating in the design, implementation, and evaluation of international cooperation.
Table A.7: Mutual accountability Is Strengthened Through Inclusive Reviews – El Salvador Indicator 7. Inclusive, transparent mutual Criteria accountability reviews in place Aid or Local targets for Joint regular Involvement of (At least4 out of 5 Results are (for reference) partnership development co- assessment non-executive criteria) made public 2010 policy in place operation towards targets stakeholders 2015 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
47 Table A.8: Governments Track Public Allocations for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment – El Salvador Government System oversight Gender-related budget Gender allocations Indicator 8 statement defining the by central information publicly Indicator 8 systematically tracked 2015 tracking system government unit available 2013 (for reference) Yes Yes Yes No No No The Paris Declaration required that assistance-receiving countries strengthen their country financial and management systems so that donors have sufficient trust in the transparency and effectiveness of such systems within which to deliver their assistance. Unfortunately, no data is available regarding whether El Salvador has met this requirement, as of the recent monitoring exercise.
Table A. 9a: Governments Strengthen Budgetary and Public Financial Management Systems – El Salvador
Indicator 9a. CIPA score (1.0 to 6.0) 2013 2010 2015 (for reference) (for reference) - - - "-" Data is not available. As Table A.9b below reports, donors are still not relying on El Salvador’s management and financial systems through which to channel their assistance.
Table A.9b: Development Partners Use Government Budgetary and Public Financial Management Systems – El Salvador Indicator 9b.
Direct disbursements for % % % % 2015 2010 the public sector (for reference) (USD m) Budget Financial Auditing Procurement % % execution reporting 228.71 74.1% 22.6% 22.6% 24.2% 35.9% 27.9%
48 Table A.9.b: Development Partners Use Government Budgetary and Public Financial Management Systems
Table A.10: Aid Is Untied – El Salvador Indicator 10. Aid is untied Total bilateral aid as reported to the DAC in 2014* Untied aid Share of untied aid 2010 A B b/a (for reference) 318.46 270.50 84.9% 68.4% The Paris declaration requires that donors provide untied assistance and donors to El Salvador have made significant progress in following this requirement, as illustrated in the table above. http://effectivecooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-Monitoring-Guide_-final1.pdf
49 ANNEX C: LIST OF KEY DONOR PROJECTS
50 DONOR PROJECT S IN EL SALVADOR Table 13: EU Projects in El Salvador
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS MUNICIPALITY START FINAL No. DEPARTMENT SECTOR18 NAME OF PROJECT OF- PROJECT INVOLVED IN LINKS 17 DATE19 DATE AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION Strengthening of civil society’s role in the improvement of local Spanish Red Cross 1 National20 National Social Inclusion and national mechanisms to $382,645.58 5/1/2017 6/29/2021 Foundation protect human rights from the social violence in El Salvador
Promoting an Integral Model to San Salvador Municipality 2 San Salvador San Salvador Social Inclusion $703,716.00 11/1/2016 12/27/2020 help develop resilient and constructive youth
Economic and productive Development of 3 Yamabal Morazán strengthening to create jobs in the $381,179.50 12/1/2016 7/28/2021 Yamabal Municipality the private sector Yamabal municipality, in Morazán
http://www.probusqueda.or g.sv/presentacion-del- Support Human Rights champions proyecto-defensores-y- in promoting a secure 4 National National Social Inclusion $438,634.51 1/1/2017 6/29/2021 Mundubat Foundation defensoras-de-ddhh- environment to develop their promoviendo-un-entorno- activities to foster human rights seguro-y-propicio-para-el- desarrollo-de-sus-acciones/
Strengthening and articulation of http://www.mag.gob.sv/lanza Civil Society Organizations to n-proyecto-que-promueve- 5 National National Sustainability promote the sustainable inclusive $703,716.00 1/1/2017 6/29/2021 Horizont3000 produccion-y-consumo-de- development through Organic alimentos-organicos/ Agriculture in El Salvador
http://fusades.org/lo- Dialogues. Strengthening ultimo/noticias/inicia-el- the capacity for dialogue of young Salvadoran Foundation proyecto-dialogus-para- 6 National National Social Inclusion people in review and critique of $614,404.17 2/1/2017 7/1/2021 for Economic and Social promover-la- public policy regarding social Development participaci%C3%B3n-de- programs j%C3%B3venes-en-procesos
17 The municipalities are those that are included in the project from the beginning of the project implementation 18 The sector categories are those used by the European Union. The AT obtained them in an interview with Pierre-Yves Baulain and from the document “EU Projects 2017 Thematic Lines” provided by Mr. Pierre-Yves Baulain, Head of Cooperation, Delegation of the European Union in El Salvador, October 2017. 19 When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed. Otherwise only the month and year, or only the year. 20 The category of “national” indicates that the project is working nation-wide. When San Salvador is indicated, the project is working only in San Salvador.
51
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS MUNICIPALITY START FINAL No. DEPARTMENT SECTOR18 NAME OF PROJECT OF- PROJECT INVOLVED IN LINKS 17 DATE19 DATE AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION From producer to consumer: for Development of Movement Africa 70 7 Sonsonate Sonsonate a sustainable value chain in coffee, $585,607.83 12/1/2016 6/29/2021 the private sector Association indigo and vegetables.
Strengthening for sustainable San Esteban San Esteban Catarina 8 San Vicente Social Inclusion development skills in San Esteban $695,749.93 1/1/2017 1/27/2022 Catarina Municipality Catarina Strengthening of technical and Procurator for the operating skills of the Public 9 National National Social Inclusion $257,505.75 1/1/2016 7/29/2020 Defense of Human Defender of Human Rights, for Rights migrant victims, in Human Rights
Promotion and application of National Association of Social Inclusion Human Rights for women in 10 Tecoluca San Vicente $322,536.50 1/1/2016 6/27/2020 Salvadoran Women Tecoluca municipality (projected Mayors to Region de los Nonualcos)
https://medicusmundi.es/es/ proyectos/60/salud-sexual- Ilopango San Salvador y-reproductiva-en-dos- Ensure the Access of human centros-penales-de-el- rights, with an emphasis in sexual Association of salvador 11 health of women that are $575,287.83 1/1/2015 12/27/2019 Salvadoran Community Social Inclusion https://medicusmundi.es/es/ deprived of freedom inside two Promoters proyectos/60/salud-sexual- Penal Centers in El Salvador y-reproductiva-en-dos- San Miguel San Miguel centros-penales-de-el- salvador
Madeleine Lagadec Promoting human rights through Association Center for 12 Mejicanos San Salvador strengthening of champions in El $318,843.77 12/1/2014 11/27/2017 Social Inclusion the Promotion of Salvador Human Rights Mugarik Gabe Non- Promoting sexual and Governmental 13 National National reproductive health rights in $361,403.91 2/1/2015 9/26/2018 Organization for Social Inclusion young and grown women Development Cooperation
Victoria Caba as
San Miguel San Miguel http://gmies.org/talleres- Support to the Professional Independent Monitoring tecnicos-del-instituto-de- Concepci n 14 Chalatenango Training Institute of the General $541,293.43 1/5/2015 10/4/2019 Group of El Salvador formacion-profesional-del- Quezaltepeque Social Inclusion Union of Seamstresses Nonprofit association sindicato-general-de- costureras/ San Salvador San Salvador
Ilopango San Salvador
52
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS MUNICIPALITY START FINAL No. DEPARTMENT SECTOR18 NAME OF PROJECT OF- PROJECT INVOLVED IN LINKS 17 DATE19 DATE AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION
http://www.lasmelidas.org.sv Strengthening the capacity of /index.php/noticias/167- 15 National National women who work at home to $469,144.00 2/1/2015 1/27/2020 Mundubat Foundation Social Inclusion trabajadoras-del-hogar- ensure their rights inician-diplomado
Strengthening the local government capacities in the Ciudad Delgado 16 Ciudad Delgado San Salvador $562,972.80 2/1/2015 7/6/2019 Social Inclusion processes of citizen participation Municipality for a culture of peace
http://www.adelmorazan.or Consolidation of productive g/index.php/proyectos/proy chains from economic subsector Morazán Local Economic ectos-en-ejecucion/184- San Francisco Development of 17 Morazán with most potential of $545,731.76 11/1/2014 11/27/2019 Development Agency consolidacion-de- Gotera the private sector development in the Morazán Foundation encadenamientos- department productivos-de-
morazan.html
Ciudad Arce La Libertad
La Libertad La Libertad Youth, civil society, and service http://sisan.conasan.gob.sv/ Nueva San providers, working together for Plan International 18 La Libertad Social Inclusion $586,430.00 1/5/2015 10/4/2019 macsan/Pages/FichaProyecto Salvador the fulfillment of sexual and Deutschland EV .aspx?IdProyecto=150 reproductive health rights San Juan Opico La Libertad
San Pablo La Libertad Tacachico
