Christian Freres, Coordinator
The research and the publication of this study was carried out with the financial support of the European Commission. Nevertheles, the points of view presented here only reflect the opinions of the autors, and do not represent in any way the official view of the Commission nor of AIETI, or of the other members of RECAL.
© SINTESIS-AIETI, 1998
According to many experts, relations between Western Europe and Latin America, particularly in the realm of development co-operation, have evolved through a number of distinct phases, during each of which a different actor has been dominant. During the 1970s, for example, European governments mantained a certain distance from Latin American states due to the authoritarian nature of the regimes in many of the countries of the region. In that context, non-governmental actors were predominant and European development aid was channelled primarily through political parties, foundations, trade unions and universities. In addition to supporting the processes of development, one of the principal objectives of aid was to back the efforts of democratic forces in those countries suffering from the repression of dictatorship and the violation of human rights.
When democracy was re-established in most Latin American countries during the 1980s, co-operation policy in Europe was reoriented along the lines of a government-to-government dialogue aimed at nurturing these fragile democracies in transition and reinforcing, in turn, the legitimacy of elected governments. Now, in the 1990s, the recovery and growth of the region's economies has stimulated an interest in Latin America on the part of many European businesses. Investment is growing and inter-regional trade has expanded. In theory, at least, the principal actors are still goverments but in a secondary position, and with growing importance, are private enterprises. The members of so-called "civil society" have passed into the secondary plane on the global panorama of Euro-Latin American relations.
Yet even when the broad outlines of this story are generally correct and valid, they are based on a somewhat limited and rigid analysis which exaggerates certain tendencies (the dominance of the state in inter-regional relations) and downplays others (above all, the space available for other actors in Latin American democracies). Viewed crititically from this perspective, the story told above attributes to inter-regional relations a pendular dynamic in which Euro-Latin American relations oscillate between stages dominated, on the one hand, by non-governmental actors and, on the other, by state action. The reality, however, has always been much more complex and pluralistic. It is not possible to fully comprehend development assistance policy without first understanding the relative significance and complementary nature of the various distinct groups of actors.
Currently, Latin America is undergoing a process of democratic consolidation and laying the foundation for the future governability of the region. European donor countries have perceived the need to widen the base of the development co-operation process, acknowledging that civil society, the private sector, universities, and cultural organizations, among others, are all perfectly legitimate actors, capable of undertaking the tasks of development. Two factors justify such a perspective. First, there is the conviction that the governability of Latin America poses an important challenge not only to governments and traditional political actors, but to entire Latin American societies. For this reason, international support for democracy and development increasingly emphasizes strengthening non-state institutions. Secondly, individuals and groups, in both Europe and Latin America, are demanding a more active role in public life and, in particular, in the activities of international co-operation.
This last argument is the point of departure for the book, The Co-operation of Civil Societies in the European Union with Latin America. The book's objective is to analyze the current situation and future perspectives of development co-operation between the civil societies of European Union member states and the countries of Latin America. The goal of this research was not to exhaust the topic but rather to fill one particular vacuum in the current research on Euro-Latin American relations by providing a more complete global panorama: the lack of comprehensive publications on the role and behavior of civil societies in both regions (1). While there has been diverse research on the co-operation activities of certain European organizations in particular countries or subregions of Latin America, in general such studies are largely partial. More importantly, the perspective of Latin America's civil societies remains to be investigated. For the moment, then, this study hopes to contribute some important pieces still needed to complete the analytical puzzle of Euro-Latin American relations.
Such a proposition is also the central objective of the Euro-Latin American Network for Monitoring and Analysis of European Cooperation with Latin America (RECAL) which AIETI has been pushing for years. The members of this network, coordinated by AIETI, have made it possible to undertake a study offering a trans-European analysis, both comparative in nature and oriented toward the practice of co-operation. Of course, the moral and economic support of the European Commission has also been indispensible in the undertaking of this project.
In these pages, prepared by Christian Freres and Jesús Corral, with the help of Antonio Sanz and Tomás Mallo (all from the AIETI team), we offer the reader a summary of the book which synthesizes the information obtain in the national studies and provides some general reflections on European civil societies and their role in development cooperation with Latin America. The book includes much more material, including the 15 national studies which constitute the core of the research effort. Each study has a similar structure to facilitate the cohesion of the book as a whole. The last chapter presents some final conclusions prepared by the AIETI team. Because the study has a somewhat academic focus, this section sets forth some of the study's most central points to help satisfy those interested in the book's most concrete, practical uses.
