Copyright SELA, July All rights reserved. Printed in the Permanent Secretariat of SELA, Caracas, Venezuela.

Transcription

1 Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe Latin American and Caribbean Economic System Sistema Econômico Latino-Americano e do Caribe Système Economique Latinoaméricain et Caribéen Visions, approaches and trends of international cooperation for development: Towards a practical conceptual framework for Latin America and the Caribbean XXI Meeting of International Cooperation Directors Paramaribo, Suriname 29 and 30 July 2010 SP/XXI-RDCIALC/DT N 4-10

2 Copyright SELA, July All rights reserved. Printed in the Permanent Secretariat of SELA, Caracas, Venezuela. The Press and Publications Department of the Permanent Secretariat of SELA must authorize reproduction of this document, whether totally or partially, through The Member States and their government institutions may reproduce this document without prior authorization, provided that the source is mentioned and the Secretariat is aware of said reproduction.

3 C O N T E N T S FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 5 I. International cooperation for development in the 21st century. Theoretical and methodological visions, approaches and trends 6 II. International cooperation for development and Latin America and the Caribbean 22 III. South-South Cooperation and Latin America and the Caribbean 32 IV. The Aid Effectiveness Agenda and Latin America and the Caribbean: A possible regional consensus? 36 V. Assessment and general proposals for Latin America and the Caribbean in the area of international cooperation for development 40 VI. Final considerations 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 51 Annexes. ODA to Latin American and Caribbean countries,

4 Tables Table 1. The international system of cooperation for development 8 Table 2. Major theories of International Relations applied to the analysis of international cooperation for development 14 Table 3. Status of compliance with the Millennium Development Goals, Table 4. The principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 21 Table 5. The Latin American and Caribbean subsystem of international cooperation for development 23 Table 6. ODA and population, by region, Table 7. Major ODA donors, by amount, 2006, 2007, Table 8. Major ODA donors to Latin America and the Caribbean, as a proportion of total, 2006, 2007, Table 9. Major multilateral donors to Latin America and the Caribbean, 2006, 2007, Charts Chart 1. Official Development Assistance (ODA), total, Chart 2. ODA as percentage of GDP, Chart 3. Ups and downs in ODA, Chart 4. Regional shares of ODA as percentage of total, Chart 5. Per capita ODA, by region, Chart 6. Major ODA donors to Latin America and the Caribbean, comparative chart, Chart 7. Performance of major multilateral ODA donors to LAC, Chart 8. ODA to Latin America and the Caribbean, by sector, Maps Map 1 Map

5 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation Acronyms AAA: BAPA: CTPD: DAC: EC: ECDC: ECLAC: EU: GEF: ICD: IDB: LAC: MDGs: NAM: NSC: OAS: ODA: OECD: PD: RD: SEGIB: SELA: SSC: UN: WTO: Accra Action Agenda Buenos Aires Plan of Action Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries Development Assistance Committee European Commission Action Programme for economic cooperation among developing countries Economic Commission European Union Global Environment Facility international Cooperation for Development Inter-American Development Bank Latin America and the Caribbean Millennium Development Goals Non-Aligned Movement North-South Cooperation Organization of American States Official Development Assistance Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Paris Declaration Rome Declaration Ibero-American General Secretariat Latin American and Caribbean Economic System South-South Cooperation United Nations World Trade Organization

6 F O R E W O R D This document of the Permanent Secretariat of SELA is aimed at analyzing the general context of the major trends and current debates on international cooperation for development (ICD) from a Latin American and Caribbean perspective. This study responds to a mandate issued in the conclusions and recommendations adopted by consensus by the representatives of SELA Member States who participated in the XX Meeting of International Cooperation Directors for Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Antigua, Guatemala, on 24 and 25 September 2009, under the auspices of the Permanent Secretariat, and the support of the Government of Guatemala, the Spanish Agency of International Cooperation for Development (AECID) and the Andean Development Corporation (CAF). It is aimed at making strides with the debates and regional efforts as regards theoretical and conceptual aspects of international cooperation for development (ICD). The document starts with a general introduction to the issue of ICD in the current context. It goes on by addressing five specific issues: i) international cooperation for development in the 21st century. Theoretical and methodological visions, approaches and trends; ii) international cooperation for development and Latin America and the Caribbean; iii) South-South Cooperation and Latin America and the Caribbean; iv) The Aid Effectiveness Agenda and Latin America and the Caribbean: A possible regional consensus?; v) Assessment and general proposals for Latin America and the Caribbean in the area of international cooperation for development. The Permanent Secretariat expresses its recognition to Philipp Schönrock, Director of the Centre for International Strategic Thinking (CEPEI) for coordinating this study. In turn, Dr. Schönrock expresses his gratitude to Juan Pablo Prado Lallande, Professor of the Autonomous University of Puebla (BUAP) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), for his support in drafting this study, and the research team who participated in its preparation, made up by Luis Ochoa Bilbao and Myrna Rodriguez Añuez, of BUAP, as well as the valuable contributions of Diana Elizabeth Tadeo Silva Villegas and José Luis Gordillo.

7 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The main purpose of this document prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of SELA is to provide a general idea of the main current trends and discussions about international cooperation for development (ICD) from a Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) perspective. This effort is derived from the conclusions and recommendations agreed upon by consensus among the participants in the XX Meeting of International Cooperation Directors, which was held in the city of Antigua, Guatemala, in September 2009, under the auspices of SELA. In fact, the need to maintain a continuous analysis and follow-up of international cooperation trends in Latin America and the Caribbean, above all in an adverse international economic context such as the current one, was discussed at that meeting. According to the international cooperation directors of our countries, the above was a condition required to propitiate increased regional coordination with a view to improving LAC negotiation capability at the different international forums, mechanisms and institutions related to international cooperation for development. Following the discussions at the last meeting of international cooperation directors, the Permanent Secretariat of SELA should work with the aim of moving forward in the discussion and regional coordination of methodological-conceptual issues, systematization of experiences and national and regional perceptions, and the development of proposals in terms of current international cooperation for development. The purpose of these actions, in the medium term, would be to try to unify international cooperation concepts, principles and priorities of the region among Latin American and Caribbean countries. This analysis should also include a study of the value added provided by the major initiatives and projects implemented by the regional agencies, funds and entities for international cooperation for development of the region. In line with these recommendations, the SELA Permanent Secretariat presents this first informative document on a number of central subjects and the main trends related to international cooperation for development, which are being currently discussed. The paper is divided into five chapters. Following the Introduction, international cooperation for development (ICD) is analyzed within the context of the trends prevailing in the 21 st century, based on an initial discussion about its purposes, prevailing approaches and theoretical and methodological trends. Then, in chapter two, current dynamics expressed by ICD flows in LAC, in particular Official Development Assistance (ODA), are presented, with reference to the growing importance and leading role of our region in South-South cooperation (SSC). Chapter 4 analyzes the so-called assistance effectiveness agenda, including an overall assessment and concrete proposals related to how LAC could have a more active and effective influence on the ICD global agenda. In particular, the main agreements and differences among governments of our region concerning key subject of the ICD agenda are described. In terms of proposals and recommendations, this document points out that LAC should consider defining a regional strategy that would be better inserted in the ICD system for this to be able to respond to the needs of Latin American and Caribbean countries as well as those of developing nations in general. In this regard, it is worth stressing that, although almost all LAC nations are classified as middle income countries and, therefore, they are increasingly marginalized from access to international cooperation resources, a large number of people currently live in poverty and there are very high levels of income and opportunity inequality in our countries. This, together with other valuation elements presented in this paper, legitimizes the growing demand of Latin

8 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 4 American and Caribbean countries in the sense that the needs of our societies are reconsidered by the main international cooperation donors and entities. As a central element of this strategic repositioning, a greater level of inter-institutional coordination and collaboration within the Latin American and Caribbean ICD system is required. Furthermore, it is essential to continue to insist, at the political level, for main donors of development assistance not to reduce the amounts of their disbursements towards the region, as well as strengthening and improving quality of SSC actions and projects implemented and led by LAC countries over recent years. ICD is considered to be a fundamental tool for insertion into the current international economic relation system and, therefore, LAC countries must privilege collaboration within the Latin American and Caribbean region in this area, as an essential element for a consensus-based regional foreign policy. Through greater coordination, LAC will be able to more effectively influence the ICD system. This will basically aimed at strengthening, streamlining and democratizing this system, so as to provide it with renewed capability for it to better address the needs, almost always put off, of most people in Latin America and the Caribbean and in the other developing countries.

9 5 INTRODUCTION Latin America and the Caribbean as a region, as well as other developing countries, have increased their presence and involvement in the main forums where certain standards of the current global economic current agenda are discussed and defined. The subject of international cooperation for development (ICD) has become a relevant part of this increasing leading role. This is mainly due to the fact that ICD modalities are part today of a dynamic discussion and review process. As a result, different strategies aimed at renewing or restructuring the ICD system, have been implemented. Proposals that are being discussed, as well as already implemented initiatives and projects, try to implicitly or explicitly provide ICD with an increased ability to attain its purposes, especially vis-à-vis the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, possible scenarios that emerge now or that could emerge in the future from this reconfiguration of international cooperation would have significant implications both at the national and regional level for the countries of our region. More consensual actions concerning key subjects of international cooperation for development by Latin American and Caribbean countries would considerably multiply the possibilities that interests of our societies be prioritized by the so-called community of donors, and also by multilateral entities related to development. The main purpose of this document, based on demands presented by the International Cooperation Directors at their 20 th Annual Meeting, 1, is to contribute to the necessary regional discussion about the different perspectives at the international level, but also in our region, as to the current international cooperation system, with emphasis on the reduced or marginalized role of the region as beneficiary of Official Development Assistance (ODA), as well as, on the different manners in which this has assimilated the major trends of the so-called new architecture of international cooperation. For this purpose, the analytical summary of this paper includes reflections on the MDGs, South-South Cooperation (SSC) and the official assistance agenda. To attain this purpose, the paper is divided into five sections. This introduction is followed by an overall analysis of the conditions prevailing in the current cooperation system, based on an initial discussion on its purposes, approaches and theoreticalmethodological trends. Based on this, the study deals with ICD dynamics from a Latin American and Caribbean perspective, with special reference to the access of our region to the international cooperation resource flows, particularly as to its role as ODA beneficiary. These amounts have been cut back and everything indicates that the trend of a relative, but marked, marginalization of LAC as a beneficiary of international cooperation resources could continue to exist. Next, the paper analyzes one of the most relevant contributions of the region to the international cooperation system: its growing leading role in terms of South-South cooperation (SSC), including a review of the current status and underscoring that this 1 The XX Meeting of International Cooperation Directors took place on 24 and 25 September 2010, in the city of Antigua, Guatemala. See conclusions and recommendations adopted at the meeting at

10 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 6 cooperation modality, which is growing and very important today, requires new mechanisms and indicators for its analysis and also for the evaluation of its results. This document then analyzes how the assistance effectiveness agenda has impacted the development cooperation dynamics. Opposite views that exist among the different governments in Latin America and the Caribbean concerning this subject are presented. This part of the document refers to the convenience of considering the possibility of linking current trends in Latin American and Caribbean South-South Cooperation with discussions on the qualitative assistance agenda, as a major challenge. The idea, without imposing views or paradigms on each other, is that Latin American and Caribbean countries agree upon suitable indicators and mechanisms to evaluate the impacts of South-South Cooperation and, at the same time, review, adjust or validate, within this context, some of the paradigms underpinning this agenda. The final considerations highlight that LAC should continue working to position itself as a proactive developing region with a leading role in the ICD system. In this connection, the experience of the region in SSC modalities is an indisputable asset that could undoubtedly be improved in terms of quality and through learning accrued from the participation of our governments in the most important forums where international cooperation trends and disciplines are discussed and defined. However, to further advance in this topic, Latin America and the Caribbean should intensify coordination and collaboration efforts with a view to attaining, if possible, consensual stances within the region, above all in those key subjects of the ICD system, including democratization of multilateral financial entities, international development financing, the MDGs, SSC and assistance effectiveness, based on national particularities and according to the legitimate development interests of Latin America and the Caribbean. I. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL VISIONS, APPROACHES AND TRENDS International cooperation actions or processes started more than six decades ago, and throughout this historical period, it has been characterized by stages of great dynamism and growing transcendence worldwide; and by others in which for several reasons political, economical, geo-strategic, etc. cooperation relations have had some setbacks. International cooperation is provided by various public and private actors global, regional, subregional or national and its final goal is to help raise living standards of certain social groups, regions, sectors or countries, in specific areas related to their wellbeing. These international cooperation relations essentially prove that international commercial, financial, technological and political relations by themselves do not guarantee the equitable development of the countries, and of the different economic sectors and social groups, particularly the most vulnerable ones. Thereby the need to implement compensatory actions to reduce the imbalance and inequity between the more developed areas, sectors and groups, and those with less advantages between nations as well as within them promoting better living conditions for the more vulnerable, and fostering the gradual construction of a more stable and safe world.