http://www.uca.edu.sv/oci/p Ciudad Arce La Libertad Forging citizen security with Central American José royectos/forjando- 19 Public Security imagination, participation and $322,535.33 9/9/2014 3/31/2020 Sime n Ca as University seguridad-con-imaginacion- action Col n La Libertad participacion-y-accion-2/ Integral initiatives of violence Municipality Nueva 20 Nueva Concepci n Chalatenango Public Security prevention in violence free $586,349.85 11/15/2014 4/12/2019 Concepcion municipalities from El Salvador
Quezaltepeque La Libertad Supporting the rehabilitation of liberty deprived women and their and their sons’ and daughter’s Association of Training Ilopango San Salvador 21 preparation for the labor market $328,400.80 1/1/2015 12/13/2019 and Research for Mental Social Inclusion in the departments of La Libertad, Health Santa Ana and Caba as, in El Santa Ana Santa Ana Salvador
53
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS MUNICIPALITY START FINAL No. DEPARTMENT SECTOR18 NAME OF PROJECT OF- PROJECT INVOLVED IN LINKS 17 DATE19 DATE AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION Employment, art and peace Foundation for Studies 22 Ilopango San Salvador culture for young women that are $469,144.00 2/1/2015 1/27/2020 for the Application of Social Inclusion liberty deprived Law
Arcatao Chalatenango
Nueva Trinidad Chalatenango
Las Flores Chalatenango
Las Vueltas Chalatenango
El Carrizal Chalatenango
Nombre de Jesus Chalatenango
San Antonio de la Chalatenango Cruz
San Isidro Labrador Chalatenango Education, promotion and protection of Sexual and Salvadoran Association https://www.facebook.com/ San José 23 Chalatenango Reproductive health rights of girls, $555,642.43 01/22/2015 7/19/2019 of Humanitarian Aid UEenElSalvador/posts/9045 Cancasque Social Inclusion boys, youth and women from 17 Pro-Vida 89892942502 municipalities in Chalatenango Potonico Chalatenango
Azacualpa Chalatenango
San Luis del Chalatenango Carmen San Francisco Chalatenango Lempa San Antonio Los Chalatenango Ranchos Concepci n Chalatenango Quezaltepeque
Nueva Concepci n Chalatenango
La Palma Chalatenango
Integral protection to Salvadorean 24 National National Social Inclusion $283,282.67 1/1/2015 6/29/2019 Horizont3000 champions of Human Rights Building a violence free society in Plan International (UK) 25 San Vicente San Vicente Public Security $586,430.00 3/1/2013 8/7/2018 El Salvador LBG
54
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS MUNICIPALITY START FINAL No. DEPARTMENT SECTOR18 NAME OF PROJECT OF- PROJECT INVOLVED IN LINKS 17 DATE19 DATE AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION Foundation for Studies http://fespad.org.sv/category Reparation of Community social 26 Ilopango San Salvador Social Inclusion $331,698.88 8/15/2013 7/13/2018 for the Application of /prevencion-de-la- structure with high risk youth Law violencia/page/2/ Participative management of lands Environmental Antiguo Cuscatlán 27 Antiguo Cuscatlán La Libertad to make sustainable local $289,631.19 6/18/2013 9/13/2018 Sustainability Municipality development http://www.interpeace.org/ wp- Project to support violence 28 Santa Tecla La Libertad Public Security $349,006.78 4/30/2013 2/16/2018 Interpeace Europe AISBL content/uploads/2014/05/20 reduction in El Salvador 14_05_07_Santa_Tecla_EN
G.pdf Strengthening of mechanisms of inclusion to social violence victims Spanish Red Cross 29 National National Social Inclusion leading to their participation in $197,517.31 11/9/2013 8/23/2018 the dialogue processes and peace Foundation construction in El Salvador
San Salvador San Salvador
Supporting the rehabilitation of Santa Tecla La Libertad women deprived of freedom in Association of Training 30 Social Inclusion the departments of San Salvador, $351,525.95 12/18/2013 12/27/2019 and Research for Mental
Santa Ana Santa Ana La Libertad, Santa Ana, and Health Sonsonate
Sonsonate Sonsonate
Labor reintegration of youth at risk and people deprived of freedom through a psychosocial Promoter Association of 31 National National Social Inclusion and systemic approach, in order $206,895.83 12/19/2013 12/27/2017 the Organization of
to contribute to lowering, social Disabled of El Salvador violence and raising economic indices in El Salvador
Suchitoto Cuscatlán
Strengthening the economic, Tenancingo Cuscatlán social and environmental development through the Center for Rural Studies Development of participation of farmers with an 32 Cinquera Caba as $492,434.17 2/1/2014 1/27/2019 and International the private sector agro-ecological approach in Agriculture Suchitoto, Tenancingo, Cinquera, Tejutepeque Caba as Tejutepeque, and Jutiapa municipalities
Jutiapa Caba as
Zona Rosa Corporation 33 San Salvador San Salvador Culture La Casa Tomada $999,256.02 2/1/2014 7/1/2018 Association
55
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS MUNICIPALITY START FINAL No. DEPARTMENT SECTOR18 NAME OF PROJECT OF- PROJECT INVOLVED IN LINKS 17 DATE19 DATE AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION Development of cultural initiatives and artistic training using the free Salvadoran Foundation 34 Soyapango San Salvador Social Inclusion $557,040.87 2/1/2013 1/27/2018 time of children and youth from Education and Work schools in social risk zones. Strengthening the organization, associativity, competitiveness and Local Economic San Francisco Development of the access to the market of little 35 Morazán $524,731.09 3/1/2013 7/8/2018 Development Agency Gotera the private sector producers from 7 farming Foundation of Morazán subsectors of Morazán department Women strengthening their capacities of citizen practice http://www.mundubat.org/a- 36 National National Social Inclusion $293,101.81 2/1/2013 1/27/2018 Mundubat Foundation demanding fulfillment of human 9527/ rights Women and Young women boosting the Community Secours Populaire 37 Comasagua La Libertad Social Inclusion development, organic agriculture $534,005.98 1/1/2013 12/27/2017 Francais in Comasagua Municipality and its merchandizing Contribute to fulfillment of citizen Association for the rights in San Vicente municipality Organization and Female 38 San Vicente San Vicente Social Inclusion through the promotion of $235,578.69 3/1/2013 2/27/2018 Business Education of El participation and social auditing, Salvador and strengthening the Municipality Strengthening the production processes and merchandizing of Manchega Solidarity with Development of 39 Usulután Usulután little farmers of seven $358,234.69 2/1/2013 1/27/2018 the Third World Peoples the private sector municipalities from Usulután, El Solman Association Salvador Reduce, reuse, recycle and Environmental recover: integral, sustainable and 40 Sonsonate Sonsonate $386,603.98 3/1/2013 2/27/2018 Sonsonate Municipality Sustainability liable management of solid waste in Sonsonate municipality Installation and starting up the management and treatment Environmental Nueva Concepci n 41 Nueva Concepci n Chalatenango system of solid waste in Nueva $387,043.80 2/1/2013 2/27/2019 Sustainability Municipality Concepcion with transference of modern technology Strengthened processes of land management participation through the implementation of the Plan for Planning Office of the the Territorial Development of 42 San Salvador San Salvador Social Inclusion $340,909.83 2/1/2013 1/27/2018 Metropolitan Area of the Metropolitan Areas of San San Salvador Salvador (Plan de Desarrollo Territorial del Area Metropolitana de San Salvador)
Mejicanos San Salvador Association for Child Cultivation of a Culture of Peace http://asociacioncinde.org/pr 43 Social Inclusion $531,588.92 2/1/2013 3/29/2018 Development and through the Arts. ogramas/ Soyapango San Salvador Human Promotion
56
Table 14: AECID Projects in El Salvador LIFE --OF COOPERATION START FINAL Organization Involved in No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT PROJECTAM SECTOR21 DATE22 DATE Implementation OUNT Supporting the Health Sector Santa Ana Santa Ana Reform: Strengthening the National Institute of Health and the integral Ministry of Health of El Salvador and integrated health networks. 44 Sonsonate Sonsonate Social Inclusion $2,932,150.00 11/1/2014 12/1/2017 (Instituto Nacional de Salud y de las National Health Forum Redes Integrales e Integradas de Salud) San Miguel San Miguel and community participation in health in El Salvador
Santa Ana Santa Ana
Caluco Sonsonate Intersectoral Association to Direct participation of Salvadoran Economic Development and Social Sacacoyo La Libertad youth in the management, 45 Public Security implementation, following-up and $2,932,150.00 11/1/2014 12/1/2017 Cooperative Foundation Talnique La Libertad monitoring of public policy related for Community Development of El with prevention of violence Salvador
Zacatecoluca La Paz
Tecoluca San Vicente
Ayutuxtepeque San Salvador
Strengthening of civil society Cuscatancingo San Salvador through civic education, ensuring 46 Public Security civil society participation in public $2,932,150.00 11/1/2014 12/1/2017 Passionist Social Service Mejicanos San Salvador policies for childhood, adolescence and youth, for a violence free life
Nejapa San Salvador
Association of Women for Dignity Arcatao Chalatenango Contributing to governability and democratic security through human and Life rights advocacy and promotion, for Feminist Collective for Local 47 Nueva Trinidad Chalatenango Social Inclusion young people, to contribute to the $2,932,150.00 11/1/2014 12/1/2017 Development Foundation reduction of social and gender inequalities and the promotion of Association for the Development Nombre de Jesus Chalatenango social cohesion in El Salvador of El Salvador
21Sector categories were taken from the Table of active projects financed by the AECID through NGOs, October 2017 22When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year.
