El Departamento de la Asamblea General y de Gestión de Conferencias

It is striking to note how many Ibero-American cooperation institutions are transitioning from recipients of resources from traditional donors to providers of South-South cooperation. Owing to the diversity of countries, the transition is neither uniform nor does it follow the same pattern. However, managing this duality is a highly determining factor for institutional decisions and one of the challenges facing institutions.

This fact is made clear in one of the objectives of the Mexican Directorate General for Technical and Scientific Cooperation: “Strengthen Mexico’s dual position with respect to cooperation from an integral perspective, harnessing efforts and capacities for national development, especially in the most depressed and lagging areas, and continue to be a provider for third countries, especially in Central America.”

In the face of this new reality, the situation varies from country to country:

1. Spain and Portugal are established development cooperation providers. However, in the 1980s they also made the transition from recipient to donor. Furthermore, both Spain and Portugal receive significant volumes of resources from the European Union, not categorized as ODA but requiring sound administration and integration with national plans and policies. Regardless of the historical background, the cooperation receiving and providing institutions where attached to different ministries and opted for different institutional structures – an experience that may be helpful to other countries.

2. Countries with greater expertise and capacity to offer South-South cooperation attach their institutions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs owing to the close link between cooperation and foreign policy. In the case of essentially recipient countries, the institution may be attached to the Foreign or the Planning Ministry, or a combination. For example:

• The Chilean Cooperation Agency was formerly attached to the Planning Ministry. Five years ago it was transferred to the Foreign Ministry reflecting the loss of relevance of inflows in favor of offering cooperation and raising funds for triangular interventions.

• Brazil went through a process similar to Chile’s. In both countries, the Agency administers cooperation received by the country, usually technical assistance. However, the structure and processes are increasingly focused on delivery.

• Argentina and Mexico are both undergoing change to tackle the dual function, although with different intensity. The former is looking to create a specific South-South cooperation unit within the International Cooperation Directorate. The latter is in the process of establishing a Cooperation Agency. When fully implemented, the institution will resemble those of other provider countries in the region, governed by a consistent and broad legal framework. Both countries will continue to administer bilateral cooperation inflows and coordinate cooperation received at the Provincial, State and Municipal levels. Nonetheless, both now lean more towards delivery.

Careful consideration should be given as to whether having a single institution managing the two functions poses problems or offers advantages – especially if only nonreimbursable technical cooperation is at issue. Technical cooperation hinges on knowledge, the sharing of experiences, lessons, technology and processes. Ultimately, in the case of both SSC and the receipt of cooperation, the cooperation institutions coordinate the relationship between line ministries and other institutions, usually the executing agencies. The value-added provided by cooperation institutions lies in their ability to negotiate, administer and support the transfer and implementation of experiences, capacities and good practices. The fact that South-South cooperation is centered on reciprocity and mutual benefit supports the idea of having a single institution perform both functions.

3. Countries receiving significant volumes of funds have structured their institutions accordingly. In a few countries, such as Uruguay or Costa Rica, the duality is slowly emerging. The former has two ministries sharing the responsibility, although receipt and delivery of cooperation is not evenly distributed. In the latter, MIDEPLAN plans and manages while the Foreign Ministry negotiates. The Ministry has greater responsibility for SSC, and Joint Commissions and Projects are coordinated by Committees and Technical Teams comprising members of both ministries and other sector-related institutions. Some countries, such as Peru or El Salvador, opted to establish SSC units to channel inflows, as well as the delivery of cooperation – long-standing although modest for Peru, embryonic for El Salvador. They offer interesting examples of preeminently recipient countries where the existing institutions embarked on the road of offering cooperation based on accrued or learned skills and experiences. Something similar occurred in the Dominican Republic: they are developing a supply database reflecting all successful experiences in the country.

4. In yet other cases, like Ecuador, and especially Cuba and Venezuela, the delivery of cooperation is closely tied to regional integration and solidarity. Although these countries have institutions to coordinate the delivery of cooperation – SETECI in Ecuador created a new unit dedicated to offering SSC – several ministries are actively involved in cooperation, whether delivery or receipt, especially for South-South cooperation between these countries.

In any event, the dual function affects all aspects, not only the legal and operational framework of the institutions or their attachment to a specific ministry. The internal structure and the workforce profile must be considered before the delivery of cooperation can be added to the traditional receipt of resources.