In addition, a lengthy Annex is appended to the bibliography, including a list of centres and persons interviewed during the course of the research, together with a glossary of abbreviations and tables with data on the European Commision's co-financing of European NGOs working in Latin America.
Along with the book, and this summary version, three other monographic studies with complementary data and analysis are also being published. The first one, written by Vanna Ianni, a researcher at the Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale (CeSPI) in Rome, reviews from a theoretical and speculative perspective the current debates on the concept of "civil society" and reflects on the participation of European civil organizations in international co-operation.
The second working paper, undertaken by Ana Ayuso, a researcher at the Fundación CI-DOB (Centre d'Informació i Documentació Internacionals) in Barcelona, focuses on an analysis of the co-operation efforts of civil society in Catalonia. There are two reasons for including this paper in the series. First, the principal 15 studies, with their national and centralist perspectives, lack sufficient coverage of the activities of other more local and peripheral actors. Second, its inclusion is in the best interests of Catalan civil society, which is particularly dynamic within the context of Spanish and European development co-operation.
The third document, prepared by Giovanna Venegas, a collaborator of AIETI, is an example--if only partial and incomplete--of the type of study that RECAL could undertake in the future. The report analyzes the perception of European civil society co-operation from the point of view of a particular Latin American country--in this case, Peru. The selection of this country as the study focus does not assume any particular importance or special relevance of Peru. Indeed, each Latin American country presents its own peculiarities. In addition, different segments of European civil society generally operate in different countries. The justification for this choice is based rather on the existence in Peru for many years of a large number of active European civil society organisations. With the inclusion of this study, it is hoped that the network might reach out to various Latin American centres sharing our interests in Euro-Latin American co-operation.
* * *
This project began in February 1996 when AIETI invited the RECAL centres to participate in the study. These included the Centre d'Etude et de Promotion des Rélations entre les Pays de la CEE et de l'Amerique Latine (CERCAL) in Belgium; the Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale (CeSPI) in Italy; the Centrum voor Studie en Documentatie van Latijns Amerika (CEDLA) in the Netherlands; the Department of Political Science at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom; the Institut für Iberoamerika-Kunde (IIK) in Germany; and the Latinamerika Institutet (LAIS) in Sweden. Shortly thereafter, the research team, comprised of representatives from each of the RECAL centres and the European Commission, held its first working meeting in Madrid. The objective was to establish a concrete methodology, including formats for each national study, deadlines for materials submission, and a general working plan. At the same time, the meeting also helped to create a team spirit among the RECAL members.
During the following months, up to October 1996, the RECAL centres dedicated themselves to their respective research tasks. Throughout this period, various drafts were sent to AIETI for initial revisions. In November 1996, with the logistical support of CERCAL, a second meeting took place in Brussels in which the initial drafts were discussed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses.
AIETI maintained contact with the different centres over the months that followed, revising drafts and requesting further changes. Once the final drafts had been submitted, the AIETI team arranged the studies according to the original scheme. It has been a long and complex task, undertaken principally by Antonio Sanz, with the objective of achieving cohesion among the various texts without sacrificing the richness and specificity, in terms of content, focus and style, of each individual study. This task of coallating and editing was concluded in September 1997.
* * *
The co-ordinators of this study wish to express their gratitude to the numerous individuals and organisations that have contributed to making this book possible. First, we express our gratitude to the personnel at the European Commission who believed in RECAL and demonstrated constant support for this project, and in particular to José Miguel Anacoreta-Correia, the ex-Director for Latin America in General Directory I, who with his commitment and enthusiasm has supported numerous initiatives of European civil society organisations working with Latin America. AIETI would also like to thank Jerome Poussielgue, the official directly responsible for supervising this project, for his interest in and receptiveness to the questions raised by the research network.
Secondly, the coordinating team would like to thank Guadalupe Ruiz-Giménez, the General Secretary of AIETI, for her moral support. She has inspired the efforts, sometimes costly and often difficult, that have made it possible to work in a network like RECAL.