57
LIFE --OF COOPERATION START FINAL Organization Involved in No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT PROJECTAM SECTOR21 DATE22 DATE Implementation OUNT
Zacatecoluca La Paz
San Luis la La Paz Herradura
San Juan Talpa La Paz
Santa Tecla La Libertad
La Libertad La Libertad
Comasagua La Libertad
Zaragoza La Libertad
Col n La Libertad
Mercedes Uma a Usulután
El Triunfo Usulután
Santiago de María Usulután
Nueva Granada Usulután
Promoting the resilience of La Palma Chalatenango productive systems for groups in a situation of vulnerability of climate Environmental 48 San Ignacio Chalatenango change in Center America, from a $733,037.50 11/1/2014 12/1/2017 Action Aid El Salvador Sustainability Rural Territorial Development perspective, in El Salvador, Citalá Chalatenango Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua
Supporting the implementation of a Ciudad Delgado San Salvador National Association of Regidoras reporting system for discrimination 49 Social Inclusion $361,937.59 12/1/2016 3/1/2018 Sindicas and Salvadorean to address a structural cause of Alcaldesas23 Cuscatancingo San Salvador gender violence
23 There is no English translation of “Regidoras Síndicas and Alcaldesas.”
58
LIFE --OF COOPERATION START FINAL Organization Involved in No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT PROJECTAM SECTOR21 DATE22 DATE Implementation OUNT
Tonacatepeque San Salvador
Alegría Usulután Strengthening the capacities of resilience to draught and climate Environmental Salvadoran Foundation for 50 Berlín Usulután impacts in Civil Society $417,884.23 12/1/2016 12/1/2019 Sustainability Reconstruction and Development Organizations and Municipality Institutions from Usulután Mercedes Uma a Usulután
Improve the application of legal body and public policy to the Collective Association of Women 51 Suchitoto Cuscatlán practice of Sexual and Reproductive $338,462.48 12/1/2016 12/2/2018 Social Inclusion for Local Development Health Rights and a violence free life for women in El Salvador
Strengthening the civil society and San Miguel Salvadoran communities in the Association of Independent 52 La Paz $325,065.31 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 Tepezontes Social Inclusion efficient environmental management Lifeguards of El Salvador and reduction of risk from disasters
San Juan Opico La Libertad Reduction of risk to disasters and preparation to their response in Association of Community 53 Quezaltepeque La Libertad Public Security urban and suburban areas in San $224,863.28 12/1/2016 6/1/2018 Projects of El Salvador Juan Opico, Quezaltepeque, and Nejapa municipalities Nejapa San Salvador
San Marcos San Salvador
Mejicanos San Salvador
Cuscatancingo San Salvador Grown and young women working Association of Women's 54 San Rafael Cedros Cuscatlán Social Inclusion for autonomy of their body and $293,844.96 12/1/2016 12/1/2018 Movement Mélida Anaya Montes - violence prevention Las Mélidas Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
Tecoluca San Vicente
Zacatecoluca La Paz
Associative participation of organic producer women, precursors of Association for Integral 55 Tacuba Ahuachapán Social Inclusion $306,745.27 12/1/2016 12/1/2018 sustainable development in gender Community Development equality in Tacuba
59
LIFE --OF COOPERATION START FINAL Organization Involved in No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT PROJECTAM SECTOR21 DATE22 DATE Implementation OUNT Strengthening the capacity for Environmental integral management and 56 Carolina San Miguel $575,057.90 12/1/2016 12/1/2018 Campo Foundation Sustainability conservation of Microcuenca Monta osa, San Miguel Improve the numbers and power of labor unions in the creation of Trade Union Confederation of 57 San Salvador San Salvador Social Inclusion $345,322.27 12/1/2015 12/1/2017 employment public policy with Workers of El Salvador gender equality
Nueva Concepci n Chalatenango
Suchitoto Cuscatlán
Comasagua La Libertad Mechanisms of civil society participation in the application of Environmental Community Association for 58 Chiltiupán La Libertad the Access to Water Human Right $331,845.70 12/1/2015 12/1/2017 Sustainability Water and Agriculture from a Public and Community Management Teotepeque La Libertad
Santa Tecla La Libertad
Tamanique La Libertad
Environmental Strengthening the Network of Don Bosco University 59 Soyapango San Salvador $172,154.05 12/1/2015 12/1/2017 Sustainability Institutional Welfare Entities San Salvador Mejicanos
San Salvador Tonacatepeque
Acajutla Sonsonate Transforming Education in Latin America. Inclusive Integral Education 60 Social Inclusion $348,445.13 2014 2017 Faith and Joy El Salvador to prevent violence in 10 schools of Santa Ana Santa Ana El Salvador
Tacuba Ahuachapán
San Miguel San Miguel
60
Table 15: GIZ Projects in El Salvador
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATION START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT FINAL DATE INVOLVED IN CONTACT GIZ SECTOR24 DATE25 AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION Roland von 61 San Salvador San Salvador Fiscal Policy Support the Fiscal Policy II $3,184,221.00 9/1/2015 6/30/2018 Ministry of Finance Frankenhorst
San Miguel San Miguel
Zacatecoluca La Paz
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
San Pedro Masahuat La Paz
Santiago Nonualco La Paz
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
Quezaltepeque La Libertad PREVENIR: Youth Violence Ministry of Justice Rubeena Esmail- 62 Public Security $6,000,000.00 1/1/2016 12/31/2018 Prevention Program and Security Arndt Santa Tecla La Libertad
Col n La Libertad
San Pedro Nonualco La Paz
San Juan Nonualco La Paz
Olocuilta La Paz
El Rosario La Paz
San Luis La La Paz Herradura
24 Sector categories were taken from GIZ websites: http://www.gizprevenir.com and https://www.giz.de/projektdaten/index.action#?region=1&countries=SV 25 When available, the day, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year.