11 7 Thus, ICD emerges as a set of mechanisms and actions implemented by several international actors in order to correct social and economic imbalances through training, exchange of good practices in several topics and areas, as well as the granting of financial or technological resources in conditions that are appropriate for the development and wellbeing of the recipient. All of this presupposes that said transference in terms of training, good practices, financial resources and technology is granted under preferential conditions, and thus it can be provided free of charge or through concessions, 2 based on the co-participation and co-responsibility of the entities involved. Therefore, ICD is a valuable instrument of external support that complements national development efforts, and is materialized in specific sectors or areas of action of public interest. In principle, these cooperation actions or activities should not make its recipients become dependent or submissive towards those with more capacities and resources (those that provide or grant the cooperation) because a collateral synergy should be to encourage joint cooperation through democratic, horizontal, and specific schemes for common action, with the final objective of meeting the specific and priority needs of the population or benefitted sector. In time, the ICD relations promoted by the United Nations have been joined by an increasing number of different actors, such as assistance agencies from developed countries, and more recently from the so called emerging countries organizations and entities for global, regional, and subregional cooperation, as well as cooperation entities and projects promoted by developing countries, non-governmental organizations, foundations, universities, companies, etc. This broad and growing conglomerate of ICD actors from countries and entities from the North and from the South, has gradually become a new entity for contemporary international relations, called ICD system, 3 comparable according to some experts to what could be considered as an international regime for external aid. 4 Considering all of this, the ICD system includes the set of cooperation activities carried out by the most diverse actors of the international community, whether public or private, from developed or developing countries, characterized by a certain degree of coordination, coherence and complementarity, within a framework of specific objectives, rules, procedures, regulations, decision making processes, and non-binding actions, since they depend on the political and financial will of their promoters. This set of activities has the 2 That is, lower than the conventional commercial conditions, which have as a fundamental principle, the traditional securing of returns or earnings for one of the parties through the sale of products or services, with a price established by market dynamics. 3 This functionalistic view of ICD stems from considering that, although the actors and the dynamics of the ICD system have a plural, hierarchic and decentralized nature, given the existence of procedures, coordination mechanisms, and certain common objectives in the international scene, it is suitable to talk about a structured ICD system. 4 The concept of aid regime was provided by Bjarne Bonné (1989: 38-44, en Gibbon), who uses it to designate the system of principles, rules, regulations, and procedures for decision making that regulate the granting of aid for development. Obviously, this stems from Krasner s (1983: 2), concept of international regimes, which are understood as a group of implicit or explicit principles, rules, regulations, and processes for decision making, through which the expectations of the actors converge in a specific area of international relations.

12 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 8 purpose to help improve the well-being of a population group, a specific sector, or a particular region (See Table 1). Table 1 The international system of cooperation for development Source: Prepared by the Consultant of the Permanent Secretariat of SELA. In conceptual terms, it is necessary to mention that in recent years there has been a renewed interest in dealing with the analysis of international cooperation for development from several theoretical points of view (Ayllón, 2007: 8). In this connection, and depending on the purposes explicit or implicit of the actors involved (whether states, international organizations, foundations, NGOs, companies, etc.), the entities that carry out ICD strive to find a wide range of objectives, ranging from those with a perspective of development and solidarity, favouring the construction of structures and conditions for more solid and effective development, to those with a political, economic, or geo-strategic character. 5 In this respect, and according to the 5 After decades of existence of ICD globally, there is still no defined consensus about the motives of its promoters to implement it, ranging from political, economic, and geo-strategic interests, to the foundations of moral values and solidarity. For a philosophical, theoretical, and ethical analysis on this debate, see Juan Pablo Prado Lallande, La dimensión ética de la cooperación internacional para el desarrollo. Entre la solidaridad y el poder en las relaciones internacionales. Digital Library of the Inter-American Initiative for Social Capital, Ethics and Development, Inter-American Development Bank. Available at:

13 9 experts, the international cooperation that the LAC region has received, as well as that granted by the entities and countries of said region, have not escaped these perspectives. For example, during the Cold War, the main purposes of several promoters of international cooperation were, in a first phase, to support the reconstruction of European countries devastated by the war. In a second phase longer and deeper than the first the main economic, political and military powers worldwide tried to strengthen or expand their political-ideological interests and alliances in peripheral states, which were often the recipients of cooperation, through cooperation actions and projects. Within the framework of the capitalism vs. socialism contradiction, the foreign aid strategies and policies (economic, commercial, technological, etc.) even though they tried to strengthen the internal capacities of the countries being supported they incorporated political and geostrategic elements that conditioned the foundations, orientations and objectives of the set of cooperation activities or actions. According to several specialists, when the East-West conflict ended, an opportunity opened up to remove political and ideological traits of cooperation, which had characterized it for at least 40 years. The assumption was that finally, international cooperation for development would have as its fundamental and single premise to fight against poverty, and solve the old problems that had hindered development in the countries of the South. 6 However, as one of the many effects generated by the global fight against terrorism, from 11 September 2001, there have been increasing signs that ICD is now strongly linked to international security issues, which have acquired precedence in the international agenda. 7 So today, the development objectives of ICD, essentially those related to the fight against poverty, or financing for development go together (or, in many cases compete) with purposes framed within the logic of security, and with the economic or geo-strategic interests of the main donors who today have national security as a priority. This relates directly to a conceptual-methodological aspect linked to ICD. In fact, the purposes and motivations on which those providing cooperation have based their aid and cooperation actions abroad can also be explained with the theories of international relations. This is a valid exercise for specialists and entities interested in linking international practice to theory. From a positivist perspective, foreign aid and its relation to national interests has been analyzed through realism and neo-realism (Morgenthau, 1962; Krasner, 1985; Hook, 1995). A structuralist criticism links foreign aid to imperialism, (Mende, 1974; George and Bennet, 1987; Bello, et. al, 1994), while this topic has also been studied through the theory of interdependence, international regimes, and institutional neoliberalism (Keohane, 1998; Young, 1989; Kaul, Grunberg and Stern, 1999) Likewise, from the post-positivist perspective, there is constructivism (Riddel, 1987; Lumsdaine, 1993; Fitzgerald, 1998), and postdevelopment or de-constructivism (Esteva, 1992; Escobar 1995; Senarclens, 1998) among the most representative theories. 6 And therefore it would focus more on issues such as financing for development, foreign debt, environmental protection, the protection of human rights, fair trade and multilateral relations, attention to pandemics, and democratization of decision making in international financial institutions and the UN itself, among others. 7 Or rather, the security of the North.

14 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 10 For practical and methodological purposes, and to analyze the present representative trends in ICD, we will consider only three of the above mentioned postures (realism, constructivism and institutional neo-liberalism) as a foundation for the analysis that precedes this section of the present work. Realism considers that international cooperation is designed fundamentally, if not exclusively, to defend the interest of the donor in the recipient State, to increase the donor's political influence, security, promote trade and its respective external investments. In this way, aid is interpreted by this theoretical line as an element that is inseparable from power. (Hook, Op. Cit: 34). This approach explains that powerful donors have found in aid, a mechanism to promote their strategic interests in their respective zones of influence, through less costly mechanisms of actions, and also less debilitating in comparison with direct politicaldiplomatic pressures and/or the use of military force. Thus, Hans Morgenthau equalled international aid to bribes to recipient governments, since from his perspective, far from promoting development, assistance was only intended for the donor to obtain political and economic benefits in the wake of the aid given to the recipient ally government. 8 As several analysts with a realistic trend say, the incipient ICD of the end of the 1940s, particularly in the bilateral setting, became increasingly framed within the Cold War, so in the political arena, cooperation was used against the communist threat or against capitalist penetration, whichever the case, and recurrently, as a vehicle for propaganda of the conflicting sides. (Pérez Bravo and Tripp, 1996: 36). Given this scenario, Sanahuja states that the emergence of external assistance, and the strategy to contain communism, are in fact two intimately related events (Sanahuja, 1999: 14). In this regard, Keith Griffin says: Foreign assistance is a product of the Cold War (...). If it weren t because of the Cold War, there wouldn t have been aid programmes deserving such a name (...) and of course, there were genuine humanitarian motives (...), but the conflict between the super powers was a condition sine qua non (in Sahahuja, Ibid). Along the same line, Víctor L. Urquidi states that bilateral cooperation has not always responded to legitimate economic and social development purposes, but rather, it has served to promote the doctrines, ideas, or practices of the so-called donor countries, both in the West, as well as in the socialist arena (Urquidi, 1994: 34). In this connection, Irene López Méndez and José Ángel Sotillo say that during the first stage of ICD, and due to the Cold War, aid was an instrument in the hands of developed 8 For the author of this study, international assistance lacks development objectives, since it is mainly destined for the allies of the donor State (regardless of their democratic legitimacy), to maintain political stability and thus the status quo of economic, political and social structures of recipients. Obviously, this reductionist perspective of cooperation goes along the same lines of realistic postulates, in the sense that from this perspective, the balance of power must be promoted at all times by the more powerful States, even through international cooperation actions (Morgenthau, Op. Cit., 302).

15 11 countries, to gain allies throughout the world, or to maintain neo-colonial situations (Méndez y Sotillo, 1996: 115). Thus, according to this theoretical perspective, ICD could be considered as a concession made by powerful countries to continue interfering with weak nations, fostering the socalled neo-imperialism through conditions, whether sanctioning or encouraging assistance, depending on the conduct and reaction expected from the recipient vis-à-vis the demands of the donor. In this concept, ICD is mainly a foreign policy instrument of the powers, or even of countries of the South that have greater capacity to attain or ensure their political objectives; that is, with the intention to...maintain or maybe expand the international influence of the donor country, meaning that foreign assistance is a less costly instrument to achieve these objectives (Mende, Op. Cit: 63). In sum, for realists, international cooperation, far from being based on morality, humanism and solidarity, or on the creation of a more cohesive and effective ICD system, is ruled by a rational approach linked to power, so that donors can obtain absolute gains, and in second place come the motivations of solidarity. In the words of Illán, the system of cooperation, from the Cold War to our days, has been characterized by the following tenet: Aid for allies is above aid for development (Illán, 2004: 154). As will be discussed later, this theoretical matrix explains why the United States and Spain, the first and second ODA donors to LAC, respectively, grant significant amounts of aid to that region, considered by both as a priority based on their political and economic interests in that region of the world. Contrary to realists, and within the framework of the post-positivist logic, constructivists start from the idea that the structure of international policy is basically social, and not exclusively material or tangible. These social structures affect the rulers perceptions of international reality, and condition the interests, values, ideology and perceptions of international actors. This means that the national interests of the countries are the result of constructs that their respective statesmen perceive regarding the international context. 9 These social structures consist of shared understandings, perspectives and knowledge, which altogether generate the characteristics and nature of relations between the actors of the international system, whether for cooperation or for conflict. In this sense, and since for constructivists the moral element in international relations has an important place in said social structures, the advocates of this theory try to prove the way in which these structures allow its actors to carry out actions as a function of several values and interests, through specific means and capacities (Wendt, 1995: 76). From this perspective, since international relations do not respond exclusively to mere national interests of a rational and selfish nature, in competition through a constant 9 Thereby the name constructivism or cognitivism.

16 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 12 struggle for power, other elements such as moral considerations can more effectively explain the nature and leitmotiv of said structures. Regarding ICD, constructivism starts from the relative premise that there are solid moral foundations for States with greater capacity (from the North or from the South) to provide development assistance to third countries, thus maintaining that international aid cannot be explained only based on the political and economic interests of the great powers. For this trend, which emerged at the end of the 1980s, humanitarian elements and solidarity in the international cooperation system have played a central role at all times. For example, this theory states that for decades, moral considerations have provided a significant foundation for cooperation for development policies and programmes, so this activity (contrary to what realism or neo-realism states) is not an end in itself, but rather has development interests and solidarity as a priority. For constructivists such as Riddell, there are different circumstances that provide the necessary moral framework for strong States to promote or help in the development of weaker nations: a) the needs of people suffering from poverty in the South; b) the great inequities in resources and opportunities between rich and poor; and c) the historical unfair relations between developed and developing countries, which can be restored or compensated. Thus, for this trend it is enough to accept only one of these justifications to support the moral obligation to cooperate (Riddel, Op. Cit: 12). Along this same perspective, Fitzgerald says that the ethical base of ICD emanates from the individual tendency to relief the suffering of fellow men, as long as it can be done at acceptable costs. According to this author, this means that the moral foundation of assistance is derived from the obligation of humanity to cooperate with their fellow men, which requires resources that are transferrable to the poor, regardless of State limitations or borders (Fitzgerald, Op. Cit: 11). 10 As stated, this theoretical tenet has been criticized by several international relations scholars, who say that States don t have extra-territorial moral commitments, and therefore, assistance is only another mechanism of their foreign policies, whose purpose is to promote their own national interests. However, contrary to these ideas, constructivists state that cooperation for development must continue and increase, since there is a moral obligation to help other States, and also because in this view, cooperation actions (for example, the fight against poverty) are effective to achieve their purposes. 11 David Hallorain Lumsdaine, a representative advocate of cognitive theory, has argued about the foundations of morality and solidarity of ICD, stating that the moral concepts that affect international policies are: 1) The systematic international transfer of internal 10 This posture is based on Kant s ideas, in the sense that the principle of respect and solidarity among people, or what is the same, a society with moral principles, is the elemental foundation of all human communities. 11 This idea is not compatible with what staunch critics of assistance assert, such as the neo liberals Nozick, Hayek and Bauer, who state that due to the failure of foreign aid to fight poverty efficiently there is a moral obligation not to cooperate (In Riddell, Op. Cit. p. 25).

