Progress since Copenhagen
Creating an Enabling Environment

     Ms. Wedderburn concentrated on the Copenhagen Commitment which spoke to the creation of a “National and International Enabling Environment for Social Development”.

     She sought to clearly define for participants what this meant. She noted that it was an environment which in her view should be applicable at both national and regional levels and should cover political, economic, social, legal and cultural frameworks which allow countries to pursue social development. She stated that such an environment should provide a stable legal framework which promotes equality between men and women, full respect for the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, while seeking to eliminate discrimination and enhance transparent and accountable government.

     In carrying this point further Ms. Wedderburn noted that an enabling environment should seek to:

• Promote equitable access for all to receive income resources and social services.
  
• Provide appropriate capacity for all to engage in productive activity.

     Having agreed on these ideals, Ms. Wedderburn then turned her attention to an examination of the international context in respect of the environment which Caribbean countries were made to operate within the post Copenhagen era.

She highlighted the following:

• The continued growth in the role of the IMF and World Bank in the promotion of neo-liberal macro-economic policies.
  
• The emergence of the WTO and its overarching control of the international trade process and the rules governing such.
  
• The continuation of structural reforms in developing countries in particular privatization of public assets, exchange liberalization, and the rolling back of social security systems.
  
• The signing of several North/South trade arrangements in the Caribbean region which sought to remove non-reciprocal trade agreements with developed countries.
  
• The growth in global communications through such devices as the internet, and the liberalization of information.
  
• The concentration of capital in the hands of a few individuals, institutional and corporate investors.

     She noted that these five areas plus others represented the underpinning of a network between state and non-state actors in the promotion of international and national capital accumulation, most of which went to developed countries. She indicated that all of this was leading to the creation of a pro-growth, trade dominated agenda and that in the Caribbean all governments were part of that trade led growth agenda at regional, hemispheric, international and even bilateral levels.

     She said that it must be remembered that these trade led growth agendas were coming at a time when Caribbean countries were getting very little benefit from these policies. In fact she noted that several Caribbean countries were still heavily commodity dependent, which continues to be part of an unequal balance of trade system, particularly in light of the very heavy subsidies that developed countries give to their producers. She mentioned that several countries have had to undergo structural adjustment almost at the same time as trade liberalization, and this has had a particularly negative impact on their economies.

     Ms. Wedderburn emphasized that by the time liberalization had come on stream, all Caribbean countries had already signed bilateral trade agreements with the United States and Canada. Much of this was the result of lack of capacity and small markets, as well as the inability to move at a pace which best suits the absorptive capabilities of their economies.

     Turning to the regional specific picture, she identified the extent of the level of poverty in the region, particularly in relation to three of the region’s bigger countries: Jamaica, Belize and Guyana. Ms. Wedderburn argued that the level of poverty and social development in the region must be seen in the context of this trade led growth strategy that is being promoted by the international system. She argued that in the new dispensation where trade is so pervasive, it has extended to services and so will have a telling impact on the Caribbean. She said these strategies which have found their way in the economic policies of the region affected the ability of Caribbean countries to social development in two major ways.

1. The first is at the national or public level where fiscal reform has affected the capacity of government to create and foster an enabling environment;
   
2. . And secondly to the way in which the economic policies of adjustment and trade liberalization affected peoples’ capacity to participate or utilize the environment.

      She also highlighted the fact that much of this is also influenced by the massive resource limitations and gaps in their national budgets. In this context Ms. Wedderburn argued that governments in the region have been forced to raise additional revenues through the application of various devices including user fees, at a time when their populations are reeling under the hardships of structural adjustment programmes which the governments have in place. She noted in particular that most of these user fees have fallen on education and health services.

     She went on to examine the other part of the enabling environment, which she identified as the regulatory framework. She said that most Caribbean governments had ratified several of the key international conventions, including: Rights of the Child (1989), Copenhagen (1995) Beijing (1994) and SIDS (1994).