61
TOTAL LIFE- ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATION START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT FINAL DATE INVOLVED IN CONTACT GIZ SECTOR24 DATE25 AMOUNT IMPLEMENTATION
Ciudad Barrios San Miguel
Nueva Granada Usulután
Chinameca San Miguel
Moncagua San Miguel
Jucuapa Usulután
Berlín Usulután
Usulután Usulután
Jiquilisco Usulután
Puerto El Triunfo Usulután
El Tránsito San Miguel
Chirilagua San Miguel
Metapán Santa Ana Water Conservation through Trinational Environmental sustainable management of Anna-Katharina 63 San Ignacio Chalatenango $4,000,000.00 2/1/2015 12/31/2017 Commission Trifinio Sustainability Natural Resources in Trifinio Rindtorff Plan Region Citalá Chalatenango
62
Table 16: JICA Projects in El Salvador
TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF PROJECT FINAL DATE SECTOR26 DATE27 IN IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT
El Tránsito San Miguel
Chirilagua San Miguel Integral Management to improve the Environmental Ministry of Environment and 64 Laguna de Olomega and El Jocotal $4,500,000.00 3/1/2016 3/31/2021 Sustainability Natural Resources El Carmen La Union wetlands
San Miguel San Miguel
65 San Miguel San Miguel Technical Consultancy to strengthening Salvadoran Institute for the San Francisco Social Inclusion the institutional capacity to the rectory Development of Women Morazán $250,000.00 6/1/2017 3/31/2018 Gotera practice in the normative framework of Salvadoran Institute for the 66 substantive equality in the territory Development of Women San Martín San Salvador
La Uni n La Uni n
Usulután Usulután Strengthening the local capacity to Environmental Social Investment Fund for Local 67 promote Local Development in the $4,500,000.00 1/31/2017 7/30/2021 San Francisco Sustainability Development Morazán oriental region Gotera
San Miguel San Miguel
Donations from Japanese SMEs – Letter Ministry of Public Works, Risk exchanging between El Salvador and 68 National National $5,000,000.00 6/7/2015 6/7/2018 Transportation, Housing and Management Japan, signed on July 6th of 2015 for 500 Urban Development million yens Improving math learning Project in 69 National National Education $4,500,000.00 11/1/2015 6/3/2019 MINED Primary and Middle School Strengthening the Directorate of Col n La Libertad Adaptation to Climate Change and Ministry of Public Works, Risk 70 Strategic Risk Management (the Direcci n $3,513,382.00 8/1/2016 8/31/2020 Transportation, Housing and Management Zaragoza La Libertad de Adaptaci n al Cambio Climático y Urban Development Gesti n Estratégica del Riesgo Phase II)
26 Sector categories are taken from JICA´s Operations Plan in the Republic of El Salvador 27 When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year.
63
TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF PROJECT FINAL DATE SECTOR26 DATE27 IN IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Antiguo Cuscatlán La Libertad
San Salvador San Salvador
Chalatenango Chalatenango
Mejicanos San Salvador
Puerto El Triunfo Usulután
Jocoaitique Morazán Strengthening the capacity of the support team for Small and Medium Enterprises Economic 71 Guatajiagua Morazán project, focused on the improvement of $157,495.00.00 12/20/2016 12/19/2019 CONAMYPE Reactivation business management, quality and productivity Chinameca San Miguel
San Alejo La Uni n
La Uni n La Union Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Agribusiness Division, Usulután Usulután Improving the vegetable producer’s General Directorate of 72 Agriculture profitability project in the Oriental region $4,350,365.00 5/31/2014 5/30/2018 San Francisco Agricultural Economics) and Morazán of El Salvador Gotera National Center for Agricultural and Forestry Technology San Miguel San Miguel
Apaneca Ahuachapán Projects in water in the non-refundable Human Community Development 73 Financial Assistance framework for $535,280.00 1/1/2016 12/31/2017 Development Associationy Guacotecti Caba as Community projects of Human security
Projects in health areas in the non- Human refundable Financial Assistance 74 San Lorenzo Ahuachapán $311,436.00 1/1/2016 12/31/2017 Ministry of Health of El Salvador Development framework for Community projects of Human security
Santa Rita Chalatenango Projects in the education sector in the Human non-refundable Financial Assistance 75 $836,983.00 1/1/2016 12/31/2017 MINED Development framework for Community projects of Jicalapa La Libertad Human security
64
TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF PROJECT FINAL DATE SECTOR26 DATE27 IN IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT
Apastepeque San Vicente
El Triunfo Usulután
Sonzacate Sonsonate
Izalco Sonsonate
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
Guaymango Ahuachapán
Jujutla Ahuachapán
San Salvador San Salvador $1,500,000 Human Financial cooperation non-refundable in 76 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Ministry of Health of El Salvador Development health area Sonsonate Sonsonate $563,971
Bypass construction project in San Miguel 77 San Miguel San Miguel Infrastructure $122,579,075.00 2017 2019 None Provided. city
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Puerto El Triunfo Usulután
San Dionisio Usulután
Chirilagua Usulután Consolidate the implementation of the Civil National Police and National 78 Public Security New Police Model project based in $175,182.00 2/1/2015 2/1/2020 Academy of Public Safety Jiquilisco Usulután Community Police Philosophy
Sensuntepeque Caba as
Apopa San Salvador
Sesori San Miguel
Risk Contingence loan to Recover from National Disaster Prevention 79 San Salvador San Salvador $48,661,800.00 1/1/2016 12/1/2019 Management natural disasters System Donation Project for Television program 80 San Salvador San Salvador Culture $428,224.00 1/1/2016 12/1/2019 None Provided related to Japan Culture
65
TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF PROJECT FINAL DATE SECTOR26 DATE27 IN IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT Projects in sports area in the non- 81 San Salvador San Salvador Sports refundable Financial Assistance $77,859.00 1/1/2016 12/1/2019 None Provided framework
Table 17: Embassy of Taiwan Projects in El Salvador
TOTAL LIFE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED COOPERATION --OF No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT START DATE29 FINAL DATE SECTOR28 PROJECT IN IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT
San Juan Opico La Libertad Strengthening the Control of Huanglongbing (and the Agriculture, Forestry Ministry of Agriculture and 82 Santa María Ostuma La Paz Implementation of Integrated Pest $105,000.00 12/11/2012 12/10/2017 and Fishing Livestock Management in Citrus Project (Regional)) Ciudad Arce La Libertad
San Juan Opico La Libertad
San Pablo Tacachico La Libertad
El Tránsito San Miguel
Santa Clara San Vicente Strengthening Aquaculture Agriculture, Forestry Center for the Development of 83 Development among Rural $4,444,348.00 3/18/2015 3/17/2019 and Fishing Fisheries and Aquaculture La Uni n La Uni n Families Project
El Sauce La Uni n
Conchagua La Uni n
San Miguel San Miguel
Agriculture, Forestry Establishment of Mariculture $1,913,762.00 4/24/2015 4/23/2019 Center for the Development of 84 Acajutla Sonsonate and Fishing Center Project Fisheries and Aquaculture
28 The sector categories are those used by Taiwan and are available at www.icdf.org.tw 29 When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year.