17 13 ideas regarding the values of justice and development; 2) The social and moral dialogue that must be the foundation of the international society; and 3) The set of implicit regulatory signifiers that are implicit in international regimes, and the respective activities emanating therefrom, such as assistance, which shape the evolution and perspectives of its practice (Lumsdaine, Op. Cit., p. 5). Thus, for this Yale University professor, the study of international events cannot be done through a limited realistic analysis, because human nature is much more complex: individual interests, irrationality, destruction and the principles of compassion play a role in international policies, just as in the civil society and in national policies (Ibid). Lumsdaine bases his tenet precisely on this point, using a comparative method, and stating that developed societies transfer naturally the countless humanitarian behaviours that emerge ad interim from their respective societies, towards the outside through development aid. In this connection, Lumsdaine states that relations between the actors of the international system contain a significant range of moral elements that complement those relative to national interest through mere relations of power. Lumsdaine emphatically states that foreign assistance cannot be explained based only on the economic and political interests of donors; therefore, any satisfactory explanation must grant a focal place to the influence of humanitarian and egalitarian convictions of assistance donors. (Ibid) This perspective helps explain why countries such as Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands (which do not have political or geo-strategic interests globally) are the main ODA donors in relation to their GDP. Similarly, regarding LAC, it seems that constructivism is essential to understand the reasons leading Luxembourg and Switzerland, two countries outside the former colonial history of Latin America and the Caribbean, to grant 16% and 12%, respectively, of their total ODA to this region of the world. Institutional neo-liberalism, also called modified structural realism, admits a posture similar to neo-realism, regarding an assumed rationality in the behaviour of the States in their international relations. However, what defines institutional neoliberalism is that the States, going beyond their concerns about security and national interest, are capable of cooperating among themselves, to create international institutions or regimes that in turn can be used in favour of the interests of the countries (Grieco, 1995: 151). In other words, institutional neoliberalism, as opposed to neo-realism, conceives cooperation as a viable alternative for States to search for elements of satisfaction in the international scene. From this perspective, international organizations are capable of providing reliable alternatives to overcome the dilemma of security for the States, so it is viable to support them by cooperating with other governments (Axelrod, 1984). For institutional neo-liberalism, cooperation must prevail over confrontation. In view of this, it goes against the interests of the States to drastically alter the impulse to create, expand and improve international regimes in different areas of international relations (development, trade, human rights, democracy, etc.). Therefore, from this perspective, the States tend to avoid conflicts, and when they occur, they make significant efforts to resolve them through dialogue and cooperation, so later, international cooperation and

18 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 14 the international regimes stemming from that activity become strengthened, generating certainty in the international system. This theoretical view helps understand, for example, the fact that although there are significant differences in perception and orientation in terms of development and integration models among LAC countries, last February it was possible to take significant steps towards the future creation of a Community of Latin American States, with the intention to build a permanent regional cooperation and integration mechanism in LAC. Table 2 Major theories of International Relations applied to the analysis of international cooperation for development Theory Main Actors Main objectives Main Strategies and Instruments Realism/ Neo-realism Structuralism Neo-liberalism Interdependen ce or international regimes Institutional Neo liberalism Constructivism The State as a rational and single entity The State as an actor with interests, which, by imposing to others, increases inequalities between the actors of the international system The private sector as an agent that promotes change, growth and development Several actors, public and private The States and other actors such as international organizations and regional cooperation mechanisms The States and other subnational actors Increase power and influence, at times through cooperation in select topics of interest Increase its power through imperialist actions, by using military or ideological domination Through productive capacity, increase production, growth and development No defined objectives Promote an environment of cooperation, whether in security, development, trade, etc. Promote equity in the international system Use of force, diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or otherwise, cooperation Increase the dependence of poor countries on the powerful Trade and liberal strategies. In this sense ICD discourages the true engine of growth, which are the local capacities Cooperation between the various actors of the international system, often not centralized by State governments Cooperation at several levels among the various international actors Non-conditional cooperation Main motivations to cooperate National interests, in view of its security, and economic and geo-strategic objectives Increase its influence on third States, were cooperation constitutes an instrument for exploitation, interference and domination Benefits through the least external support possible Certainty in the international system and satisfaction of the actors. Cooperation is less costly than force. Promote stability and certainty in the system Solidarity and moral arguments Source: Prepared by the Consultant of the Permanent Secretariat of SELA. Dominant level of analysis State and Systemic Systemic Systemic Systemic Systemic Individual transforms into collective objectives Vision of the international System Anarchic Domineering Autonomous (International cooperation is not required to achieve benefits wherever required) Interdependent among the multiple actors of the international system Cooperative The international system is shaped up by the perceptions of its actors

19 15 But regardless of the theoretical-methodological foundation that may help understand some of the trends that have prevailed in ICD, it always depends on the international and national context in which it occurs. That is, ICD is extremely vulnerable to the factors determined by the specific historical frameworks, because the relation between them international and national determines the political and financial support granted by those practicing it. Given that one characteristic of the ICD system is its evolution, as well as its adaptation to the time frame in question, at the end of the Cold War (which conditioned international relations, and therefore ICD, for many decades) 12 the dynamics, objectives, and priorities of ICD changed as already stated. It also happened in the beginning of the 1990s. This is why, in a more favourable international framework regarding the agenda for development, the UN organized throughout that decade and in the first years of the 21st century, a series of international summits to reach consensus and commitments on several issues related to development and the fight against poverty. All this had the main objective to grant the ICD system new guidelines agreed between the different actors, so it has a greater capacity to achieve its purposes. 13 The first most representative example was the approval, in 2000, of the Millennium Declaration by the General Assembly of the UN. It established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), comprised by eight objectives and 18 measurable goals in several global areas, which must be fulfilled by 2015 at the latest, and their present status in shown in the following table (See table 3). 12 In many cases, international cooperation during the Cold War was a peaceful instrument (noncoercive) of power in international relations, in the sense that it became a mechanism designed for the most part to maintain or expand the strategic interests of the great powers, leaving development objectives in second place (ODI, 1994: 1). 13 Before the 1990s, the UN also organized a series of international conferences, including the following: Environment (Stockholm 1972); Population (Bucharest, 1974); Industrial Development (Lima, 1975); Women (Mexico, 1975), among many others. After the end of the Cold War, the UN launched a new initiative to hold a new generation of multilateral conferences in favour of development. For example: World Summit on Childhood (New York, 1990), World Summit on Education (Jomtien, 1990), UN Conference on the Environment and Development (Río de Janeiro, 1992), World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993), International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994), World Conference on Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995), World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995), World Food Summit (Rome, 1996). The most recent Summits reviewing the progress made on the commitments assumed in the 1990s are: International Financing for Development (Monterrey, 2002), Food (Rome, 2002 and 2008), Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), Women (New York, 2005), among others.

20 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 16 Table 3 Status of compliance with the Millennium Development Goals, 2009 Source: Millennium Development Goals: 2009 Progress Chart, UN.

21 17 Therefore, since 2000 and at least until 2015, the MDGs stand out as key elements of mandatory reference for the ICD system. To that end, it has been necessary for the members of said system to renew their commitments and efforts so as to comply with them. In this exercise, Objective 8 (To promote a worldwide association for development), is particularly relevant, because it has been said that through it, the other objectives and goals can also be met. Therefore, to accompany and honour this new impulse for international development goals through tangible results, national governments, multilateral organizations and many other public and private actors of the ICD system have formally accepted that besides giving additional political and financial support to this activity, it is necessary to design and implement new strategies. In this case, the problem of financing for development, and the issue of quality of assistance constitute core elements of this trend. However, as has been said, the dynamics of ICD depends on the national and international situation of each specific historical moment, and given the present importance of security regarding the agenda for development particularly due to the anti-terrorist escalade after 11 September 2001 and the international financial and economic crisis which started in 2009, international cooperation for development has had to face complex challenges that severely affect its dynamics and its future. Thus, said events have negatively affected the capacity of ICD to promote the achievement of the MDGs and other global development objectives. 14 Regardless of the above, and as has been said, to promote the achievement of MDGs and other related purposes in an adverse international context, the ICD agenda of the past few years has tried to renew and improve its capacity to achieve the established goals, particularly through two great areas of action: The first one has to do with an increase in international financing for development, particularly through the Doha Round for Development promoted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 2001, and through the so-called Monterrey Consensus. Regarding the Doha Round, the intention is that through a multilateral trade system that resolves the imperfections of international markets, assets are generated to increase the possibilities of achieving the MDGs. 15 However, given the great differences between the North and the South in these negotiations (like opening the markets of the North to agricultural and livestock products from the South, or reducing the subsidies of the North to said products), the aspirations of Doha have not been implemented; this situation was worsened in the context of the present global economic crisis, where protectionism tends to prevail over commercial integration. 14 Recent analyses on the influence of the so-called securitization of the international agenda, and of the global financial crises, are found by Carlos Illán Sailler, The relation between the security agenda and assistance for development ( Los vínculos entre la agenda de seguridad y la ayuda al desarrollo ), as well as by Juan Pablo Prado Lallande and Luis Ochoa Bilbao, The international cooperation system for development: securitization and the global financial crisis ( El sistema de cooperación internacional para el desarrollo: frente a la seguritización y la crisis económica global ). Both articles are included in Revista Relaciones Internacionales de la UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, No. 105, Mexico, If trade barriers from the countries of the North were eliminated, the South could earn, through legal trade, 10 times more than the 10 billion dollars required annually to expand education for all. With this amount the global rent would increase so much, that 320 million individuals would stop being poor by 2015.

22 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 18 Regarding the Monterrey Consensus, multilateral commitments adopted at the International Conference on International Financing for Development, organized by the United Nations (Monterrey, Mexico, March 2002), have promoted an increase in financial flows, internal as well as external, and public as well as private, to settle the economic costs to achieve the MDGs, and other needs. In this respect, it must be noted that in terms of Official Development Assistance (ODA), 16 from Monterrey to the present, the amount of this indicator has increased 47%, going from US$ 57 billion in 2002 to US$ billion in Although this increase is positive, from the perspective of ODA/GDP, the percentage does not go beyond 0.31% on average, which is very far from the 0.7% proposed in the seventies by the international community and agreed as a basic goal, which is presently honoured by only five countries 17 (See Charts 1 and 2). 16 ODA, or commonly called official development assistance can be understood in general, as economic contributions of a concessional character, and an element of donation granted by developed countries to specific countries of the South, in order to complement national capacities for development. The official definition of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) dates from 1973, which establishes that these resources are [...] flows for developing countries and multilateral organizations coming from official agencies, including state and local governments, or through their executing agencies, for transfers that comply with the following: It must be administered to promote the economic development and well being of developing countries as its main objective, and it must be concessionary containing a donation of at least 25 percent (Fürer, 1996: 27). 17 It is worth noting that the Monterrey Consensus didn t contribute any innovation in several key issues, like new sources of financing for development, more concrete commitments regarding OAD, and the same regarding the effectiveness of aid. Despite all of this, perhaps the main issue concerning the results of this conference is the idea that international trade and direct foreign investment constitute stable and effective sources of financing for development; we will see in the next section that this statement lacks validity, particularly with respect to LAC, in the framework of the present global economic crisis.

23 19 Chart 1 Official Development Assistance (ODA), total, 2009 Source: OECD-DAC: Development aid rose in 2009 and most donors will meet 2010 aid targets, OECD-DAC, 14 April 2010, Paris. Chart 2 ODA as percentage of GDP, 2009 Source: OECD-DAC: Development aid rose in 2009 and most donors will meet 2010 aid targets, OECD-DAC, 14 April 2010, Paris.

24 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 20 In this connection, it is interesting to note that while 11 countries increased their ODA last year, 12 reduced it, going through spectacular increases of 17.3 % (Norway) to significant reductions of 31.2 % (Austria) (See Chart 3). From this perspective, the total amount of assistance for development is extremely volatile, since the amounts that each member of the DAC destines voluntarily (or in more accurate terms, in a discretional manner) to their respective recipients fluctuates. This diversity of attitudes and actions during 2009 regarding ODA is explained by the (differentiated) impact of the global financial and economic crisis on the budgetary capacity of donors. However, the lack of determination and political will to honour commitments is also noteworthy, whether the Monterrey or the Gleneagles Consensus, in terms of increasing ODA to contribute with the achievement of the MDGs. This proves that we still lack an ICD system that is cohesive enough to generate stable and predictable financing resources, which, as stated before, is particularly evident in the Latin American and Caribbean case. 18 This situation makes it easy for several donors to implement the free rider strategy, delegating their responsibility to help on those that do so with a greater commitment. In this sense, the communiqués of the Spanish government, the second donor of ODA to LAC, stating that due to budgetary adjustments caused by the world economic crisis, this country will reduce its ODA by US$ 800 million in 2010, also show that this aid is not going through an environment of stability, and much less of true growth. Chart 3 Ups and downs in ODA, 2009 Source: Based on OECD-DAC: Development aid rose in 2009 and most donors will meet 2010 aid targets, OEAC-DAC, 14 April, 2010, Paris. 18 Assistance continues to be unpredictable, because only 46% of ODA allocations are made effective in the year that corresponds to the accounts of the recipients, compared to 71% established by the Declaration of Paris (Intermón-Oxfam, 2008: 20).

