of TrIangUlar soUTh-soUTh cooperaTIon
Graph III.9. type of agreement regulating
the relationship, by signatory. 2012.
Trilateral Bilateral: First and second provider Bilateral: Second provider and recipient Bilateral: First provider and recipient Combination of two bilaterals
Source: SEGIB, based on reporting from cooperation agencies and/or bureaus. FOR THIS EDITION OF THE Report on South-South Coop-
eration in Ibero-America, the countries expressed particular
interest in information about aspects of planning and op- erational management of Triangular South-South Coopera- tion. Specifically, they wanted to know:
• Who requests triangulation and in response to what sort of need.
• What sort of agreements regulate the relationship be- tween the various players.
• What finance formulas or mechanism are used.
• Who participates in each phase of the project cycle, and what is the nature of their participation.
Therefore, additional qualitative information was collected. This information provided a more in-depth picture of other issues relating to 75%-80% of the Triangular South-South Cooperation projects and actions in 2012. Based on the de- gree of representativeness of the resulting sample and con- fining the analysis first to the principal dimension (projects), the following patterns were identified:
a) In practically all cases, the project originated at the re- quest of the recipient. Normally, that request tended to
arise at the same time as the development of a standard or an institutional plan on the part of the recipient (e.g. the design of a multi-year program in science and tech- nology, or a social welfare policy). The need for technical support in such a process was the motive on the part of most recipients when requesting triangular cooperation.
b) Requests also tended to arise in response to the publica- tion of catalogs of Triangular South-South Cooperation projects by first providers (mainly) and second providers (to a lesser extent). In response, recipients aligned their needs with the project application.
c) Additionally, practically 80% of projects were per- formed under an agreement that regulated relations between the partners. However, only in a minority of
cases was the agreement ratified by all three partners (Graph III.9): in most cases the framework agreement was bilateral (nearly always between the first and sec-
ond providers, occasionally between one of the provid- ers and the recipient; very occasionally two bilateral agreements of the foregoing types were merged). This coincides with the general pattern described above, in which an application by a recipient is in response to a “formal” call on the part of the providers.
d) those agreements went by numerous names: “agree-
ments”, “conventions”, “memoranda of understanding”, “declarations of intent”, “commitment proceedings”, “re- cords of discussions”; and also “Joint Committees”, “Tri- angular Cooperation Programs with Third Countries” and “project documents”. In one way or another, they all set out rules for planning and managing the cooperation to which
they refer. Additionally the main difference between the various formats lies in the potential legal consequences of signing them. For example, memorandums of understand- ing (MoUs) are generally not legally binding9, but merely set out the intentions of the signatories. In fact, they often serve as a basis for formal agreements to be signed at a later date and which will be binding upon all the parties.10 e) Such agreements were generally signed by national co-
operation agencies and/or bureaus and by local or central institutions or government bodies. National cooperation
agencies and/or bureaus tended to participate in “Triangu- lar Cooperation Programs with Third Countries”, “Joint Com- mittees” and “Memoranda of Understanding” (MoUs).
f) As regards the means by which projects were financed, coun- tries reported that there was no formal mechanism in most cases. Where a formal mechanism was used, it depended on
the party (international or regional agency, or country) that acted as second provider (e.g. fiduciary funds of the World Bank, the OAS, the GEF, or the Regional Fund for Triangu- lar Cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean under Germany’s GIz) or joint funds established between the two providers (e.g. Fondo Mixto España-Chile para Cooperación Triangular). In contrast, the most frequent mode of funding was shared contributions or transfers from the second pro- vider (e.g. GIz, or Spanish government subsidies) adminis- tered either by each of the parties or by the first provider.
g) Graph III.10 was drawn up to provide more information about who participated in the various phases of trian-
9. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-02-04/ news/36743089_1_mou-document-parties
10. http://www.ues.edu.sv/secretaria-de-relaciones-nacionales-e- internacionales/sites/default/files/MANUAL_CONVENIOS.pdf and http://www.diccionariojuridico.mx/
gular South-South Cooperation projects and to what ex- tent: the horizontal axis presents the four phases of the
cycle (1: Identification; 2: Negotiation and formulation; 3: Implementation; and 4: Monitoring and Evaluation). The vertical axis plots the percentage of projects for which the various combinations of participants were involved (all three; first and second provider; first provider and recipient; first provider only; recipient only). Additionally, countries tend to report who represented them in each phase and role: generally cooperation agencies and/or bureaus, government bodies, and the target population. Consequently, for each phase of the cycle:
• Joint action by the two providers predominated in the identification phase (practically 60% of cases).
Meanwhile, the recipient, either with the two provid-
ers, with the first provider or individually, participated in practically all other cases in the identification phase.
This degree of participation by the recipient coupled with the fact that the latter tends to be the one that requests projects, supports the idea that the first and second pro- viders are mainly responsible for “identifying” and “ invit- ing participation” in Triangular SSC projects, while recipi- ents make the formal request in response.