66
TOTAL LIFE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED COOPERATION --OF No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT START DATE29 FINAL DATE SECTOR28 PROJECT IN IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT Promotion of the national movement One Village, One Product (“Un Pueblo Un Agriculture, Forestry 85 Ilobasco Cuscatlán Producto”) for local industry $1,400,000.00 6/1/2017 5/31/2021 CONAMYPE and Fishing development with emphasis in pottery and clay figures, El Salvador
Conchagua La Uni n
La Palma Chalatenango
El Carmen Cuscatlán
Tonacatepeque San Salvador Agriculture, Forestry Farmers’ Organization Marketing Ministry of Agriculture and 86 $2,843,746.00 11/12/2015 11/11/2019 and Fishing Capacity Enhancement Project Livestock Santa Clara San Vicente
San Francisco Ahuachapán Menéndez Tejutepeque Caba as
87 Zacatecoluca La Paz Economic Promotion of local industry in the Development national movement One Village, $900,000.00 7/1/2016 7/31/2018 CONAMYPE One Product ("Un Pueblo Un Producto") framework 88 San Salvador San Salvador Economic Small and medium-sized Development enterprises enhancement in $500,000.00 5/1/2016 1/31/2017 Ministry of Tourism Historic Center, San Salvador, through tourism 89 San Salvador San Salvador Sustainable Reinforcement of Ministry of Development Environment and Natural Ministry of Environment and Resources (Ministerio de Medio $1,000,000.00 2/1/2016 7/31/2017 Natural Resources Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) No. 1 Building 90 San Salvador San Salvador Special Dimensions of Estate transformation in Five Technical and Planning Development Years Development Plan $500,000.00 9/1/2016 8/31/2017 Secretariat of the Presidency framework, 2014-2019 91 Economic Productive and competitiveness National National Development promotion of small and medium- $600,000.00 7/1/2016 12/31/2017 Ministry of Economy sized enterprises Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Governance and Economic Ministry of Governance and 92 National National Territorial Development $1,000,000.00 7/1/2016 12/31/2017 Development Territorial Development (Ministerio de Gobernacion y Desarrollo Territoria)l
67
Table 18: KOICA Projects in El Salvador
TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT FINAL DATE SECTOR30 DATE31 IMPLEMENTATION AMOUNT
Uluazapa San Miguel
Comacarán San Miguel
San Francisco Morazán Gotera Delicias de Morazán Concepci n Climate Change response to Climate Change recover the Water Recharge Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock 93 Cacaopera Morazán $8,000,000 9/2017 9/2020 Response Areas in San Miguel and Morazán and World Food Programme sub-basin Chilanga Morazán
San Carlos Morazán
El Divisadero Morazán
Jocoro Morazán
Risk development to improve the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock 94 El Porvenir Santa Ana Agriculture $1,500,000 2016 2017 productivity of rice cultivation and World Food Programme
San Salvador San Salvador Citizen Security/ Installation of video surveillance Science, 95 Ciudad Delgado San Salvador cameras in the metropolitan area $2,000,000 2017 2018 Civil National Police Technology and of San Salvador Innovation Antiguo La Libertad Cuscatlán Health Center Project of El 96 Soyapango San Salvador Health Salvador – Korea, in Soyapango $3,000,000 2017 2018 Ministry of Health municipality
30 The sector categories are those used by KOICA and are available at http://www.koica.go.kr 31 When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year
68
Table 19: AICS Projects in El Salvador
COOPERATION TOTAL LIFE --OF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT START DATE33 FINALDATE SECTOR32 PROJECT AMOUNT IN IMPLEMENTATION Promoting inclusive school of full 97 National National Education $4,913,591.14 2010 2018 MINED time
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
Chalatenango Chalatenango
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
La Uni n La Uni n
San Francisco Morazán Gotera
San Miguel San Miguel Expanding supplies for middle school education to improve the 98 Education $19,350,000.00 2016 2018 MINED productivity in 12 departments of San Salvador San Salvador the country
San Vicente San Vicente
Santa Ana Santa Ana
Santa Tecla La Libertad
Sensuntepeque Caba as
Usulután Usulután
Socio-economic and cultural improvement of the Historic Urban 99 San Salvador San Salvador Downtown of San Salvador and $15,480,000.00 2017 2020 Housing Vice-Ministry Improvement34 housing function through cooperative movement
32 The sector categories are those used by AICS in the document of Active Projects of November 2017 provided by Mr. Marco Falcone, Director AICS Cooperation Office 33 When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year 34 Since this project is very narrowly focused on urban renewal of the historic district of San Salvador, it was not included in one of the 11 categories and it is not included in the sector maps. It is included in Map 3, which covers investments, however.
69
COOPERATION TOTAL LIFE --OF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT START DATE33 FINALDATE SECTOR32 PROJECT AMOUNT IN IMPLEMENTATION
San Miguel San Miguel
SIRAMA Foundation, Institute San Salvador San Salvador “Ni os Protagonistas” - Violence of Collaboration and Family 100 Justice Prevention between and against $1,151,439.55 2015 2018 Education, and ACTUA Santa Ana Santa Ana children Foundation
Santa Tecla La Libertad
Prevention and rehabilitation for Public Security and Justice 101 National National Justice youth in risk or conflict with the $7,159,500.00 2016 2017 Ministry law Supporting the criminal justice Public Security and Justice 102 National National Justice system for children and youth in El $1,935,000.00 2018 2020 Ministry Salvador
Arambala Morazán
Jocoaitique Morazán
Meanguera Morazán Gender Water Access and Sanitation: Basic Sanitation Association; empowering women and making Sanitation Education and 103 Perquín Morazán $1,436,246.01 2015 2018 social inclusion in the micro- Alternative Energy of North region in north of Morazán Morazán Municipalities San Fernando Morazán
Torola Morazán
Villa El Rosario Morazán
San Francisco Morazán Social Inclusion Presidential Gotera Ciudad Mujer/ UN Women, Secretary; Salvadorian 104 Gender $645,000.00 2016 2019 Fondo Mujer Institution for Women Usulután Usulután Development
Chalatenango Chalatenango
Alive Wetland - Participative Cinquera Caba as Ambient Management in the wet Ministry of Environment and 105 Risk zone of Cerr n Grande through $1,369,292.43 2016 2019 Natural Resources El Paraíso Chalatenango and inclusive, sustainable and liable economy
Jutiapa Caba as
70
COOPERATION TOTAL LIFE --OF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT START DATE33 FINALDATE SECTOR32 PROJECT AMOUNT IN IMPLEMENTATION San Francisco Chalatenango Lempa San Luis del Chalatenango Carmen
Santa Rita Chalatenango
Suchitoto Cuscatlán
Tejutla Chalatenango
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
Izalco Sonsonate Strengthening the Culture Secretary of the Presidency of El Cultural Secretary of the 106 San Salvador San Salvador Culture $1,289,871.00 2015 2018 Salvador through the valorization Presidency of Cultural Heritage Santa Ana Santa Ana
Sonsonate Sonsonate
San Francisco Morazán Gotera
San Vicente San Vicente Associativity, Resilience and 107 Agriculture $2,102,208.51 2015 2020 World Food Programme Markets Phase I and II Usulután Usulután
Zacatecoluca La Paz
Improvement of Food security for Institute for University 108 Texistepeque Santa Ana Agriculture the People in Tamarindo Town, $120,581.14 2017 2019 Cooperation Texistepeque Municipality
71
Table 20: UN Projects in El Salvador
PROGRAM OR OFFICE OF TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START FINAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. UNITED MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT SECTOR DATE DATE IN IMPLEMENTATION NATIONS AMOUNT SYSTEM Implementation, Monitoring and Ciudad Delgado San Salvador evaluation of productive and educational 109 UNDP Citizen Security integration programs, within the $430,000.00 1/2016 Dec-17 UNDP Zacatecoluca La Paz framework of integral initiatives of local management of citizen security
Santa Elena Usulután
Ozatlán Usulután
Concepci n Usulután Batres
San Dionisio Usulután