25 21 As has been stated, the second item to renew in the ICD system is related to the so-called quality assistance agenda. Although its history goes back many years, said agenda is formed by the heritage of three framework events in favour of this objective. The first was in 2003 with the Declaration of Rome, the second in 2005 with the Paris Declaration (PD), sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and then by the European Union (EU), to later consolidate in the so-called Accra Action Agenda (AAA) of The PD is without a doubt, the main body of the agenda of the effectiveness of ICD, because it established 51 commitments and 12 indicators for participating countries to evaluate their fulfilment. In sum, the intention of this Declaration is to reform the delivery and management of assistance, so as to increase the impact of assistance for development to reduce poverty and inequality, increase growth and capacities, and provide an acceleration to achieve MDGs. To achieve these purposes, the Paris Declaration encompasses five principles that ODA must heed, with the argument that commitments must be interpreted in light of the situation of each partner state. These commitments are shown in Table 4. Table 4 The principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Principle Area of Action Appropriation It states that programmes and projects tend to be more effective when they have the support of beneficiaries for their execution. Alignment It includes the adaptation of assistance to priority programmes of the recipient. Harmonization It intends to reduce the lack of coordination of donors and their respective cooperation actions. Management of results Its goal is to guide efforts towards assistance purposes, and not the means to achieve them. Mutual accountability It intends donors and recipients to make the commitment to use the resources appropriately, destined in favour of human wellbeing issues. Source: Based on the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Although evidently the most present and dynamic elements of ICD are not exhausted with the issues mentioned here, 19 they denote the most representative guidelines through which this activity is performed and reinvented. Unfortunately, it occurs in a nonpromissory environment, particularly due to the effects of the international economic crisis, which has considerably reduced political and financial support for ICD. The way in which the dynamics of ICD has affected LAC is the subject of the following section. 19 A periodic and specific follow up of these issues is found in the regular section of the Revista Española de Desarrollo y Cooperación entitled The agenda of international cooperation for development, and also in the one regarding Follow up of South-South Cooperation, Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo y Cooperación-Universidad Complutense of Madrid, Spain.

26 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 22 II. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Since the ICD began to be implemented in an institutionalized manner in the late 1940s until today, the Latin American and Caribbean region has been a major player and promoter of this form of collaboration with various approaches. This relates directly to three key elements: - First, from the standpoint of a recipient of ODA, because of the widespread layers of poverty in the 32 countries in this area (where around 189 million people, or 31% of the population, live now) 20 and because LAC is characterized as the region of the world with the largest inequality in terms of income and capabilities. This has given rise to several bilateral and multilateral donors granting a significant amount of ODA to our region for decades. - Second, from the perspective of a proactive actor in the ICD system, as LAC has been a scenario where different instances of inter-regional cooperation via South-South have also contributed to cope with the abovementioned economic and social setbacks historically faced by this area of the world. In this regard, it should be noted that even some examples of SSC have been implemented, with the participation of Latin American and Caribbean countries, beyond American borders. - And third, given the progressive (though as we shall see in due course, still insufficient) role of LAC in the discussion, design and construction of ICD system guidelines globally, where the voice of Latin America and the Caribbean begins to have a relatively greater role, to which the actions of our region in terms of SSC has made a significant contribution. However, the first scenario where LAC boosted the ICD was at the germ of this system, in the context of the early work of the Economic and Social Council and other multilateral bodies of the UN in the late 1940s. In this context, Latin American and Caribbean representatives in those forums made great political and diplomatic efforts to ensure that the provisions relating to social and economic cooperation enshrined in the Charter of San Francisco became true. 21 From those days until now, LAC countries, which share a multilateral, peaceful approach that favours regional and global development, have supported the ICD system. In this way, they are proactively contributing to the strengthening and development of the ICD in various fields. For example, noteworthy is mentioning that LAC is the world's developing region with the largest number of regional and subregional cooperation agencies, which are working constantly from different perspectives to bolster economic and social development and integration. 20 )According to the report "Social Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean 2009, ECLAC, the global economic crisis pushed poverty in this part of the world up 1.1% in , thus increasing the number of destitute people from 71 million to 76 million people, i.e. 13.7% of the population (ECLAC, 2009). 21 An interesting account of the discussions between the different delegations of the countries in this respect within the ECOSOC is found in Hernán Santa Cruz: Cooperate or perish. The dilemma of the world community, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires, 1984.

27 23 Thus, within and under the global ICD system, what one might call the Latin American and Caribbean ICD System (See Table 5) has been established and consolidated. Its main goal is to promote relations, collaboration and coordination among various local and regional bodies as well as third external players, in order to improve welfare and development opportunities among its members. 22 In other words, it can be said that the LAC ICD system is the main contribution of this region to the global ICD system, as it nourishes, diversifies and strengthens the latter. 23 Table 5 The Latin American and Caribbean subsystem of international cooperation for development Source: Prepared by the Consultant of the Permanent Secretariat of SELA. 22 Obviously, as discussed in the next section, the main challenge of the Latin American and Caribbean ICD subsystem is to make headway in complementariness and coordination among its different players, which would enhance the IDC subsystem capacity to create regional public assets able to cope with the main challenges facing the region in terms of fighting poverty and reducing inequality of income and opportunities. 23 Although several analysts have also pointed out that since LAC comprises a higher number of ICD stockholders, the region may be viewed as further complicating deficient coordination efforts with other players in the ICD global system, thus affecting the governance thereof.

28 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 24 For these and other reasons, LAC has been and remains an important player within the ICD system from various perspectives. LAC is a developing region of the world characterized particularly by the lack of equity in terms of wealth and capabilities among its population. This region mostly comprises countries with medium-sized revenues, 24 many of which have gained prominence in terms of SSC. From a Latin American and Caribbean perspective, ICD cannot be viewed solely as the mere granting of assistance via ODA (the most used quantitative indicator of ICD in the North-South dimension) by a rich country to a poor country. On the contrary, the ICD processes comprise a number of collaborative actions of various kinds. While ODA reception is important, the financial transaction from one party to the other does not necessarily make up the main reference in this regard. In this sense, technical, scientific, technological, cultural, economic, sports and political cooperation, among other types of cooperation, 25 whether from abroad, among the countries of the region or carried out jointly among foreign and domestic players, 26 are all inherent parts of this ample exercise. As regards the most representative elements of ICD in LAC, the first one is the role of the region as recipient of ODA. Second, there is the dynamics of Latin American and Caribbean SSC, and then there are the regional perceptions over the new trends of international cooperation, particularly those related to the so-called Aid Effectiveness Agenda. With respect to its role as recipient of ODA in the world, historically LAC (with 8.6% of world population) has not been a priority recipient of said money flows among different parts of the world. From the early 1960s to date, LAC has received about US$ 310 billion in ODA, with an average in 2009 of 7.2% of total assistance allocated that year by the DAC to recipients worldwide (OECD-DAC, 2010: 2). As shown in the chart below, Africa and Asia (14.5% and 60.4% of world population, respectively) have been the areas of the world that have surpassed LAC at all times in this respect. Oceania (0.5% of world population) is the only region that has received less ODA in net terms than LAC (See Chart 4). 24 With the exception of Haiti, which is part of the group of Least Developed Countries, 46.7% of LAC countries comprise the group of lower-middle income countries and 53.3% are in the group of upper-middle income countries. 25 Except for military cooperation, which is outside the scope and objectives of the ICD. 26 Such as triangular cooperation.

29 25 Chart 4 Regional shares of ODA as percentage of total, Latin America & Caribbean Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. The Developing World, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 3. As regard the net amount of ODA, in 2008, Africa with 983 million inhabitants received US$ billion in ODA; Asia, with 3,703 million people, was granted US$ billion in ODA; and LAC, with 567 million inhabitants, received US$ billion. Meanwhile, some Eastern European countries, with 155 million people, were awarded a total of US$ billion, while Oceania, with 9 million people, was granted US$ billion in ODA (See Table 6). Table 6 ODA and population, by region, 2008 Region Africa Asia Americas Europe Oceania Assistance without specifying region All beneficiaries of ODA Net ODA, millions of US dollars Population, millions Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. The Developing World, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 3.

30 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 26 Based on the data shown above, the ratio between ODA and the number of inhabitants per region who receive this assistance (known as ODA per capita), suggests that in 2008 the inhabitants of LAC received an average of US$ 16 annually, higher than US$ 12 received by Asians, but well below US$ 177 granted to the people living in Oceania (See Chart 5). Chart 5 Per capita ODA, by region, 2008 (in US dollars) Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. The Developing World, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 3. This suggests that, historically, most donors (except for the United States and Spain) have not regarded LAC as a priority target region for ODA. In recent years, this phenomenon has worsened. For example, in the 1960s, LAC received in average 12.7% of global ODA, but in 2008 (the latest year when the DAC published reports about ODA) the proportion fell to 7.2%, which represents the second lowest amount in this field. 27 As regards the major donors of ODA which totalled US $ billion in 2008 to LAC, noteworthy is that 75% of ODA was channelled via bilateral bodies, while multilateral institutions granted the remaining 25%. However, based on the amounts provided in the last three years ( ), and as noted in Table 6, at least until 2008, more than half the total ODA funds granted were awarded by just two donor countries: the United States, with 31%, and Spain with 23% (with both countries adding up to 54% of the bilateral total amount). In that period, the United States and Spain were followed by Germany (10%), Canada (8%), Japan (5%) and France (5%) (See Table 7). 27 In 2007, the proportion fell to 6.5%, which is historically the lowest amount of ODA granted to LAC worldwide.

31 27 Table 7 Major ODA donors, by amount, 2006, 2007, 2008 Country 1. United States 2. Spain 3. Germany 4. Canada 5. Japan 6. France 7. Netherlands 8. Sweden 9. Norway 10. Switzerland Other DAC countries Threeyear average Percentage of DAC countries 31% 23% 10% 8% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 5% All DAC countries % Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. America, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 4. Based on the percentage of ODA that the major bilateral donors allocated to our region in those three years, note that Spain ranks first (45% of Spanish ODA is granted to LAC), followed by Canada and Luxembourg, with 16% each. Meanwhile, Switzerland and the United States gave 12% and 10% of their total ODA to LAC, respectively (See Table 7). Table 8 Major ODA donors to Latin America and the Caribbean, as a proportion of total, 2006, 2007, 2008 Country 1. Spain 2. Canada 3. Luxembourg 4. Switzerland 5. United States 6. Belgium 7. Finland 8. Switzerland 9. Germany 10. Norway Other DAC countries Three-year average LAC as percentage of ODA from each donor 45% 16% 16% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8% 8% 3% Total DAC countries % Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. America, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 4.

32 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 28 As evidenced in Chart 6, the main feature of the ODA provided by bilateral donors, at least since the 1970s to date, is high volatility, particularly based on the total amounts provided by the United States, Spain (since 1985), Germany, Japan and the Netherlands have provided ever since. Chart 6 Largest ODA donors to Latin America and the Caribbean, comparative chart, Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. America, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 5. Note that Spain is the donor that has increased its ODA to LAC the most. Further, while the United States is the main source of ODA in absolute terms, this assistance has been provided in a very volatile manner (See Chart 6). This implies that the amounts provided by both countries tend to converge and are increasingly approaching. In 2008, the United States granted US$ billion in ODA to LAC, while Spain's assistance to the region totalled US$ billion. This is just one percentage point compared to U.S. assistance. On the contrary, contributions from the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands have declined significantly. Noteworthy is that LAC is likely to stop being a recipient of assistance from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany (Tezanos and Martinez, 2009: 18). From a multilateral perspective (25% of total assistance to LAC), undoubtedly the European Commission (EC) has increased the most its assistance to the region, as it granted 47% of total ODA in 2008 (See Chart 7).

33 29 Chart 7 Performance of major multilateral ODA donors to LAC, Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. America, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 6. Similarly, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) accounts for 12%, and the Global Environment Fund (GEF) grants 7% of the total (See Table 9). Table 9 Major multilateral donors to Latin America and the Caribbean, 2006, 2007, 2008 Institutions 1. EU institutions 2. IDB Spain Fund 3. GEF 4. IDA 5. Global Fund 6. FMI (SAF, ESAF, PRGF) 7. UNTA 8. CarDB 9. APEC Fund 10. UNICEF Other multilateral institutions Three-year average Percentage of all multilateral institutions 47% 12% 7% 7% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 6% Total multilateral institutions % Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. America, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 6.