     She said however that while much of this has been done by way of ratification, implementation has lagged, due again to heavy resource constraints to facilitate effective implementation. Using Jamaica as an example Ms. Wedderburn highlighted the particular constraints that countries faced in creating an appropriate enabling environment.

     Using the chart on public expenditure and social services as a percentage of total expenditure, she illustrated the level of decline in expenditure in the areas of education, training, cultural development and health.

    She highlighted in particular the areas of other social and community services, which included the contribution of NGOs to show how public investment had increased from 1991 to 1997. This she said tells of the important role of NGOs and other groups at this time in social development.

    She noted that less than 55% of the population benefited from tertiary education. She further indicated that of this number only 0.7% of those from poor households accessed such education which contrasted with almost 100% enrollment levels at the primary level, so that there are very few working class children in the educational system.

     Ms. Wedderburn then spoke of another key aspect of the commitments undertaken by governments at Copenhagen which she saw as the creation of a vision which ensured that policies were in place in order to facilitate the enabling environment.

     In looking at the role of Caribbean governments in this respect, she said that part of the problem in this area is determining whether the projects and programmes which governments claim they have put in place are actually working. She said that there are often times in the Caribbean, as with other regions, where there is a big gap between the aims of a programme or project and its actual impact. Ms. Wedderburn listed some of the key social security and welfare programmes put in place by Caribbean countries to offset the impact of adjustment, liberalization and globalization. She stressed that much more work needed to de done to monitor these programmes in order to see whether they were having the desired effect, particularly in the sectors were it mattered most.

     She continued by saying that it was necessary to know what is the level of equity in the distribution of these resources and opportunities. Are they reaching the poorest in the Caribbean communities? In rationalizing health services for example, are the people being left behind particularly those that need primary health care the most?
In relation to the issue of governance she noted that there was very little information to form a conclusive judgment. She did say however that a number of governance systems in the region were not participatory or gender sensitive, and that too many people continue to be on the outside of the system.

     With respect to globalization and gender, she indicated that as in other parts of the world there has been an increasing feminization of poverty in the region. This was evident by the fact that more women were living in poverty than men, and these were the most affected by adjustment programmes, which cause unemployment. This is also matched by the fact that most trade liberalization programmes affected women more negatively than men.

     Ms. Wedderburn finished by saying that Governments should avoid duplication and ensure programmes are comprehensive and complement each other and that there should be greater levels of civil society participation in their programmes for social development and economic reform.

Respondent:

     Diane Haylock congratulated Ms. Wedderburn on a very well researched presentation. She also criticized the lack of analytical data available to carry the process forward and to dialogue with governments on persistent issues. Focusing on her experience as a civil society practitioner in Belize, she said that she agreed there was a lack of coherent policies in fighting poverty in that country.

     This she said stemmed from a lack of vision on how to achieve social development for the people of Belize. Excessive bureaucracy, duplication of effort and wastage of resources were the chief complaints in this regard. There is the lack of an overarching vision and map as to where we should go and how we would get there. Using the UNDP poverty report for Belize she said that this was clearly evident.

     Relative to Copenhagen, Ms. Haylock said that many people in government were unaware of many of the key commitments of the Copenhagen Declaration. This she said is evident in the lack of social programming in the country, and the
failure by successive administrators to create an appropriate enabling environment to facilitate positive action.

     She said this was also evident in the NGO sector in the region which continued to exist under the pressure of lack of financial, administrative and human resource capacity.

     She also highlighted the gap that existed between the research and the implementation of the recommendations. She agreed with Ms. Wedderburn that more investment was needed in education and healthcare, and that greater attention needed to be paid to the impact which economic liberalization was having on those vulnerable segments of society; especially women and disabled people.

     She concluded by saying that civil society needed to play a bigger role in the monitoring of what is implemented in the Copenhagen Commitments. She argued that in order for this to happen governments must make provision for civil society participation in the planning process for social development. This she said would mean that their capacity limitations would have to be addressed.