Ereguayquín Usulután
Santa María Usulután
Chilanga Morazán "Ciudad Mujer" Project. (Women City El Divisadero Morazán Project) Creation of a credit fund and Inclusion Social Secretary/ Ciudad specialized insurance for women in Mujer/ Development Bank of El 110 UN - WOMEN Citizen Security $230,000.00 1/2016 Dec-17 exclusion conditions and technical Salvador/ National Commision for Guatajiagua Morazán assistance for productive Micro and Small Bussiness entrepreneurship Jocoro Morazán
San Carlos Morazán
Lolotiquillo Morazán
San Francisco Morazán Gotera
Sensembra Morazán
Sociedad Morazán
Yamabal Morazán
72
PROGRAM OR OFFICE OF TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START FINAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. UNITED MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT SECTOR DATE DATE IN IMPLEMENTATION NATIONS AMOUNT SYSTEM United Nations National Civil Police/ Office of the Office on Drugs Strengthening of detection, investigation, 111 National National Citizen Security $210,000.00 9/2015 Dec-18 Attorney General/ Supreme Court and Crime and proceedings skills of Justice (UNODC) Legal assistance according to the Secretary of Transparency/ 112 UNODC San Salvador San Salvador Citizen Security recommendations of United Nations $124,000.00 9/2015 Dec-18 Supreme Court of Justice Convention against Corruption National Civil Police/ Office of the Strengthening of services for internal 113 UNODC San Salvador San Salvador Citizen Security $254,000.00 9/2015 Dec-18 Attorney General/ Supreme Court comptroller of Justice National Civil Police/ Ministry of Sensitization in anticorruption policy Justice and Security/ Supreme 114 UNODC San Salvador San Salvador Citizen Security and integrity through campaigns for the $62,000.00 9/2015 Dec-18 Court of Justice/ Office of the security and justice sector Attorney General Strengthening of mechanisms of internal National Civil Police/ Ministry of monitoring and police wellbeing of the 115 UNDP National National Citizen Security $100,000.00 Justice and Security/ Internal National Civil Police Office of Internal Affairs of the National Civil Police Affairs and Police Ethics Council National Council of Children and Youth/ National Council of the Strengthening of skills for the Integral 116 UNICEF National National Citizen Security $30,000.00 2016 2019 Judiciary, Judicial Training School/ Protection System consolidation Corporation of Municipalities of the Republic of El Salvador Institutional strengthening in the United Nations Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ identification, documentation and High General Office of Migration and reference for the returned people with 117 Commissioner National National Citizen Security $50,000.00 2016 2017 Nationality/ Public Defender’s protection needs in reception centers, for Refugees Office/ ministry of Justice and focused in the protection of children (UNHCR) Public Security and youth National Council for Children and Institutional strengthening for Adolescents/ Salvadoran Institute identification, documentation, reference for the Comprehensive 118 UNHCR Usulután Usulután Citizen Security and attention for cases of returned $200,000.00 2016 2017 Development of Children and children and youth with protection Adolescents/Public Defender´s needs in a national level. Office/ Save the Children Public Defender´s Office/ Salvadoran Institute for the Institutional strengthening for attention Comprehensive Development of 119 UNHCR National National Citizen Security and protection of returned and $75,000.00 2016 2017 Children and Adolescents/ displaced people with protection needs General Office of Migration and Nationality/ National Council for Children and Adolescents Salvadoran Institute for the Technical assistance to generate an Comprehensive Development of 120 UNHCR National National Citizen Security integration strategy for children and $12,000.00 2016 2017 Children and Adolescents/ youth and their returned families National Council for Children and Adolescents Technical assistance for elaboration and Salvadoran Institute for the 121 UN - WOMEN National National Citizen Security evaluation of results based budget with $10,000.00 2016 2020 Development of Women/ Ministry a gender approach of Treasury
73
PROGRAM OR OFFICE OF TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START FINAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. UNITED MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT SECTOR DATE DATE IN IMPLEMENTATION NATIONS AMOUNT SYSTEM Supporting the Ministry of Justice and Public Security in the design and Ministry of Justice and Public 122 UNDP National National Citizen Security $200,000.00 2016 2017 implementation of the Statistical Security Integrated System Salvadoran Institute for the Supporting the information system of Comprehensive Development of the Ministry of Education, Salvadorian 123 UNICEF National National Citizen Security $75,000.00 2016 2017 Children and Adolescents/ Institute for Children and Youth Integral Ministry of Education/ Ministry of Development and Ministry of Health Health Elaboration, actualization of diagnosis National Committees for Violence San Martín San Salvador and local baselines about violence Prevention/ Local Committees of 124 UNICEF Citizen Security against children and following if the $63,000.00 2015 2017 Rights/ / Municipal Observatory of indicator related to risk factors and San Marcos San Salvador Violence protection in the municipalities
San Salvador San Salvador
Mejicanos San Salvador
La Uni n La Uni n
San Miguel San Miguel
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador "Project CORE": Supporting the Justice Sector/ Salvadorian 125 UNICEF Citizen Security creation of specialized courts to $18,000.00 2016 2020 Institute for Women Development Santa Tecla La Libertad adjudicate violence against women.
Santa Ana Santa Ana
Soyapango San Salvador
San Martín San Salvador
Acajutla Sonsonate
Las Vueltas Chalatenango
Food Security for children and 126 UNICEF Arcatao Chalatenango Food Security $4,200,000.00 Salvadorian families
Nueva Trinidad Chalatenango
San Miguel San Miguel Nutritional Recuperation of children Nutrition/ 127 UNICEF with severe malnutrition and moderate, $160,000.00 Emergency Ciudad Barrios San Miguel between 0 and 9
74
PROGRAM OR OFFICE OF TOTAL LIFE- COOPERATION START FINAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED No. UNITED MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT OF -PROJECT SECTOR DATE DATE IN IMPLEMENTATION NATIONS AMOUNT SYSTEM
Lolotique San Miguel
Cacaopera Morazán
Guatajiagua Morazán
San Sim n Morazán
Chilanga Morazán
San Francisco Morazán Gotera
Jiquilisco Usulután
Concepci n Usulután Batres
Berlín Usulután
Usulután Usulután
Jucuarán Usulután
Jucuapa Usulután
Arcatao Chalatenango
Nueva Trinidad Chalatenango
128 UNICEF Las Vueltas Chalatenango Health ZIKA Response plan $76,140.00 UNICEF
San José Chalatenango Cancasque
Nejapa San Salvador
75
Table 21: USAID Projects in El Salvador
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
San Francisco Ahuachapán Menéndez
Ilobasco Caba as
Chalatenango Chalatenango
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
Suchitoto Cuscatlán
Ciudad Arce La Libertad
Col n La Libertad 129 Security Justice Sector Strengthening Project $21,400,000 3/4/2013 3/3/2018 Checchi Consulting La Libertad La Libertad
Quezaltepeque La Libertad
San Juan Opico La Libertad
Santa Tecla La Libertad
Zaragoza La Libertad
Olocuilta La Paz
San Luis La La Paz Herradura
Zacatecoluca La Paz
35 When available, the date, month, and year will be displayed, otherwise only the month and year, or only the year
76
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
Conchagua La Uni n
San Francisco Morazán Gotera
Ciudad Barrios San Miguel
San Miguel San Miguel
Apopa San Salvador
Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Cuscatancingo San Salvador
Mejicanos San Salvador
San Marcos San Salvador
Soyapango San Salvador
San Vicente San Vicente
Tecoluca San Vicente
Chalchuapa Santa Ana
Metapán Santa Ana
Santa Ana Santa Ana
Sonsonate Sonsonate
Jiquilisco Usulután
Cojutepeque Cuscatlán
San Pedro 130 Cuscatlán Governance Government Integrity Project $20,300,000 3/3/2016 3/2/2021 Tetra Tech DPK (Ard, Inc) Perulapán
Olocuilta La Paz
77