34 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 30 From the perspective of the recipients, based on the amounts from , Colombia ranks first in terms of overall percentage received with 11%, followed by Nicaragua with 10% and Haiti, with 9%. Given the earthquake that shook the island in early 2010, these figures are likely to change, thus turning Haiti into the main recipient in LAC, at least this year. Regardless of the ODA received by the top 10 LAC countries from , the annex of this study includes detailed information about the assistance received by all countries in the region in 2009, including major donors, sectors and changes in recent years. Finally, the DAC has found that a large part over 50% of the ODA allocated by traditional donors to LAC from was mainly devoted to the "social sector". The fields of economy, production, debt, general programmes and finally humanitarian aid did not exceed 11% each of them individually. In this respect, note that debt relief is an item that has dropped significantly in recent years, following a rebound in the period , due to the assistance provided in this field to Nicaragua, Honduras, Bolivia and Guatemala (See Chart 8). Chart 8 ODA to Latin America and the Caribbean, by sector, Source: OECD-DAC, Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by Region. America, 2010 edition, OECD-DAC, Paris, 2010, p. 10. Based on these data, it is clear that the ODA provided to LAC has been reduced proportionally. In 2008, the region received barely 7.2% of the world total. At present, the United States, Spain and the European Commission are the major donors to LAC. In 2008, they provided 53% of the total ODA received by LAC, with the total donors' assistance amounting to US$ billion that year. In this regard, a revealing fact is that ODA, on average, does not represent a very significant contribution to Latin American and Caribbean economy as a whole, as the ODA / GDP ratio has fallen since 1990, when ODA accounted for 0.54% of regional GDP, to 0.22% in 2009 (Tezanos and Martinez, 2009: 8). Another important aspect is that the withdrawal of some European donors, which even though were not major contributors, is

35 31 a sort of a "political message," as their priority is to provide assistance to other regions rather than LAC. What are the main reasons for such a decline in ODA to LAC? While no single factor explains this situation by itself, it is possible to establish that there are at least four major elements that altogether shed lights on the above phenomenon, namely: 1. The current status of MDGs in the region; 2. Foreign perception about the geographical strategic profile and security conditions in LAC; 3. The situation and growing increasingly significant role of SSC in Latin America and the Caribbean; and 4. The perceptions and commitment to the Aid Effectiveness Agenda in this part of the world. Regarding the first factor, as indicated in Table 1, overall, LAC shows encouraging indicators of compliance with 17 of the 18 targets set under the MDGs. However, insufficient progress has been made in seven of the MDGs, while two indicators related to environmental sustainability have tumbled. Therefore, if we consider the indicators for MDGs, LAC shows general progress, despite large disparities among the countries in the region. This indicates that, notwithstanding the wide diversity of situations in which MDGs are being met depending on the Latin American or Caribbean country in question in general terms, the situation appears rather encouraging. 28 This has been noted by donors as an argument to reduce their support to this region, in order to increase assistance to other parts of the world with more pressing needs ahead of 2015, particularly sub-saharan Africa. In this process to select the recipients of assistance based on compliance with the MDGs, where, as shown, ODA is being directed preferentially to the least developed countries, LAC is not a priority in the new map of assistance. Further, the "phase out" of cooperation from several donors to LAC, 29 at the expense of programmes and projects that Latin American and Caribbean countries used to receive, clearly represents an adverse context for LAC's role as an ODA recipient. Second, LAC has historically been identified as a relatively stable region of the world in terms of regional security, as it does not pose a serious threat to the integrity of powerful third States or the international system itself. 30 Based on such view, this has largely led to 28 Although ECLAC itself noted that the above mentioned increase in poverty in 2009 (see footnote 12) will delay compliance with the first MDG, as progress recorded in the region in this area in 2008 would fall from 85% to 78% in 2009 (ECLAC, Op. Cit.). 29 There are also other legitimate reasons why several donors are withdrawing from LAC, including corruption and, above all, the lack of political will on the part of some recipients to promote basic conditions regarding human rights, transparency in the utilization of the amounts received, accountability and various elements of the PD itself (Pineda and Schulz, 2008). 30 There are two outstanding exceptions. Colombia, which within the framework of Plan Colombia, implemented by the United States, has received a significant amount of military assistance and ODA. More recently, there is Mexico, which is receiving preferential treatment from the U.S. through

36 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 32 believe that it is not necessary to provide Latin America and the Caribbean with a significant amount of ODA, as it was actually made with southern countries that were important strongholds of geopolitical and strategic positioning on the scenario of bipolar containment that prevailed for more than 40 years. In fact, this largely determined the logic of the ICD system, and especially the provision of ODA, during that period. In recent years, we have witnessed the fact that unsafe States and important to the major donors (such as Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan), have recorded a significant increase in the ODA they receive from their major donors and military allies. III. SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Even though LAC has practiced SSC for decades, in recent years, this particular ICD modality has strengthened and better positioned itself in the region. 31 These decisive actions by LAC in terms of SSC are of utmost importance, because they are the main contribution of our region to the construction, orientation, renewal and democratization of the ICD system, based on the incorporation of new players into international cooperation through more equitable and horizontal schemes among all participants. This document considers the 1955 Bandung Conference as a turning point for SSC. This conference gathered 29 underdeveloped countries plus representatives from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, which were still subjected to colonial domination. Vis-à-vis the strength with which SSC commenced in developing countries, among which LAC would always play a leading role, the Latin American Economic System (SELA) was created in Through decision of its Member States, SELA became the regional focal point of the Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (CTPD) in LAC. Only one year later, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NAM), created in 1961, approved an Action Programme for Economic Cooperation among Developing Countries (ECDC), which together with TCDC became the channels through which cooperation among Southern countries flowed. Already in 1978, an international encounter that became a landmark in terms of international cooperation took place. From 30 August and 12 September 1978, the UN Conference on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries was held in Buenos Aires (Argentina), from which the Buenos Aires Plan of Action for the Promotion and Implementation of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (BAPA) emerged. The BAPA states in its fifth point that TCDC is a decisive driving force that makes it possible to start, design, organize and promote cooperation among developing countries so that these latter are able to create, acquire, adapt, transfer and share knowledge and experiences for their mutual benefit, and to attain national and collective self sufficiency, which is essential for their social and economic development. support in the field of security, even though in recent years ODA from Washington to Mexico has increased significantly, a trend that is expected to continue in the near future. 31 This reflects the current dynamism of this activity worldwide. According to the UN Economic and Social Council, in 2008, this collaboration modality implied a financing amount of about US$ 16.2 billion, up 63% from 2006, accounting for 10% of the total ICD. (UN-ECOSOC: 2010: 24).

37 33 To bolster the process, in 1997, the UNDP Special Unit for TCDC gathered with a group of 23 developing countries which were considered crucial for SSC, thus creating a favourable environment for joint work. 32 In 2004, through the Resolution Economic and Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, 33 the official name of cooperation among developing countries was changed from CTPD to SSC. SSC has also gained importance within the Organization of American States (OAS) and at the Ibero-American Summits, whose XXVII Meeting instructed the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB) to support the development of Ibero-American cooperation initiatives for the promotion of South-South and Triangular Cooperation. According to the UN, SSC is defined as the interaction between two or more developing countries that are trying to attain their individual or collective development objectives by means of exchange of knowledge, aptitudes, resources and technical knowledge. 34 This is a broad and porous concept that responds to one of the structural and structuring subjects of SSC: the debate on its inclusion in the general framework of international cooperation. Notwithstanding, this should not mislead anybody to believe that quality of SSC actions is automatically proven or that practicing SSC entails abandoning traditional North-South cooperation. SSC may replicate vices of North-South cooperation; 35 notwithstanding, both collaboration modalities (N-S and S-S) are necessary and complementary and they have to find coexistence spaces that allow them to create a synergy capable of bolstering their results. As a matter of fact, Northern countries have already been benefited from the possibilities offered by SSC. Furthermore, countries that traditionally offered cooperation for development expressed their support for SSC by providing economic resources, which made it possible to establish a relation among three parties: the two Southern countries and the Northern country that provides economic support, thus giving rise to Triangular Cooperation (TC) in its original North-South-South format. TC may be thus defined as the one that takes place among countries of the South with the financing from a third Northern country, which is usually aimed at transferring to the Southern countries 32 These countries considered pivotal for SSC include: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Korea, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia and Turkey. 33 A/Res/58/ (Executive Board of the UN Development Programme and the UN Population Fund, 2004). 35 In this regard, María Clara Sanín Betancourt and Nill-Sjara Schulz point out that Like North-South cooperation, SSC is part of foreign policies of supplier countries; for this reason, it is necessary to analyze and understand their interests and incentives. Some countries are looking for international projection based on values and ideologies, other are opening up markets and natural resources, or seek support for their stances at international forums such as the United Nations ( ) In this regard, it is necessary to more sincerely discus whether SSC is jeopardized when the same vertical dynamics of the North-South cooperation is followed, in particular when cooperation takes place among countries with different degrees of development (Sanín and Schulz, 2009: 3).

38 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 34 knowledge and experiences previously acquired by the other country with international technical support. This definition has been left behind by the advance of international cooperation and today it is possible to identify TC experiences in which the role that was originally played by a Northern country is played today by an international organization, either global or regional, or even by a third Southern country. This latter case would be a South-South- South TC. Regarding actions of this versatile cooperation modality, LAC is an indisputable reference worldwide, given the increasing number of similar activities in recent years. If in 2007 SEGIB counted 1,480 SSC instances in 17 countries in this region; 1,879 were recorded in 2008 for a 27% increase in only one year (SEGIB, 2009:10). About 80% of these cases included cooperation offered by Cuba, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, whereas the rest came from Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Peru and Ecuador, in decreasing order per number of activities (Ibid) (See Map 1). Map 1 Geographical distribution of cooperation initiatives, by provider Source: SEGIB, Report of South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America 2009, SEGIB, Madrid, 2009, p. 40. As main beneficiaries of these cooperation activities, Venezuela (through Cuban assistance) and Paraguay (due to its close relation with Argentina) were the countries that received more than 50% of the 740 cooperation actions); whereas El Salvador and Bolivia received 18% and the rest is distributed among Cuba, the Dominican Republic,

39 35 Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Panama (See Map 2). Map 2 Geographical distribution of cooperation initiatives, by recipient Source: SEGIB, Report of South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America 2009, SEGIB, Madrid, 2009, p. 41. According to this SEGIB report, based on prioritized activity sectors, about one thousand of actions were aimed at strengthening capabilities in the economic area. The other activities comprised cultural, gender, institutional strengthening, humanitarian aid, disaster prevention or environment protection. In 2008, SEGIB reported 72 SSC and CT actions/projects, with Japan, Germany and Spain, in decreasing order, playing the role of second foreign partner. In this regard, SSC projects developed within the framework of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) 36 or the Association of Caribbean States (ACS), 37 through which priority 36 Some representative examples include the following projects: Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme (CREDP); CARICOM Agribusiness Development Programme; Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change (MACC); Pan Caribbean Partnership Against HIV/AIDS (PANCAP); UWI-CARICOM; Information and Communication Technology for Development; CARICOM Legislative Drafting Facility (CLDF); Promoting CARICOM/CARIFORUM Food Security. For more information on objectives and achievement in the framework of these projects, see:

40 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 36 subjects for this region are addressed, in many cases with the support of third-party sources, also represent a fundamental reference that underpins the renewed impulse for intra-regional cooperation. It is undoubtedly necessary to improve visibility strategies of this kind of activities, because Latin American and Caribbean cooperation has a lot to learn from them, as recommended in the final part of this paper. In short, it is evident that SSC is going through a phase of repositioning within the international system, thereby producing a number of actions and effects that increasingly influence the ICD system. 38 José Ángel Sotillo said: South-South relations entail a qualitative change in international cooperation that, as such, has a progressive impact on the international system structure, reformulating the role of players and the power/influence exerted by each one of them. At the same time, international cooperation modifies the traditional dimension of development assistance by breaking the donor-receiver binomial, to directly include those that were on the list of assistance beneficiaries (Sotillo, 2010: 14),. Before concluding this part, it should be remembered that while the presence of SSC has been evident in LAC in recent years, where TC has constituted a link between traditional North-South cooperation and SSC, there exists something that could be described as a negative collateral effect, of this cooperation modality for the Latin American and Caribbean region. This phenomenon refers to the possibility that, given the increasing presence of SSC in LAC, in several instances supported by TC, the traditional North-South cooperation towards this region, particularly that quantified by ODA, has seen its amounts dropping in recent years, precisely contrary to the increase in the number of SSC activities. The analysis will now deal with the way in which LAC has assumed the aid effectiveness Agenda, which is a particularly relevant topic in this study, because there are diverse stances with regard to this subject in the region, and this relation has significantly influenced current status of LAC in the ICD system. IV. THE AID EFFECTIVENESS AGENDA AND LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: A POSSIBLE REGIONAL CONSENSUS? LAC, as a player within the ICD system, has been linked to works leading to both the Paris Declaration and the Accra Action Agenda. This has been expressed through two simultaneous dimensions: cooperation reception and in the region s role as major SSC player. As mentioned above, SSC is the main forum for proactive actions and incidence of our region in ICD. However, the relation between countries of this region and the 37 Regional technical cooperation projects developed by ACS are basically focused on its four priority activity areas: trade, transportation, sustainable tourism and natural disasters. For more information, visit 38 The scope of this work does not include reference to concrete cooperation experiences in LAC, which will be dealt with as a central point of a second analysis prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of SELA, in accordance with the requests made by the Directors of International Cooperation of LAC. The analysis will be completed and distributed throughout Member States in the first half of As to policies, motivations and orientation of several LAC countries concerning SSC, in particular five representative countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela), see Bruno Ayllón and Javier Surazky, La cooperación Sur-Sur en Latinoamérica. Utopía y realidad, Editorial Los Libros de la Catarata-Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo y Cooperación, Madrid, 2010.

