The regulatory framework that accompanied Regional Hori- zontal South-South Cooperation was organized around a set of legal instruments of varying nature and nomencla-
ture, including notably agreements, conventions, frame- works for action and protocols for execution, to name a few. Nevertheless, the principal features is that most programs and projects depended simultaneously on a combination of several legal instruments and, among these, there was a hi- erarchical relationship usually determined by two questions:
a) The level of detail associated with the regulated object or aspect (from higher to lower importance, from the general to the specific, and from more strategic to more operational).
b) Sometimes (but not always), the political rank of the persons who signed the documents that supported these instruments (in this case, ranging from the Heads of State and Government to representatives of govern- mental institutions).
To illustrate this, Diagram IV.3 shows the legal instruments created to regulate cooperation under the Mesoameri- can Program (Mexico axis). Thus, from the general to the specific, in chronological order of appearance, the diagram highlights four instruments regulating Mesoamerican co- operation: the Tuxtla Mechanism for Dialogue and Coopera-
tion (dating from 1996); the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Technical Secretariat of the Mexican Commission for Cooperation with Central America (ST-CMC- CA) and the General Secretariat of SICA (SG-SICA) (2000);
6. Two types of cooperation programs arise in the context of the Ibero-American Conference: firstly, those that, as a set of proj- ects, respond to lines of action or work by sectoral agencies (such as COMJIB, the OISS and OEI); secondly, there are Ibero- American (or Summit) Programs, approved by the highest po- litical authorities of the participating countries at Summits of Heads of State and Government. Programs 6.1 to 6.6, 6.9, 6.11 to 6.13, 6.15 to 6.18, 6.20 to 6.22, 6.24, 6.26 and 6.27 in Table IV.1 are in this category. The distinction is important because the two types of programs are governed by different legal instruments and different organizational and operating procedures. 7. Program 2.1 in Table IV.1.
Diagram IV.3. Process of creation and characterization of the institutional mechanism
governing the Mesoamerican Cooperation Program (Mexico axis).
Tuxtla Mechanism for Dialogue and Cooperation
Plan of Action 1996 1998 2000 2005 2011
Biennial adoption of…
Memorandum of Understanding
between the Technical Secretariat of the Mexican Commission for Cooperation with Central America (ST-CMCCA) and the General Secretariat of SICA (SG-SICA) (2000)
Reference Framework for the Implementation of the Mesoamerican Cooperation Program
Protocol for the Implementation and Administration of the Mesoamerican Cooperation Program
Summit of Heads of State (biannual) Meeting of Foreign Ministers High-Level Commission (annual)
Regional Cooperation Subcommission Mesoamerican Cooperation Program* Sectoral meetings Definition of the projects Establishes the mechanism for Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation
Lays the groundwork for better Coordination, Management and Impact of the Program
Underpins burden sharing by the parties in project Implementation and Administration
note*: During the 1998-2000 and 2001-2002 biennia, the Mexico-Central American Regional Cooperation Programs were adopted; from the 2003-2004 biennium and up to the current 2013-2014, the name changed to Mesoamerican Cooperation Program.
Source: SEGIB, based on reporting from cooperation agencies and/or bureaus, Cairo & Rocha (2007), and official documents from the Tuxtla summits.
the Framework for the Implementation and Administration
of the Mesoamerican Cooperation Program (2005); and the Protocol for the Implementation and Administration of the Program (2011).
This diagram suggests that:
a) The Tuxtla Mechanism for Dialogue and Cooperation was agreed upon by the region’s Heads of State in 1996. Its entry into force established the framework within which to approve a Mesoamerican Cooperation Program every two years.9 Through this mechanism, the outline and the Action Plan for each program were established. It was
9. As indicated by the note in Diagram IV.3, there have been eight biennial programs between the first Mexico-Central America Re- gional Cooperation Program 1998-2000 and the current Meso- american Cooperation Program 2013-2104.
also established that each of these Programs would re- flect the countries’ concerns, expressed first in sectoral meetings of the various public institutions and elevated subsequently to higher echelons through the Regional Cooperation Subcommission, the High Commission and the Meeting of Foreign Ministers, ultimately reaching the Summit of Heads of State.
b) The other instruments (MOU, Reference Framework, and Implementation Protocol) were also approved at successive Summits of Heads of State (Tuxtla, 2000;, Tegucigalpa, 2005; Cartagena, 2010) but were not nec- essarily signed by them (e.g. the MoU was signed by the Technical and General Secretariats, respectively, of the Mexican Commission for Cooperation with Central America and SICA). Their goal was to regulate matters on a much more operational plane, addressing issues such as project coordination, management, administra-
tion, monitoring and evaluation, and burden sharing by participants.
The Ibero-American Programs followed a similar pattern, where the institutional arrangements conformed mainly to the following instruments: the Bariloche Convention, promoted by the Heads of State and Government at the Bariloche Summit in 1995; the operating Manual for Ibero-
American Cooperation (whose most recent version was dis-
cussed by the Heads of Cooperation and approved by the Presidents at the Mar del Plata Summit in 2010); a Formula-
tion Document and a specific Regulation for each program
(depending on the year of approval of the program in ques- tion). Specifically:
a) The Bariloche Convention, established specifically to meet the “the need to establish an institutional frame-
work to regulate cooperation within the framework of the summit meetings of the Ibero-American Conference”
(Convention, 1995, p.1), set out the conditions and gen- eral requirements for creating a Cooperation Program.
b) The other instruments regulated more operational as- pects concerning the mechanisms of consultation and decision-making for the Programs; their organizational structure; their lines of action and forms of implemen- tation; the patterns for resource management, and for monitoring and evaluating execution; and all aspects relating to formalizing their approval and completion, to name a few.