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
Zacatecoluca La Paz
San Miguel San Miguel
Guazapa San Salvador
Nejapa San Salvador
Panchimalco San Salvador
Santo Tomás San Salvador
Armenia Sonsonate
Sonsonate Sonsonate
Ahuachapán Ahuachapán
Atiquizaya Ahuachapán
Guaymango Ahuachapán
Jujutla Ahuachapán
San Francisco Ahuachapán Menéndez San Pedro Ahuachapán Puxtla 131 Prosperity El Salvador National Cacao Initiative $10,000,000 9/18/2014 9/24/2019 Catholic Relief Services Chiltiupán La Libertad
Ciudad Arce La Libertad
Col n La Libertad
Comasagua La Libertad
Jayaque La Libertad
La Libertad La Libertad
78
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
Sacacoyo La Libertad
San Juan Opico La Libertad
San Pablo La Libertad Tacachico
Talnique La Libertad
Teotepeque La Libertad
Tepecoyo La Libertad
Jerusalén La Paz
San Juan La Paz Nonualco
San Juan Talpa La Paz
San Luis Talpa La Paz
San Pedro La Paz Nonualco Santa María La Paz Ostuma Santiago La Paz Nonualco
Zacatecoluca La Paz
Delicias De Morazán Concepci n
Osicala Morazán
San Fernando Morazán
Yamabal Morazán
Chapeltique San Miguel
Chinameca San Miguel
79
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
Ciudad Barrios San Miguel
Lolotique San Miguel
Moncagua San Miguel
Nueva San Miguel Guadalupe
San Miguel San Miguel
San Rafael San Miguel
Uluazapa San Miguel
Apastepeque San Vicente
San Cayetano San Vicente Istepeque
San Vicente San Vicente
Santa Clara San Vicente
Tecoluca San Vicente
Tepetitán San Vicente
Verapaz San Vicente
Acajutla Sonsonate
Armenia Sonsonate
Caluco Sonsonate
Cuisnahuat Sonsonate
Izalco Sonsonate
Nahuizalco Sonsonate
80
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
Nahulingo Sonsonate
San Antonio del Sonsonate Monte
San Julián Sonsonate
Santa Catarina Sonsonate Masahuat Santa Isabel Sonsonate Ishuatán Santo Domingo Sonsonate de Guzmán
Sonsonate Sonsonate
Sonzacate Sonsonate
Alegria Usulután
Berlín Usulután
California Usulután
Concepci n Usulután Batres
El Triunfo Usulután
Jiquilisco Usulután
Jucuapa Usulután
Jucuarán Usulután
Mercedes Usulután Umana
Nueva Granada Usulután
Ozatlan Usulután
Puerto El Usulután Triunfo
81
COOPERATION LIFE-- OF PROJECT START No. MUNICIPALITY DEPARTMENT NAME OF PROJECT FINAL DATE IMPLEMENTER SECTOR BUDGET DATE35
San Agustin Usulután
San Usulután Buenaventura
San Dionisio Usulután
San Francisco Usulután Javier
Santa Elena Usulután
Santa Maria Usulután
Santiago de Usulután María
Tecapan Usulután
Usulután Usulután
Ciudad Arce La Libertad
Col n La Libertad
Santa Tecla La Libertad
Zacatecoluca La Paz
San Miguel San Miguel 132 Prosperity Bridges to Employment $42,207,013 10/1/2015 9/30/2020 Development Alternatives Inc. Ciudad Delgado San Salvador
Mejicanos San Salvador
San Salvador San Salvador
Soyapango San Salvador
Santa Ana Santa Ana
Foundation for Salvadorean Integral 133 Ahuachapán Ahuachapán Prosperity Education for Children and Youth $25,000,000.00 1/1/2013 12/31/2018 Education
82
ANNEX D: MAPS OF KEY DONOR PROJECTS
83 LIST OF MAPS
MAP 1. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN EL SALVADOR ...... 158 MAP 2. COOPERATION SECTOR IN EL SALVADOR...... 160 MAP 3. ASSIGNED INVESTMENT TO PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR...... 162 MAP 4. MUNICIPALITIES WITHOUT IDENTIFIED COOPERATION PROJECTS ...... 162 MAP 5. UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM IN EL SALVADOR ...... 164 MAP 6. COOPERATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN EL SALVADOR ...... 165 MAP 7. COOPERATION OF SPAIN IN EL SALVADOR ...... 166 MAP 8. COOPERATION OF GERMANY IN EL SALVADOR ...... 167 MAP 9. COOPERATION OF JAPAN IN EL SALVADOR ...... 168 MAP 10. COOPERATION OF ITALY IN EL SALVADOR ...... 169 MAP 11. COOPERATION OF TAIWAN IN EL SALVADOR ...... 170 MAP 12. COOPERATION OF KOREA IN EL SALVADOR ...... 170 MAP 13. COOPERATION OF USAID IN EL SALVADOR ...... 172 MAP 14. VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 173 MAP 15. SOCIAL INCLUSION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 174 MAP 16. ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 175 MAP 17. ECONOMIC REACTIVATION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 176 MAP 18. AGRICULTURE PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 177 MAP 19. DISASTER RISKS MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 178 MAP 20. EDUCATION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 179 MAP 21. GENDER PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR...... 180 MAP 22. HEALTH PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 181 MAP 23. FOOD SECURITY PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR...... 182 MAP 24. WATER PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR ...... 183 MAP 25. NUMBER OF DONORS BY MUNICIPALITY ...... 184 MAP 26. MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH ONE DONOR ...... 185 MAP 27. MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH TWO DONORS ...... 186 MAP 28. MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH THREE DONORS ...... 187 MAP 29. MAP OF MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH FOUR DONORS ...... 188 MAP 30. MAP OF MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH FIVE-SIX DONORS ...... 189 MAP 31. MAP OF MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH SEVEN-TEN DONORS ...... 190
84
In this assessment, the AT identified 164 cooperation projects in different sectors (see tables in Annex I). The same sectors may have different names according to the various donor categorization approaches. In order to produce maps by a consistent sector, the AT established 11 categories (social inclusion, economic reactivation, violence prevention, disasters risks management, education, environment, food security, agriculture, water, health, and gender). The AT then put donor projects into one of these 11 categories according to their purpose.
Project Numbers Original Cooperation Sector Cooperation Sector for (according to Donor) map 1-2, 4,6, 8-16, 18, 21-24, 26, 29-31, 34, 36- Social Inclusion Social Inclusion 38,42-44, 47, 49,51-52, 54-55, 57, 60,65-66 3, 7, 17, 32, 35, 39 Development of the private sector Economic Reactivation 5, 27, 40-41, 48, 50, 56, 58-59, 63-64,67 Environmental Sustainability Environment 19-20, 25, 28, 45-46, 53, 62,78 Public Security Violence Prevention 68, 70,79 Risk Management Disasters Risks Management 69 Education Education 71 Economic Reactivation Economic Reactivation 72,94, 107-108 Agriculture Agriculture 36 73 Human Development Water 74,76 Human Development Health 75 Human Development Education 82-86 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Agriculture 87-92 Economic Development Economic Reactivation 93 Climate Change Response Environment Citizen Security/ Science, Technology and 95 Violence Prevention Innovation 96, 128 Health Health 97-98 Education Education 100-102 Justice Violence Prevention 103-104 Gender Gender 105 Risk Risk 109-125 Citizen Security Violence Prevention 126 Food Security Food Security
36Japan has included their water, health, and education projects in a category they call “Human Development.”
85
Project Numbers Original Cooperation Sector Cooperation Sector for (according to Donor) map 129, 138, 139, 140 Security Violence Prevention 131, 152 Prosperity Agriculture 132 Prosperity Economic Reactivation 133, 134 Prosperity Education 137, 142 Prosperity Environment
USAID started to collect data on investment at the municipal level in USG Fiscal Year 2014 (USG Fiscal Year goes from October 1 to September 30). For this assessment, all data related to municipal investment of USAID refer to actual expenditures in the period from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2017, even for projects that started before FY 2014. For the rest of donors, the data at the municipal level refers to estimated amounts during the life of the project.
86
MAP 1. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN EL SALVADOR
87
MAP 2. COOPERATION SECTORS IN EL SALVADOR
88
MAP 3. ASSIGNED INVESTMENT TO PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
Projects executed at the national level have not been considered, due to the lack of financial distribution at the municipal level. The value of projects does not apply for USAID, the expenditures are between FY 2014 and FY 2017, not the budget during the life of the project.
