Neutral engagements to co-development

As chapter 4 indicates, within the same regional context, government responses to migration and development may vary at a local level. In the discussions concerning the research mentioned in chapter 3 – which represented one of the starting points of this dissertation – we differentiated between two ways, or models, by which local governments can engage with co-development. The 'neutral' refers to the cases where co-development is backed by a more reactive policy from local governments regarding migrant associations’ incorporation into the field of international cooperation. Thus, based on the liberal international development framework, this model can be linked to a view that suggests migrant associations, as time goes by, mature and become more professionalised and are expected to act like other NGOs.

In contrast, the ‘nurturing’ model identifies more proactive approaches from local governments which explore or enhance the connections between migration and development by taking into consideration the specific situation in which migrants - and migrant associations - are situated. This nurturing model can be crystallised in actions such as defining a specific programme, seeking out migrant associations, designing training processes, or giving specific types of support such as helping migrant associations to formulate project proposals. In the context of this research, under the classification of modes of engagement with co-development, Lleida, Girona are considered as nurturers. In contrast, Barcelona and Mataró are closer to the neutral model, and hence are less interventionist. However, as the table synthesis shows (Table 5.1.), the term ‘neutral’ does not imply that they are not supporting co-development.

In the afore-mentioned research we also suggested that the diversity between local co-development approaches are connected to the overall philosophies of migrant incorporation within local governments. Indeed, as the second column also summarises (Table 5.1), all four local governments have undettaken different approaches to the participation of citizenship and civil society across time. Thus, Barcelona's approach, as a well-known extreme case of a city, involved searching for, and formalising, ways to foster the participation of citizens, interest groups, and associations’ in local governance. Girona has promoted a participatory approach at the level of community centres and in certain neighbourhoods, but the approach has been patchy, not targeted in relation to the overarching municipal sectors and the whole locality. Mataró has been open to civic participation, even though not to the level found in Barcelona. Lleida, in contrast, has seen local governments that are overall less open to promoting civil society participation.¹¹²

In Table 5.1. below there is an examination of the detailed picture in each city. This mainly reflects information related to the municipal legislatures between 2007-2011 and 2011-2015, that was gathered in 2009-10, and 2014-15 respectively. However, there is also data referring to other terms. The objective here is to consider the overall approach of given local governments in relation to their policies aiming at the connection of migration and development. Specifically, the key question is whether migrants and migrant associations are formally seen as development agents in action plans or other policy documents. Further, it is important to understand whether there are governmental activities that influence the visibility migrant associations may have over the governance of civic and political affairs.

Barcelona’s local government has had, over time, an overall perception that migrants are a special group with specific needs but lacking in political rights. In contrast to the other cities considered here, Barcelona has a long history of having specific services targeted to immigrants; formal spaces exclusively dedicated to immigrant

112 The Research project ‘TRANSGOB: Transformations of urban governance in the context of the crisis. Evolution and prospects for participative governance in Spain and the UK’ has recently published reports accounting for the cases of Lleida (Canal Oliveras and Salazar Marcano, 2016) and Barcelona (Blanco et al., 2016), that support this argument. Access: https://transgob.net/ [last access 3 October 2018]

issues; and the participation of migrant associations’. However, the relative weight that immigration and international cooperation policies have here are very much within the same local government. This is due partly, according to the director of International Cooperation and Immigration services, to the strength of civil society organisations engaged with solidarity and international cooperation:

This is a very structured associationism, very structured indeed, unlike the immigration one. We come from the famous 0.7% campaign that achieved that the City Council of Barcelona made a very important commitment at the budgetary level for supporting international cooperation. And there is the paradox that the cooperation budget is almost three times bigger than the immigration one because of this political commitment. The relationship with these NGOs is very strong, [...] They are much more structured, with much more capacity for pressure... You only have to see grants’ calls. Welcoming [Acollida] has an amount of 450 thousand euros and Cooperation has 5 million euros. Let's say that the number of people who work professionally in cooperation NGOs is very high. They have resources and a good part [of these NGOs] get them from the Generalitat.

Local government representative, Barcelona, September 2009, my translation from Catalan (1-6-P12)

The area of International Cooperation has not explicitly worked on migrant incorporation and, even though co-development appeared as a line of work in the International Cooperation Action Plan of 2009-12, few activities have been undertaken along this line. Discursively, during an interview in December 2009, the political director of the International Cooperation area connected co-development with economic remittances, but also saw it as a process related to establishing relationships between places of origin and residence. The subsequent International Cooperation Action Plan of 2013-16 did not mention co-development, and this new team looked at co-development as a policy area with more caution, wanting to have a clearer idea of what to do about it before undertaking any action.¹¹³ This ‘quarantine’

went in parallel with a period of evaluating co-development policies within the context of the Fons-Català. In the end, with the emergence of this sceptical approach to co-development from the International Cooperation area, during the whole period (2016 was the last checked year of ODA’s resolution calls) Barcelona City Hall has funded some projects presented by migrant associations through competitive bidding.

113 Information obtained through a non-structured conversation in October 2013.

However, there were years (2011, 2012, 2015) in which no migrant association received any ODA funding. Further, during the period 2013-2016 only one or two migrant associations were awarded funds and these were always Latin American migrant-based groups.

Mataró provides a different case of a ‘neutral’ approach to co-development. Similar to the other City Councils considered here, the local government is a member of Fons-Català. However, it is the only one among the four that has completely externalised the management of its competitive calls. This means that once the City Council decides the budget and the amounts that are to be allocated to projects, the economic resources are transferred to the Fons-Català. At his point it is the municipal association that manages the whole cycle of the project work and also the evaluation of their progress. The only person working on the staff in the area of International Cooperation had significant experience in this arena that stretched back more than 30 years. Nevertheless, the decision-making was, still, highly influenced by Fons-Català.

Therefore, when migration in-flows started increasing at the end of the 90s, the City Council had the idea of starting to collaborate with Mataró immigrants' countries of origin. This tendency seemed to be led by Fons-Català (as the public office told me, co-development became ‘fashionable’ among Catalan municipalities in late 90s).

They did not undertake special activities regarding co-development apart from supporting those projects selected by the Fons-Català. Later they backed a training targeted to migrant associations developed in Mataró and Girona between 2014-2015¹¹⁴. This occurred when the co-development commission within the Fons-Català was promoted (between 2012-13), and after the internal evaluation of the co-development policies already mentioned. The activity was planned under the auspieces of the framework set out by the Fons-Català’s co-development commission. It is worth mentioning that this took place after the interviews with migrant representatives.