41 37 qualitative ICD agenda has not been homogeneous among nations of this region of the world. The encounter between LAC and this aid effectiveness agenda has taken place gradually, because, not all states in this part of the world has embraced the Agenda in the same way. While the Rome Declaration (RD) and the Paris Declaration (PD) didn t make any reference to SSC, this cooperation modality was explicitly included in AAA, which from a certain perspective meant the acceptance by the Northern Hemisphere of the relevance and growing presence of SSC and its followers. This is directly related to the idea that without the support from Southern nations, where Latin America and the Caribbean occupy an outstanding place, strategies to perfect the ICD system (in this case its effectiveness) cannot move forward. Item 14.b of AAA states as follows: Donors support for capacity development will be demand-driven and designed to support country ownership. To this end, developing countries and donors will i) jointly select and manage technical cooperation, and ii) promote the provision of technical cooperation by local and regional resources, including through South-South cooperation. Furthermore, SSC and TC were adhered to the aid effectiveness agenda, as it is clearly expressed in Article 19 of AAA, in the chapter referred to the creation of more effective and inclusive associations for development. This chapter stresses the fact that contributions of all development actors are more effective when developing countries are in a position to manage and co-ordinate them. We welcome the role of new contributors and will improve the way all development actors work together. Reiterating what has been stated in prior paragraphs, AAA points out that SSC plays an important role in international development co-operation and is a valuable complement to North-South cooperation 39 SSC inclusion in the aid effectiveness agenda has not been homogeneously accepted among LAC countries. Debate on this topic is still latent, thereby reflecting the diversity of stances of LAC countries on this subject. Possibly, the example that best expresses this situation is that LAC accession to this process in favour of aid effectiveness demonstrates, in general, that the region is cautious toward, not to say that rejects, formal implementation of some of its postulates, above all regarding the evaluation of cooperation programmes, based on the five constituting elements of the PD. What has been LAC countries participation in the aid effectiveness agenda? Analyzing their presence in the three High-Level Forums on aid effectiveness, a Latin American and Caribbean trend to be gradually involved is observed. Four Latin American countries were present in Rome (Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Bolivia), as well as the IDB and CAF. 39 Accra Action Agenda, item 19.a; b; c; d; e.

42 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 38 Seven countries participated in the PD (the four that were in Rome plus Mexico, Brazil and the Dominican Republic). Another nine have adhered to AAA for an official total of 16 countries, (those of Paris plus Haiti, El Salvador, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia in addition to Paraguay, Guyana, Jamaica, Panama and Argentina that have recently joined). Based on the official list of countries that have adhered PD and AAA, published by OECD, 40 53% of Latin American and Caribbean countries have adhered, although with some reservations, to the aid effectiveness agenda. As to the second involvement phase of the aid effectiveness agenda principles, that is, the acceptance by LAC adhering countries to have their cooperation activities monitored and evaluated based on PD constituting elements, the fact that up to now only Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Honduras have accepted 41 reflects the reservations of most countries of the region to join this ICD dynamics. According to Phillipp Schoenrock, a number of countries that have joined Paris and Accra in their commitment in favour of aid quality have shown a practical absence in terms of the fulfilment of those principles. (Schoenrock, 2009: 70). This can be explained by way of a number of circumstances that, together, result in reduced incentives for most LAC countries for them to fully adhere to the aid effectiveness agenda, including: - First, this Agenda, which is especially promoted by OECD/DAC and EU, appear to base its actions and procedures on the classic ICD guidelines, i.e. North-South aid. Therefore, from a certain perspective, several LAC countries perceive the aid effectiveness agenda as an element that is outside the multilateral context (United Nations) and alien to the SSC perspective, which is aimed, among other things, at precisely practicing foreign cooperation, thereby ignoring the rules of play established by traditional donors. - The principles of the aid effectiveness agenda are intended, among other things, to improve transparency and accountability, and together with other strategies, to increase success possibilities of the actions taken within the framework of ICD, by means of the evaluation of actions made and results obtained. As a consequence, a number of Latin American and Caribbean countries, due to institutional limitations and based on the capacities to conduct this kind of analysis, have postponed concrete actions to play a proactive role in the framework of the Agenda. - The above is closely related to the perception by several LAC governments that aid effectiveness agenda entails a new foreign conditionality imposed by donors and 40 It is worth highlighting that Brazil s confirmation with regard to its support to the abovementioned Agenda is still pending, whereas in the case of Nicaragua, which had in principle accepted to provide support, its government is not prone to do it. Considering the above, in practical terms, there are 15 Latin American and Caribbean countries in favour of the aid effectiveness Agenda, that is, 46.8% of the countries of our region. The OECD website where countries adhered to PD and AAA can be found at: 41 Concerning the way how Bolivia has begun to apply PD principles, see AECID-Bolivia, Evaluación del Programa de la AECID en Bolivia con relación a los principios de la Declaración de París, La Paz, For the Colombian case, see Rosemary McGee and Irma García Heredia, París en Bogotá: Aplicación de la Agenda de la Eficacia de la Ayuda en Colombia, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 2010, at

43 39 their international cooperation entities. From this perspective, according to several LAC countries, applying practices established in the effectiveness agenda, Northern donors urge beneficiaries to abide by this new modus operandi of the current international aid, including concerning SSC. From some perspectives, this is clearly contrary to the very nature of SSC, which aims, among its principles, to provide traditional N-S cooperation guidelines with options and, therefore, empower middle-income countries in the international system and democratize ICD, without impositions from the world s power centres. This aid effectiveness agenda has led donors to tend to provide more support for those countries that have precisely appeared to be more receptive to elements inherent with the aid effectiveness agenda. Considering that a large number of LAC governments have not still accepted to implement concrete actions in this regard, several donors have been discouraged to maintain at least the same proportion of ODA towards the region. This situation, together with the current guidelines referred to in the first section of this analysis, which are based on the fact that several donors are currently reorienting their ODA towards countries outside the Latin American and Caribbean region so as to increase possibilities of attaining MDGs where they are most needed, has resulted in LAC reducing its status as a priority region to receive ODA from most donors. In a few words, aid effectiveness agenda, at least for the time being, appears to have produced too few incentives for LAC to proactively contribute to this effort that comes from other latitudes. This, in turn, discourages traditional donors to offer higher ODA amounts. Discussions and works carried out in 2007 within the framework of the First Meeting of the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, which has tried to include SSC in current debates that impact ICD orientation as a whole, represent an effort for aid effectiveness agenda and SSC to reach consensus on certain spaces. Likewise, the OECD/DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and Donor Practices (WP-EEF) has promoted the creation of a Task Team on South-South Cooperation (TT-SSC), which was originally chaired by Colombia, because this country, with the strong support by other countries at the WP-EEF meeting of 1 April 2009, had proposed its creation and due to the Colombia s leading role in the attempt to establish contact and communication channels between DAC/OECD and countries implementing SSC (Ayllón, 2009). Initial TT-SSC objectives are determined based on two different stages that lead to the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, to be held in 2011 in Seoul. A first stage extended from the first TT-SSC meeting in Washington D.C. until the meeting that took place in Colombia in This phase included an analysis of SSC status and the identification of parameters, according to PD and AAA, to identify good SSC practices. The second stage started at the High-Level Event on South-South Cooperation and Capacity Development held in Bogota on 24 and 25 March 2010, and will extend until the 2011 meeting on aid effectiveness in Korea, with the main result being, thus far, the development and identification of good SSC practices. These lines translate the different way in which different countries and international cooperation mechanisms have tried to enhance synergy between PD and AAA in LAC, through the increasingly significant role that SSC is playing in the framework of the ICD system. As seen before, and despite these efforts, coordination and assimilation between these two current cooperation actions have not been attained.

44 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 40 An intermediate element that could contribute to the required coordination among LAC countries would be linking, from a Latin American and Caribbean perspective, the analysis of impacts and effectiveness of SSC actions and projects in our region to discussions on aid qualitative agenda. The idea is that Latin American and Caribbean nations agree some indicators and suitable mechanisms to evaluate impacts of the South-South cooperation, without imposing views or paradigms on each other, and, at the same time, as part of the regional coordination process, to review, adjust or validate some of the paradigms on which this agenda is based. V. ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PROPOSALS FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN IN THE AREA OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT As has already been indicated, ICD is currently engaged in a versatile process aimed at improving its capacity to achieve its declared objectives, particularly in favour of the most disadvantaged people, sectors and countries. In this regard, the MDGs, the North-South Cooperation, 42 the SSC and The Aid Effectiveness Agenda constitute basic references of this dynamic process, and it is from the relationship and synergy among these that the conditions emerge in which LAC inserts itself within the ICD system. A review was performed at one time to determine how these factors influenced the cooperation offered both by traditional donors to Latin American and Caribbean countries, as well as the assistance rendered among them, pointing out the most relevant features presented in the region in this regard. It is now advisable to delve deeper into the analysis of these elements and, based on the results, present certain general proposals with respect to the priority areas towards which cooperation in LAC should be directed. This is done in the pages that follow. With this purpose in mind, first, reference is made to the ICD system and its relationship to LAC, in order to then propose several ideas regarding the three dynamics analyzed in this work, that is: the role of LAC as recipient of ODA; Latin American and Caribbean SSC and TC and their relationship with the ICD system, as well as a review of the relationship between The Aid Effectiveness Agenda and LAC. Subsequently, attention is focused on the views, concepts and approaches that could bring about a consensus among the countries of the region, identifying also those issues where the greatest differences occur among the Latin American and Caribbean governments with regard to these topics. First of all, LAC seems to have the will and consensus to become the most proactive region within the framework of the ICD system, so as to promote new mechanisms that will encourage said system to generate more tangible benefits for the region, and for developing countries in general. This is so, among other reasons, because, to a great extent, and as was analyzed in the preceding sections, it would seem that, in general, the various global strategies that this system has implemented to renovate itself, such as the MDGs, the geographic reorientation of the ODA and The Aid Effectiveness Agenda, have not generated sufficient benefits for LAC. This has been due to the fact that, considering that the MDGs in LAC show overall perceptible advances, whereas in other areas of the planet the opposite occurs, the donors have not significantly increased their ODA to the region and, in fact, several have decided to stop cooperating with it. As for the ODA, due to the previous reason and based on the perception that LAC is a region of intermediate development and relatively safe, the DAC members with the exception of Spain do 42 Both through ODA and by means of other cooperation modalities, as was pointed out in the first section of this work.

45 41 not consider it advisable to place this part of the world within their priorities, possibly also due to the emergence of the intra Latin American SSC that carries out multiple actions in favour of regional development. And, lastly, as far as The Aid Effectiveness Agenda is concerned, in view of the fact that the majority of the LAC countries have taken no proactive action in this regard (by carrying out and disseminating the corresponding selfevaluations), and particularly because the ODA is currently emphasizing its presence in sub-saharan Africa, this region has lost relevance, distancing it from the aid granting priorities of various donors. In face of this not very encouraging scenario, it is evident that LAC must design and apply new strategies and actions in order to better insert itself in the ICD system, so that this system will generate benefits consonant both with the region s status worldwide, as well as with its still high levels of poverty and, above all, its levels of unequal income and opportunities. At first sight, an aspiration such as this might seem complicated but it is not impossible, since it would mean advancing much further in the region s unification so that LAC will have a greater impact as a bloc with a single voice, in the main forums and mechanisms of the current system of international relations. However, it is thought that precisely within the framework of the ICD system, our region could begin to take significant steps in positioning itself on a global scale in a more coordinated and cohesive manner in specific areas pertaining to this topic, so as to make LAC s voice and interests heard in this ambit. To this end, it would be necessary, in an initial phase, to aim at a gradual institutional improvement of the Latin American and Caribbean system of ICD. This improvement should be understood to mean greater collaboration among all the countries, organizations and regional cooperation mechanisms. This could help to better define, disseminate and comprehend their roles and to appreciate the value of possibly complementing each other. In this regard, SELA, as the focal regional point of cooperation, could play an active role. Although it seems difficult to carry out this aspiration, it is considered that the regional context for it is favourable, given that the gestation process of the so-called Community of Latin American and Caribbean States is underway. In this regard, it should be remembered that the work plan of this forthcoming new regional body precisely includes among its main priority lines of action, cooperation among regional and subregional integration mechanisms in priority topics of the Latin American and Caribbean agenda: economic issues, social development, migration, sustainable development, natural disasters, human rights, security and SSC. This general framework of action coincides with the need to strengthen intra-regional cooperation on key issues of the ICD agenda and other priority topics and, consequently, could help to gradually assume more unified positions in at least the three key topics analyzed in this work: a) LAC s role as recipient of ODA, b) the promotion of MDGs and other development goals and their ties with international cooperation, and c) SSC and the insertion of the region into the Aid Effectiveness Agenda. In this regard, it is considered essential to strengthen the information and dissemination channels among the Latin American nations and the Caribbean countries with respect to the ICD programmes and projects carried out in the entire region. Thus, it will be possible to identify the best practices in these areas and, subsequently, bring together the Latin American and Caribbean countries in an effort that, by itself, tends to favour regional integration.