• All three parties tended to be involved in most cases in the negotiation and formulation phase, coinciding
with the process of drafting the project document. This group work ensured that projects were adapted to the realities and specific features of each case. On other oc- casions, the first provider again played a prominent role (alone; with the second provider; or with the recipient).
• the implementation phase, i.e. the technical execu-
tion of the project, was clearly dominated by the party in charge of transferring experience and knowledge: the first provider, which was prominent in the execution of 100% of
projects (accompanied by the second provider in half of the cases; by the second provider and recipient in one-third of the cases; acting alone in almost one-fifth of the cases).
• In the evaluation and follow-up phase, the recipient
(represented predominantly by the target population) re- gained part of its initial prominence, this time in coopera- tion with the two providers. Nevertheless, the two provid-
ers played a more direct role in this phase of the cycle, not only because they were directly in charge in about half of all cases but also because, even where the recipient was involved, the providers tended to establish the guidelines. Diagram III.3 was drawn up to summarize the most fre- quent formulas used in planning and managing Triangular South-South Cooperation projects. Clearly, the most com- mon pattern is as follows:
Projects under this formula tend to arise from requests by the recipients. That request tends to be a formal response to an invitation from the providers, which offer a catalog of possible projects based on their capabilities. Among the range of projects available, recipients tend to request those that meet their needs for institutional strengthening, often associated with the process of designing and implementing development policies and strategies.
The “invitation” to participate in Triangular South-South Co- operation projects tends to be governed by a bilateral agree- ment between the first and second providers. This seems to be coherent with the fact that the various types of formal agreement regulating relations between the parties tends to be bilateral and the bulk of them are between the two providers. Meanwhile, agreements signed by all three par- ticipants, though important, tend to be a minority. The bulk of funding tends to come from the providers (par- ticularly the second provider): mostly in the form of specific allocations. Only in a minority of cases is funding channeled through institutionalized mechanisms. However, when this happens, the predominant formula is that of cooperation funds (either individual or multilateral).
Finally, as regards how the partners participate in the vari- ous project phases, it can be concluded that:
The first provider is the most active partner in all cases, particularly during project implementation, where its role as technical implementer predominates.
The second provider also plays a major role in all phases, providing institutional and technical support. Nevertheless, the second provider’s principal contribution is financial. Recipients’ participation varies, although two specific situ- ations are notable: their involvement is lowest in technical execution of the project; and their involvement is greatest in the negotiation and formulation phase, when the project document is drafted and the recipient’s viewpoint is vital in order to adapt a general form of cooperation to the specific new needs that have arisen.
In the final instance, the general pattern for actions does not differ notably from that identified for projects under Triangu- lar South-South Cooperation. Nevertheless, the final formula depends considerably on the party acting as second provider: Japan and Spain, in three out of four actions. Specifically:
a) Almost all actions involving Japan followed the same pat- tern: an Association Program was registered with the first provider and, together, they identified needs in the region and subsequently offered (and funded) a course for appli- cant countries. The only exception to this pattern was in the association with Mexico; in this case, the general pat- tern was that Mexico requested the course from Japan.11 b) Triangular South-South Cooperation actions performed
in the framework of the association between Spain and Costa Rica took place under the institutional framework arranged by those two countries. On that basis, actions were implemented in response to requests from recipi- ents based on a catalog of technical cooperation offered by Costa Rica12 and funded with a subsidy from Spain to the Triangular Cooperation Program.
11. Those same patterns were repeated in triangular actions with Korea, Israel and the United States, where the principal first pro- vider was Chile.
12. Available at http://documentos.mideplan.go.cr/alfresco/d/d/work- space/SpacesStore/d413032b-30b5-4ce4-a5eb-ad101c140516/ Catalogo-oferta-cooperac-tec-CR-978-9977-73-042-4.pdf.
Graph III.10. Participation by the various partners in the phases of tSSC projects.
Participation (% of total records for which the information is available)
50.0 70.0 60.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1 2 3 4
Phases of the project First and second providers
First provider only First and second providers with recipient
First provider and recipient Recipient only
Percentage of records in which partners participated
Source: SEGIB, based on reporting from cooperation agencies and/or bureaus.
Diagram III.3. Most frequent pattern of operation in triangular South-South Cooperation projects.
Main institutional agreements Technical execution (implementation) Funding Negotiation and formulation M ost active r ole in ... Funding formulas (not always formalized) First provider Formal request Recipient Second provider Invitation
Ibero-AmerIcA
And regIonAl
HorIzontAl
SoutH-SoutH
cooperAtIon
THE PREVIOUS REPoRT on South-South Cooperation in
Ibero-America devoted a chapter to Regional Horizontal
South-South Cooperation. To that end, it performed an ex- ercise to gain a clearer picture of the defining characteristics of that form of cooperation. That reflection led to a main recommendation: that those features be defined more pre- cisely, leading to a reformulation of the concept of Regional