89
MAP 4. MUNICIPALITIES WITHOUT IDENTIFIED COOPERATION PROJECTS
90
MAP 5. UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM IN EL SALVADOR
91
MAPS BY DONOR COUNTRIES MAP 6. COOPERATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN EL SALVADOR
92
MAP 7. COOPERATION OF SPAIN IN EL SALVADOR
93
MAP 8. COOPERATION OF GERMANY IN EL SALVADOR
94
MAP 9. COOPERATION OF JAPAN IN EL SALVADOR
95
MAP 10. COOPERATION OF ITALY IN EL SALVADOR
96
MAP 11. COOPERATION OF TAIWAN IN EL SALVADOR
97
MAP 12. COOPERATION OF KOREA IN EL SALVADOR
98
MAP 13. COOPERATION OF USAID IN EL SALVADOR
99
MAPS BY COOPERATION SECTOR MAP 14. VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
100
MAP 15. SOCIAL INCLUSION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
101
MAP 16. ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
102
MAP 17. ECONOMIC REACTIVATION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
103
MAP 18. AGRICULTURE PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
104
MAP 19. DISASTER RISKS MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
105
MAP 20. EDUCATION PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
106
MAP 21. GENDER PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
107
MAP 22. HEALTH PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
108
MAP 23. FOOD SECURITY PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
109
MAP 24. WATER PROJECTS IN EL SALVADOR
110
NUMBER OF DONORS BY MUNICIPALITY MAP 25. NUMBER OF DONORS BY MUNICIPALITY
111
MAP 26. MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH ONE DONOR
112
MAP 27. MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH TWO DONORS
113
MAP 28. MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH THREE DONORS
114
MAP 29. MAP OF MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH FOUR DONORS
115
MAP 30. MAP OF MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH FIVE-SIX DONORS
116
MAP 31. MAP OF MUNICIPALITIES IDENTIFIED WITH SEVEN-TEN DONORS
117
ANNEX E: COMPARATIVE TABLE OF DONORS, SECTORS, AND MUNICIPALITIES
118 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Ahuachapán X X X X X X
Apaneca X X X
Atiquizaya X
Concepción de Ataco X
El Refugio X
Guaymango X X X Ahuachapán Jujutla X X San Francisco X X X X Menéndez San Lorenzo X
San Pedro Puxtla X
Tacuba X X
Turín X
Cinquera X x
Dolores
Cabañas Guacotecti X
Ilobasco X X X X
Jutiapa X X x
Cabañas San Isidro X
119 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Sensuntepeque X X
Tejutepeque X X X
Victoria X
Agua Caliente
Arcatao X X
Azacualpa X
Chalatenango X X X X
Citalá X X
Comalapa Concepción X Quezaltepeque Chalatenango Dulce Nombre de María El Carrizal X
El Paraíso X
La Laguna
La Palma X X X
La Reina
Las Vueltas X
Nombre de Jesús X X
120 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Nueva Concepción X X X X
Nueva Trinidad X X
Ojos de Agua
Potonico X
San Antonio de la Cruz X San Antonio Los X Ranchos San Fernando
San Francisco Lempa X X
San Francisco Morazán
San Ignacio X X
San Isidro Labrador X
San José Cancasque X
San José Las Flores X
Chalatenango San Luis del Carmen X X San Miguel de Mercedes San Rafael
Santa Rita X X
Tejutla X X
121 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Candelaria
Cojutepeque X X X X X X
El Carmen X X
El Rosario
Monte San Juan Oratorio de X Concepción San Bartolomé X Perulapía San Cristóbal Cuscatlán San José Guayabal X
San Pedro Perulapán X X
San Rafael Cedros X
San Ramón
Santa Cruz Analquito
Santa Cruz Michapa X X
Suchitoto X X X X X X
Tenancingo X
Antiguo Cuscatlán X X X X La Libertad Chiltiupán X X
122 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Ciudad Arce X X X X X X
Colón X X X X X X X
Comasagua X X X X X
Huizúcar
Jayaque X X
Jicalapa X
La Libertad X X X X X
Nuevo Cuscatlán X X
Quezaltepeque X X X X X X La Libertad Sacacoyo X X
San José Villanueva X
San Juan Opico X X X X X X
San Matías X
San Pablo Tacachico X X X
Santa Tecla X X X X X X X X X X
Talnique X X
Tamanique X X X
Teotepeque X X
123 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Tepecoyo X
Zaragoza X X X X
Cuyultitán
Jerusalén X
Mercedes La Ceiba
Olocuilta X X X X La Paz Paraíso de Osorio
Rosario la Paz X
San Antonio Masahuat
San Emigdio San Francisco Chinameca San Juan Nonualco X X
San Juan Talpa X X
San Juan Tepezontes La Paz San Luis La Herradura X X X X
San Luis Talpa X San Miguel X Tepezontes San Pedro Masahuat X
124 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement San Pedro Nonualco X X
San Rafael Obrajuelo
Santa María Ostuma X X
Santiago Nonualco X X X
Tapalhuaca
Zacatecoluca X X X X X X X
Anamorós
Bolívar
Concepción de Oriente X
Conchagua X X X X
El Carmen X X
El Sauce X X La Unión Intipucá X
La Unión X X X X X X
Lislique X
Meanguera del Golfo
Nueva Esparta X
Pasaquina X X
125 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Polorós X
San Alejo X X X
San José
Santa Rosa de Lima La Unión Yayantique
Yucuaiquín
Arambala X X X
Cacaopera X
Chilanga X
Corinto
Delicias de Concepción X X
El Divisadero X Morazán El Rosario X
Gualococti
Guatajiagua X
Joateca
Jocoaitique X X
Jocoro X
126 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Lolotiquillo
Meanguera X
Osicala X
Perquín X X
San Carlos X
San Fernando X X
San Francisco Gotera X X X X X X X X X
San Isidro
San Simón
Sensembra
Sociedad X
Torola X
Yamabal X X Morazán Yoloaiquín
Carolina X
Chapeltique X San Miguel Chinameca X X X
Chirilagua X X X X
127 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Ciudad Barrios X X X
Comacarán X
El Tránsito X X X
Lolotique X
Moncagua X X
Nueva Guadalupe X Nuevo Edén de San Juan Quelepa X
San Antonio
San Gerardo
San Jorge
San Luis de la Reina
San Miguel X X X X X X X X X X X X
San Rafael X
Sesori X
Uluazapa X X
Aguilares San Salvador Apopa X X X X
128 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Ayutuxtepeque X X
Ciudad Delgado X X X X X X X X
Cuscatancingo X X X X
El Paisnal
Guazapa X X
Ilopango X X
Mejicanos X X X X X X X
Nejapa X X X X
Panchimalco X X X
Rosario de Mora X
San Salvador San Marcos X X X X
San Martín X X
San Salvador X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Santiago Texacuangos
Santo Tomás X X
Soyapango X X X X X X
Tonacatepeque X X X X
San Vicente Apastepeque X X
129 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Guadalupe San Cayetano X Istepeque San Esteban Catarina X X
San Ildefonso
San Lorenzo
San Sebastián X
San Vicente X X X X X X X X
Santa Clara X X
Santo Domingo
Tecoluca X X X X X X
Tepetitán X
Verapaz X Candelaria de la X Santa Ana Frontera Chalchuapa X X
Coatepeque X
El Congo X Santa Ana El Porvenir X X
Masahuat X
130 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Metapán X X X
San Antonio Pajonal X
San Sebastián Salitrillo X
Santa Ana X X X X X X X
Santa Rosa Guachipilín X Santiago de la X Frontera Texistepeque X
Acajutla X X X X
Armenia X X X
Caluco X X
Cuisnahuat X
Izalco X X
Sonsonate Juayúa X
Nahuizalco X
Nahulingo X
Salcoatitán X San Antonio del X X Monte San Julián X X
131 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Santa Catarina X Masahuat Santa Isabel Ishuatán X Santo Domingo X Guzman Sonsonate X X X X X X X X
Sonzacate X X
Alegría X X
Berlín X X X
California X
Concepción Batres X
El Triunfo X X X
Ereguayquín
Usulután Estanzuelas
Jiquilisco X X X X
Jucuapa X X
Jucuarán X
Mercedes Umaña X X X
Nueva Granada X X X
Ozatlán X
132 Embassy of USAID GIZ AECID JICA KOICA EU AICS Taiwan
Department Municipality
and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction and Poverty Reduction , , ,
omical Reactivation
Governance Productivity Security Governance Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Agriculture Sustainable Development Human Development Education Equity, Social Inclusion Infraestructure Econ Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development and Disaster Management Agriculture Sustainable Development Governance Economical Reactivation Agriculture Sustainable Development Health Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Sustainable Development Equity, Social Inclusion Economical Reactivation Citizen Security and Violence Prevention Education Gender Justice Risk Urban Improvement Puerto El Triunfo X X X X
San Agustín X
San Buenaventura X
San Dionisio X X
San Francisco Javier X
Santa Elena X
Santa María X
Santiago de María X X
Tecapán X
Usulután X X X X X X X X
133