46 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 42 This improvement in terms of greater cooperation and complementarity among existing entities of the Latin American and Caribbean ICD system will consist of a tangible contribution to objective 8 of the MDGs (to promote a global partnership for development). The aforementioned aspiration, in addition to being a multilaterally assumed commitment, would be an exercise that could very well encourage other regional collaboration systems or global ICD entities to do the same, so as to contribute to the refounding of an ICD system which at times seems to be overwhelmed by the unsatisfied needs of majorities. As to the first element on specific and priority topics of the ICD agenda in LAC, it is necessary that, both bilaterally and as a bloc, the region raise its voice so as to make donors of the DAC and other providers (public and private) aware of the need not to continue reducing, or at least to maintain, their ODA and cooperation with our region. The argument to the effect that LAC does not require ODA or increasingly requires less, in no way corresponds to the realities that the majority of the inhabitants of this region face on a daily basis. In defending this statement, José Antonio Alonso has pointed out five justifications on which to base the need to continue providing ODA to middle-income countries, among them to LAC (which, in their entirety, with the exception of Haiti, belong to this group of countries). The justifications are the following: 1. Because 41% of the world s population which lives on less than two dollars per day lives in these countries; 2. Because these are countries which are highly vulnerable to the international environment, where the crises generated in the North are quickly felt, causing severe setbacks; 3. Because these countries and regions generate global public goods (in the environmental aspect, for example) enjoyed by the entire planet and which, consequently, should be protected; 4. Because the weight of some of these benefits, in their global context, can generate positive experiences in their geographical ambit (and vice versa); and 5. Because it is necessary to build a cooperation system which will be incentivecompatible with development objectives. This is so particularly because it is not fair that only failures and not the relative accomplishments achieved in development aspects should be compensated with foreign cooperation. (Alonso, 2007: 2 and 2007b: 12) As regards the promotion of MDGs and other development goals, local capabilities should be strengthened in order to increase the corresponding indicators, emphasizing those goals where there are still lags. Without diminishing the importance of the aforementioned, it is considered that the development agenda in LAC, in addition to the quantitative ambit implied in the first seven MDGs, plus the eighth referred to in preceding paragraphs, requires a qualitative reorientation geared towards other aspirations, among them the fundamental one having to do with the region s endemic problem: the political, economic, social and cultural inequity of the majority of those who inhabit this part of the world. It should not be forgotten that forging ahead with this objective (the reduction of inequity), in addition to being an ethical, political and economic imperative at the national and regional level in LAC, would generate incentives for the ODA donors. This is

47 43 so, given the fact that, as the DAC has pointed out, its members tend to assign more resources to those places where there exist greater possibilities for the reduction of poverty and that inequality, in turn, is a powerful generator of said phenomenon. Consequently, the lack of equity discourages the DAC and other donors from helping this region (based on Tezanos and Domínguez, 2009: 34). 43 In this connection, there is no doubt that cooperation, be it on a bilateral or biregional level, between the EU and LAC could provide guidelines for creating spaces where effective European practices could be shared in matters concerning social cohesion, adapted at all times to the Latin American and Caribbean reality. In good measure, this would be compatible with the ICD s own action framework, which is not only to accompany and reinforce already activated internal processes that have governmental and social support (Prado, 2009: 245). ECLAC has detected some of the key elements on which the region s development depends, which, necessarily, include governmental strategies aimed at reducing inequality in distributive terms among its inhabitants, by means of local public policies which could well be backed or even reinforced by international cooperation. Among these elements are the following: The implementation of public policies to cover social needs should be executed within a context of economic and political governance that requires the broadest representation of interests and their progressive satisfaction. This is a particularly important requisite in those societies where the distribution of income and assets is extremely unequal; Human rights, both civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural, should constitute the ethical framework for the formulation of policies geared towards fulfilling MDGs; Special importance should be given to cooperation among the countries of the region, both as refers to strengthening intra-regional trade as well as to divulging beneficial practices in matters concerning policies and programs, offering technical support to those countries that have been left behind (ECLAC, 2005: 302). As to SSC, taking advantage of the fact that this cooperation mechanism is currently in the limelight, it is necessary that these cooperation strategies being practiced among our countries be strengthened and broadened. As has been stated, it is considered that SSC is going through a relaunching process in LAC, which could contribute towards forming a more dynamic, democratic and plural ICD system, by including among its members nonconventional parties which, through innovative strategies, could assist in creating a global partnership for development with a greater margin of plurality. Without detriment to the aforementioned, there should also be improvements in SSC as regards its ability to fulfil the objectives it has set for itself, e.g., to contribute towards the generation of opportunities for well-being among the recipients within the specific realm of action, where equity should play the most dynamic role. This is of great importance 43 According to José Antonio Alonso: the fundamental social deficit in LAC is not determined by the absolute needs of its population, but by the inequality among its members, which is explained in good measure by a lack of governance, credibility of effectiveness of the public institutions, and high vulnerability with regard to its insertion in the international financial ambit, etc. (In Tezanos and Domínguez, Op. Cit, p. 34.)

48 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 44 given that SSC per se does not automatically generate proven conditions of effectiveness of the results obtained. Consequently, it is necessary to apply more rigorous measures when evaluating actions, quantitative codification as regards the number of actions as well as in matters concerning financing. And, as will be pointed out shortly, this should be done not as a mere exercise subject to the rules of North-South Cooperation, but as transparency and accountability procedures for the benefit of, first of all, the people of the providing country, as well as of the remaining foreign actors involved. In this way, one would be promoting actions aimed at constructing a more consolidated, orderly and transparent regional cooperation system, allowing for the corresponding assessments that will permit identifying valuable practices and, if necessary, correcting the path taken. To achieve this goal, there must necessarily be a strengthening of LAC s national policies and institutions dedicated to ICD. Here, once again, SSC, within this ambit, can generate and encourage the development of capabilities in this pivotal area. Consequently, the SSC in LAC, whose increasing benefits form the basis for a new modality of intraregional relations, given that it is also an activity undergoing construction and in an improvement phase, requires that its procedures and results be assessed, so as to copy valuable practices and, given the case, correct possible dysfunctions. It is precisely in this respect that any lessons learned resulting from improvements of the SSC could be fundamental for the analysis, criticism or validation, from the Latin American and Caribbean perspective, of some of the central topics of The Aid Effectiveness Agenda. In this connection, the Latin American and Caribbean SSC constitutes the region s most relevant contribution to the ICD system, given that this activity is a dynamic foreign policy resource of these States to increase their presence and assert their interests in the international system, particularly in the area of development-related topics. As for The Aid Effectiveness Agenda per se, it has been apparent that for various reasons all of which are legitimate the majority of the LAC countries have been cautious in their involvement while others have openly not accepted it, which is an attitude expressed particularly by not becoming involved (even in the case of the countries of the region that have adopted the principles of the PD and the AAA) in the process of performing internal assessments based on the criteria established in the PD. It would, consequently, be necessary, on the one hand, to find a way for the LAC countries that have adopted The Aid Effectiveness Agenda to go ahead with their analyses and proposals, with a view to placing on the international debate on this topic, the need for the main promoters of this Agenda (DAC and the EU) to adjust their regulations and action mechanisms so that LAC (with their national characteristics and of their own volition) might accept these precepts. Based on the previous proposal, it would seem that the High-Level Event on SSC and Development of Capabilities which took place last March in Bogota, constituted a first attempt in that direction. Advances should be stepped up among the countries of the region which have decided to adopt the PD and the AAA, so as to arrive with greater regional cohesion at the IV High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, which will be held in South Korea in It is evident that to work in this direction, first, each country that has individually joined the PD and the AAA must identify what contents of these instruments it would be ready to include explicitly in the norms and guidelines of its cooperation policies, and later do so on a joint basis or at least having achieved a consensus. In order to approach this matter,

49 45 it would be advisable to take advantage of the positive practices recorded by several countries and promote them through SSC exercises having to do with capabilities, where Colombia and Peru, for example, already have broad experience. The ideas cited above have been synthesized to a certain extent by Julia Shüneman, when she states the following: It is necessary to advance one step at a time: The first thing is to establish our own, clear and horizontal mechanisms of how to implement this cooperation under the new criteria which emerged from the Paris Declaration and the AAA, and other novel ideas that might arise from the region. The countries themselves must take the initiative in finding their own work patterns. Similarly, they must clearly establish the rules of the game and look for associative sectoral and regional plans that will allow them to make the most efficient and effective use of resources (Shüneman, 2008: 7). In sum, it is imperative to identify and consolidate the spaces for convergence among the various dynamics of the ICD in LAC, as well as those for dissent. That, by itself, would contribute to creating a better environment for the active participation of our region in the forums that currently build the structure for international cooperation, or might do so in the future. With respect to this matter, one cannot insist too much on the fact that if LAC wishes to achieve a greater and better participation in the international relations system on a general level, as well as in the ICD system on a specific level, the most feasible strategy to attain this legitimate aspiration is to act, wherever possible, in a coordinated manner and with the greatest consensus. Now then, the main items on the ICD s Latin American agenda where regional convergences can be identified are the following: a) The interest of the region s governments in perfecting and improving the effectiveness of the Latin American and Caribbean subsystem of the ICD, which is manifested in multiple Latin American and Caribbean forums. It is obvious that the institutional profile, the coordination mechanisms, the way of acting in this respect, and other elements that are an inherent part of the implementation of this medium-term process could generate a large or small consensus among the Member States. Nonetheless, given the political will expressed by the Heads of State in Quintana Roo to advance towards a new phase of regional integration, it could be foreseen that any future obstacles in this regard could be gradually overcome. b) As a result of the above, another point of convergence among the LAC countries is their interest in increasing the presence and influence of the region in the global ICD system. This can be done, firstly, precisely by perfecting their own regional cooperation system so that it responds better to the great challenges relating to development and integration among member countries. In this regard, and as already mentioned, coordination and cohesion in key topics among Latin American and Caribbean governments in this second purpose (to increase their presence and influence in ICD s worldwide system) is an area where there is still much to be done, given the existing differences, for example, in connection with The Aid Effectiveness Agenda. However, among the issues where coincidences can be identified in this regard, there is the desire on the part of our countries to encourage donors not to decrease their ODA, and to reverse the current trend of some of them to withdraw from our territory.

50 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 46 c) Furthermore, there is no doubt that accelerating the process of democratization of the international financial institutions (which form a substantial part of the ICD system), is another area of regional consensus among our countries. This could be promoted with greater emphasis by means of consensual strategies approved by the Latin American and Caribbean governments in the corresponding forums, and also through the advances in terms of monetary and financial agreements in the region which have been occurring during the last few years. 44 d) On its part, the ICD activity that has enjoyed the broadest regional acceptance par excellence is the implementation of SSC actions carried out by Latin American and Caribbean countries. The increasing number of actions by the SSC is clear proof of the marked institutional support that the respective LAC governments have granted to their practice. Additionally, regional consensus on this issue becomes more evident when promoting the activity itself, although when other elements of a qualitative nature are analyzed, the differences between Latin American and Caribbean countries are selfevident. And speaking of qualitative aspects, to achieve more significant advances in terms of quantification and assessment of the impact of the SSC becomes one of the greatest challenges as concerns ICD for our region. In synthesis, collective attitudes, discussions, decisions and actions in LAC with regard to the most relevant ICD issues, from a consensual and regional perspective, show coincidences in the basic and practical aspects of this activity. For example, advancing in the improvement of the Latin American and Caribbean subsystem of ICD, increasing the presence and influence of our countries in this global system of assistance for development, making traditional donors aware of the importance of not reducing the ODA which they provide to LAC, progressing in the democratization of the ICD system (particularly of the international financial institutions), and continuing to practice and improve the quantification and assessment processes of the SSC. As for those elements where there is a greater diversity of positions and on which, consequently, it will be necessary to work at an inter-regional level to stimulate consensus, the following stand out: definition of political status, institutional profile and operating characteristics of the so-called new architecture of the international cooperation system for development, and, particularly, in all matters concerning The Aid Effectiveness Agenda. In this context, it seems important that the countries of our region which have joined the PD and the AAA should attempt to advance with a view to reaching a consensus among them, keeping in mind the meeting on this topic which will take place in South Korea next year. 44 In this regard, see studies conducted by the Permanent Secretariat of SELA during the last few years on monetary and financial cooperation for regional integration, as well as the results of the Regional Meeting of SELA Reform of the international Financial Architecture and Monetary and Financial Cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean (Caracas, 25 and 26 March 2010).

