I am here in El Salvador for the MCA Monitor Reports from the Field series. The first thing that hits upon arrival in San Salvador is the warmth – in the climate, from the people, and through the services that are readily accessible. There is also ample evidence of this small country’s close relationship with the United States. There are American restaurant chains throughout the city, many people express themselves in English as easily as Spanish, and the U.S. Embassy compound is immense. The sheer magnitude of the grounds and the fortress-like security at the Embassy also belie the complicated history between these two nations which included significant military support for a protracted civil war and less substantial support in the area of development. With the peace accords this relationship has been recalibrated to provide more development and less military assistance, but the war remains too recent to bury history. UN monuments and graffiti proclaiming the vote as stronger than the sword serve as a reminder of this past and as a symbol of a renewed democratic contract between the Salvadoran government and its people.This sense of commitment is also seen in the newest program of U.S. assistance to El Salvador – the MCC compact here is seen as a contract that the Salvadoran government has not only entered into with the U.S. government, but perhaps more importantly, with its own people. The theme of compromiso is prevalent in all of the discussions that I have had with various parties – from implementing entity Fomilenio representatives to the young recipients of scholarships at the National Agricultural School. The idea that El Salvador has the opportunity to determine how to use these funds is novel here, and due to a variety of political and social pressures, is being seen as more akin to a challenge. The motivation to demonstrate impacts quickly comes from the upcoming presidential elections but the fierce stanchness to complete the projects in time to utilize the $461 million dollars committed for the next 5 years is a matter of national pride.However, this challenge and commitment also begets considerations and questions. The allocation of the influx of MCC funds through the proposal and compact designed by the Salvadoran government has garnered a myriad of queries. Some of these are standard for any international governmental assistance undertaking – how can the funds be best put to use? How to measure and record progress and impacts? What are potential stumbling blocks to success in each of the designated components? Others are a particular reflection of both MCC as an institution and the Compact in El Salvador as it fits into the panoply of politics and society here – what is the appropriate role of social audits? What is a reasonable balance between oversight and management? How can the programs engender tangible change in the lives of those in the Northern Zone? Are the MCC guidelines and procedures means by which Salvadoran capacity is augmented or are they an island of donor requirements in a sea of development programs? Where does capacity need to be strengthened – government? Civil society? And perhaps most crucial to the future of El Salvador and national development – will this newly opened dialogue amongst stakeholders lead to better allocation of resources and economic growth to lift many out of poverty in the Northern Zone?These and more are the questions that MCC is raising around the globe. While some are addressed more easily than others, the nature of each Compact will continue to evolve with the given social and political currents and thus will beget more inquiries in each country regarding compact development, preparation, or implementation. The MCA Monitor team will attempt to examine the issues that have the most tangible impacts, taking into account the realities on the ground.The resurrection of the Reports from the Field series is a step in this direction – to better understand from the ground up what issues will broadly impact MCC as an institution and the perception of the MCA as an innovative and meritorious experiment. Through this broader analysis, in concert with an understanding of local country environments, we hope to suggest solutions to at least some of the aforementioned questions for a given country, though it may not be possible to tackle them all. These solutions will undoubtedly come (at least in part) from the ground up – from beneficiaries through consultative processes, or via implementing entity decisions, or based on changing circumstances in world economic trends. But other aspects of solutions can be discovered through broadening the dialogue – so what are you interested in examining or answering? What do you think are the vital issues that must be solved for this grand experiment in foreign assistance to be a success?