51 47 VI. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS From the end of the 20th Century to date, the ICD system has undergone significant transformations vis-à-vis its objectives and the strategies used to attain them. These changes have had an impact in various ways on the relationships in this field of action between North and South and within the South itself. Latin America and the Caribbean have had an active participation in various forums where there have been discussions and, to a certain extent, where norms have been established regarding international cooperation for development. The relationships among the MDGs, ODA, SSC, and The Aid Effectiveness Agenda, constitute key elements in the discussion regarding the ICD of today. As has been pointed out, the ICD system faces enormous challenges. On the one hand, the priority agenda concerning security (of some of the States) and, on the other, the worldwide economic and financial crisis which has reduced the political and financial support received from those who are most responsible for providing the resources for international cooperation, with a view to solving the structural problems having to do with development, particularly where they are most needed. Additionally, it should be recalled that the ICD system is currently at a crucial moment with regard to its overall assessment, given that its results will be evaluated in 2015, within the framework of the conclusion of the term for reaching the MDGs. With respect to this, the ICD system has tried to improve its performance procedures, but, as was indicated, this was done, with regard to fundamental aspects, within a framework that is not recognized as multilateral by many of the developing countries. Consequently, it is imperative to advance towards a complex exercise that requires the active participation of the immense majority of the relevant cooperation actors, by means of plans that will go beyond the mechanisms of imposition of criteria and procedures. In this way, it will be possible to manage the international system of cooperation for development more democratically. In that connection, LAC has a unique role and responsibility, since its actions within the ICD system are of a very diverse nature: On the one hand, it is a recipient of ODA, yet, on the other, it stands out as a dynamic promoter of SSC, the latter understood to be a modality of cooperation that claims to surpass the classical paradigm of North-South aid, by means of projects instilled with greater equity and co-responsibility among its participants, aspiring to much more effective results. As for the first dimension, if compared with other regions of the world, LAC has not been a privileged area in terms of receiving significant flows of ODA resources, although in the current context this situation has become even more evident because the region has received only an average of 7.2% of total worldwide ODA in the last three years. And it is expected that this amount will continue to decrease in the coming years. Among the reasons not justifications that contribute to explaining this situation are the following: a) the relative degree of compliance with MDGs en LAC, which reduces the need to provide assistance to this area of the planet, so as to redirect it towards others where there are more needs; b) the perception on the part of various donors that our region, given its relative stability and security, does not require this type of support to guarantee international security; c) the presence of SSC in the area which, in a certain way, substitutes extra-regional cooperation; and d) the Aid Effectiveness Agenda, to which the majority of the LAC countries have not adhered in a proactive manner.

52 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 48 As for SSC, considered to be the most relevant Latin American and Caribbean contribution in the ambit of the ICD system, there is no doubt that its activism is going through a period of exceedingly high levels, especially if one considers the growing number of activities of this type, which have grown from 1,480 actions in 2007 to 1,879 in 2008, representing an increase of 27% in barely a year. Apart from this significant quantitative achievement, it is considered that LAC must take a qualitative leap in its search of effectiveness in this type of activities, to which end, the present document proposes that this objective become the priority of the SELA Member States and that, at the same time, this process serve to contribute to the debates among our countries with regard to aid effectiveness. Thus, a two-way constructive exercise could be initiated to improve the manner in which cooperation processes are managed among our countries. This task, when all is said and done, constitutes in a way an obligation on the part of all those who are cooperating, since it falls within the eighth of the MDGs: to promote a global partnership for development. If LAC aspires to occupy a more active and relevant place in the ICD system, in addition to its SSC which is undoubtedly its greatest asset it must take the necessary steps towards strengthening the quality of its actions. Only in this way will it truly be able to surpass the traditional North-South cooperation schemes that for decades have proven to be weak due to a lack of transparent accountability of their actions and results. Furthermore, Latin America and the Caribbean should double their efforts to achieve more unified positions on an intra-regional level (and, in the best of cases, consensus on a regional scale) regarding those key issues of the ICD system that are of most interest to the region; for example, the democratization of multilateral financial entities, international financing for development, the MDGs and the SSC. In fact, the ICD constitutes one of the best tools for inserting the LAC countries, either on an individual basis or as a bloc, into the international system. This is an aspiration that, within the framework of their respective foreign policies, every nation of this region shares. It would seem that the most complex part of this project is to determine and put into practice the strategic actions needed to obtain such objectives, if not in a homogeneous way, at least in the most consensual manner; especially if one considers that only acting with the highest degree of coordination will LAC be able to obtain its legitimate aspiration: to have a more direct impact on the ICD system. This should not be an end in itself, but should be attained for the purpose of strengthening, transmitting greater dynamism and democratizing this system to a higher degree, so that with its renewed capacity, it will be able to respond in greater measure to the needs of countries and people in terms of development, with social inclusion and environmental sustainability. LAC deserves a place consonant with its great needs in this regard, but also in accordance with its contributions to development through international cooperation activities which, as has been mentioned, should be improved in various ways and by means of national as well as regional strategies. As a final point, and as has been stressed throughout this work, the most representative aspects on which the LAC governments coincide with regard to ICD matters are: a) the need to improve the Latin American and Caribbean subsystem as regards this matter; b) the increase of LAC s presence and influence in the ICD ambit; c) actions required to make traditional donors aware of the importance of not reducing the ODA which they provide to LAC, and of continuing to cooperate with this region; d) the need to progress

53 49 with the democratization of the ICD system (especially of the international financial institutions) and to practice SSC more rigorously. As to the first of the points mentioned above, it would seem important to develop strategic actions aimed at a gradual institutional improvement of the Latin American and Caribbean ICD system. This would imply greater coordination among all countries, regional cooperation entities and mechanisms, which could contribute to a better definition, dissemination and understanding of their roles, and to value a possible complementarity among them. In these strategic actions, SELA, as the regional focal point for cooperation, should play an active role. Among the most relevant issues that generate much disagreement among the Latin American and Caribbean countries and to which, in view of this, it is of utmost importance to direct discussions in forums and entities of the region specialized in this matter, are the following: i) the definition of the political status, the institutional profile and the operating characteristics of the so-called new architecture of the international cooperation system for development, and linked to this ii) all matters concerning the views related to the principles and norms derived from the Aid Effectiveness Agenda. In this connection, it would be advisable that the countries of our region which have signed the PD and the AAA should try to reach a consensus among them, with a view to the meeting that will be held on this topic in South Korea this coming year.

54 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY José Antonio Alonso (2007), Debe darse ayuda a los países de renta media?, ICEI Paper, 1, 2007, Madrid. (2007b), Cooperación con países de renta media, Editorial Complutense-Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, Madrid. Bruno Ayllón Pino (2009), Cooperación Sur-Sur (CSS) y gobernanza multilateral del sistema de ayuda: implicaciones para la cooperación española, FRIDE, Madrid. Walden Bello, et. al. (1994), The United States, Structural Adjustment and Global Poverty, Pluto Press, London. Bjarne, Bonné (1989), Development Assistance for Policies, Roskilde University Centre. Economic Commission (ECLAC) (2005), Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio: una mirada desde América Latina y el Caribe, ECLAC, Santiago., (2009), Informe Panorama Social de América Latina y el Caribe 2009, ECLAC. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), Paris, 2 February - 2 March Arturo Escobar (1995), Encountering Development. The making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton University Press. Gustavo Esteva (1992), Development, in Wolfang Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary. A guide to knowledge as power, Zed Books, London. E. V. K. Fitzgerald (1998), Rethinking Development Assistance. The Implications of Social Citizenship and Global Economy, Queen Elizabeth House-University of Oxford International Development Centre, Working Paper, No. 1. H., Fürer (1996), A history of the Development Assistance Committee and the development co-operation directorate in dates, names and figures. OECD-DAC, Paris. Susan George and Jon Bennet (1987), La maquinaria del hambre, El País-Aguilar, Madrid. Peter Gibbon (1994), The World Bank and the New Politics of Aid in Georg, Sorensen, Political conditionality, Volume 5, Number 1, June, Frank Cass/EADI, 1994, London. W. Steven Hook (1995), National Interest and Foreign Aid, Lynne Rieener, Washington. Intermón-Oxfam (2008), La Realidad de la Ayuda , Intermón-Oxfam, Barcelona. Carlos Illán (2004), Bush y el Millennium Challenge Account: A favor o contra los pobres?, Revista Española de Desarrollo y Cooperación, Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo y Cooperación-Universidad Complutense de Madrid, No. 13, Madrid, Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Population Fund (2004), Informe sobre la aplicación de la CSS (DP/2004/26).

55 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 52 Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern (1999), Global Public Goods, International Cooperation for the 21st. Century, Oxford University Press-UNDP, New York. Robert Keohane (1998), Después de la hegemonía. Cooperación y discordia en la política económica mundial, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires. Stephen, Krasner (1983), (Ed), International Regimes, Ithaca, Coronell University Press. (1985), Conflicto Estructural. El Tercer Mundo Contra el Liberalismo Global, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires. Irene López Méndez and José Ángel Sotillo (1996), La condicionalidad política y la ayuda al desarrollo, in ILSA, La condicionalidad en las relaciones internacionales: sirve para la protección de los derechos humanos?, ILSA, Bogotá, 1996, p David H. Lumsdaine (1993), Moral Vision in International Politics. The Foreign Aid Regime, Princeton University Press. Tibor Mende (1974), Ayuda o recolonización? Lecciones de un fracaso, Siglo XXI, Mexico Hans Morgenthau (1962), A Political Theory of Foreign Aid, The American Political Science Review, The American Political Science Association, Vol. LVI. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2010), Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by region. The Developing World, 2010 Edition, OECD-DAC, Paris. (2010b), Development Aid at a Glance. Statistics by region. America, 2010 Edition, OECD-DAC, Paris. (20010c), Development aid rose in 2009 and most donors will meet 2010 aid targets, OECD-DAC, Paris. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (1994), Aid in transition, ODI Briefing Paper, November, London. Claudia Pineda and Nils-Sjard Schulz (2008), El reto nicaragüense. Armonización de los donantes: ente la eficacia de la ayuda y la democratización. Estudio de caso II, Working Paper, No. 48, Madrid. Juan Pablo Prado Lallande, (2009), Fomento a la cohesión social mediante cooperación europea: EUROsociAL/Educación, in Roberto Peña Guerrero (Coord.), Las relaciones entre México y la Unión Europea: la promoción de la gobernabilidad y la inclusión social, Capítulo: UNAM-Plaza y Valdéz, Mexico. Roger C. Riddel (1987), Foreign Aid Reconsidered, James Currey-Overseas Development Institute, London. María Clara Sanín Betancourt and Nils-Sjard Schulz (2009), La cooperación Sur-Sur a partir de Accra: América Latina y el Caribe, FRIDE, Madrid. Nils-Sjard Schulz (2007), Nicaragua: Un duro despertar en el laboratorio de la eficacia de la ayuda, Comentario, FRIDE, November, Madrid.

56 53 Ibero-American General Secretariat (2009), Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica 2009, SEGIB, Madrid. Pierre de Senarclens (1998), How the United Nations Promotes Development through Technical Asistance, in Majad Rahnema and Victoria Bawtree (Eds.), The Post- Development Reader, Zed Books, London. Julia Shüneman (2008), La cooperación Sur-Sur en América Latina y el Caribe, FRIDE, 2008, Madrid. Alfredo Pérez Bravo and José Antonio Tripp (1996), Towards a Strategic Approach to Regional Cooperation, Cooperation South, Special Unit for Technical Cooperation Among Developing Countries (TCDC), UNDP, New York. José Antonio Sanahuja (1999), Ayuda económica y seguridad nacional. La ayuda externa de Estados Unidos, del Plan Marshall a la posguerra fría, Entinema-Serie Con- Textos de Ciencias Sociales, Madrid. Philipp Shoenrock (2009), La agenda de la eficacia de la ayuda al desarrollo en América Latina y el Caribe 2009, in ALOP - The Reality of Aid, Mito y realidad de la ayuda externa. Una evaluación independiente de la cooperación internacional para el desarrollo, Working Group on Financing for Development and Democracy of the Latin American Association of Organizations for Promotion of Development, A.C. ALOP, Mexico. José Ángel Sotillo (2010), Prólogo, Ayllón, Bruno and Javier Surazky, La cooperación Sur- Sur en Latinoamérica. Utopía y realidad, Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo y Cooperación - Editorial los Libros de la Catarata, Madrid. Third High-Level Forum of Aid Effectiveness (2008), Programa de Acción de Accra, 2-4 September 2008, Accra. United Nations-Economic and Social Council (2010), Trends and progress in international developent cooperation, 23 June - 23 July 2010, New York. Sergio Tezanos Vázquez and Rafael Domínguez Martín (2009), Nueva agenda internacional de desarrollo, nuevas perspectivas para América Latina el Caribe?, Documentos de trabajo sobre cooperación y desarrollo 2009/01, Cátedra de Cooperación Internacional y con Iberoamérica Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain. and Aitor Martínez de la Cueva Astigarraga (2009), Ayuda oficial al desarrollo para América Latina y el Caribe en el punto de inflexión del milenio, Documentos de trabajo sobre cooperación y desarrollo 2009/05, Cátedra de Cooperación Internacional y con Iberoamérica Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain. Víctor L. Urquidi (1994), Hacia nuevas modalidades de cooperación internacional, en Soledad Loaeza (Coord.), La Cooperación Internacional en un Mundo Desigual, El Colegio de México, Mexico, 1994, p. 34.

57 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 54 Alexander Wendt (1995), Constructing International Politics, International Security, Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, MIT Press, Summer 1995, Vol. 20, no. 1, p. 76. Oran R. Young (1989), International Cooperation. Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University Press, London.

58 55 Annexes ODA to Latin American and Caribbean countries

59 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 56

60 57

61 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 58

62 59

63 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 60

64 61

65 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 62

66 63

67 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 64

68 65

69 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 66

70 67

71 Permanent Secretariat Economic and Technical Cooperation 68