Thirdly, the coordinating team would like to acknowledge its debt to the other RECAL centres. We especially wish to thank the researchers who undertook and coordinated the national studies:
Without the assistance of all of those mentioned above, this study, let alone any future follow-ups, would never have been completed. Now the great challenge is to extend the network to other Latin American centres while remaining conscious of the need to maintain a manageable size so as not to sacrifice flexibility and operational capacity.
Finally, the authors wish to thank all those who disinterestedly offered their time and knowledge, helping to make this study a reality. These are the people who, in the end, are the real reason for undertaking such a study. The research team sincerely hopes that the final result will be of some use to them.
The authors also wish to acknowledge that the opinions expressed here, along with any errors this study might contain, are exclusively their own. They only hope is that this book proves to be a faithful reflection of their enormous interest in the subject, of which this study is only an initial, if serious, exploration.
Introduction
For many years now, there has been a renewed interest around the world in the role of civil society. Different tendencies and even competing ideologies increasingly agree upon its importance as an arena, or space, for participation. At the same time, many have called on civil society to take a more active role in activities traditionally dominated by the state.
This process of expanding the functions of civil society has been particularly evident in the European Union (EU). Community institutions and the majority of member state governments have introduced--or strengthened--policies supporting and stimulating the activities of civil society, providing new resources to such efforts. The creation of these new lines of activity is justified, on the one hand, by the growing incapacity of the state to directly undertake all the activities demanded of it and, on the other hand, by the increasing pressure of societies striving for a larger role in designing, undertaking and tracking public policies, including those in the field of international development assistance.
The critics of such initiatives point to the increasing privatisation of the state, while the principal advocates believe that civil society can help revitalise or even "save" democracy. Without becoming implicated in this debate, one can easily assume that the truth probably lies somewhere between these two poles and that while a "renaissance" of civil society does imply certain risks, it also carries with it a number of clearly positive possibilities.
The inherent difficulties encountered in this debate are amplified here by the fact that this study deals with not just a single national reality, but rather fifteen different ones. The civil societies of the member states of the EU represent, at the very least, fifteen distinct national contexts (not to mention the significant subnational differences that exist). This diversity at once complicates and enrichens the analysis of their respective international activities.
The aim of this chapter, divided into three parts, is to compare and contrast the Latin American development assistance activities of civil society organisations in the member states of the EU. The first part reviews the different meanings and contexts of civil society in the European Union, including a brief analysis of the origins, motivations, relationship with the state, and functions of civil society's international development co-operation activities.
The second part briefly reviews the general evolution of European civil society development co-operation with Latin America. The third section enters into a much more detailed analysis of the practice of this development assistance, focusing on the links between civil society development co-operation with Latin America and the bilateral development assistance policies of European donor countries. Section Three also analyses a number of different aspects of European civil society development co-operation with Latin America (including aid program formulas, objectives, geographical and sectoral priorities, sources of finance, type of local counterparts, etc.).
Finally, a number of reflections on some observed tendencies are presented in the conclusion, along with some possible future scenarios and their probable implications for distinct actors in the development co-operation arena.
I. Civil Society and Development Co-operation
What is Civil Society?
The first step is to define the concept of civil society. As underlined in a specific chapter of this book (1), however, an intense polemical debate engulfs this issue. A minimal working definition might be one defining civil society as that space in the public sphere where self-organised groups, movements and individuals, relatively autonomous with respect to government, attempt to articulate values, create associations and solidarity, and promote their interests (Linz y Stepan, 1996: 17). One could also add that these organisations do not form an organic part of the political system (in the sense that political parties do, for example), nor do private economic objectives figure as one of their principal concerns (as in the case of business enterprises, like companies or firms). Nevertheless, civil society must--in order to achieve a certain relevance--deal with both of these realms, in addition to the state itself and the citizens in general (Jorgensen, 1996: 36). It is not, however, an isolated space, but rather one plainly integrated into the social system. (2)
The civil society organisations (CSOs) at the centre of our study are generally included in the category of so-called "solidarity groups" or "altruistic organisations" (differentiated from individual philanthropy by their social nature) because their cooperative activities have a specific objective--either for the benefit of third parties (e.g. to help the poor) or of a more general public nature (e.g. world peace, disarmament, etc.), as well as, to some degree, "the aspiration to transform society as much as possible" (Funes, §995: 30).
Nevertheless, the present study also deals with those organisations whose principal objectives are different (for example, an association of lawyers which defends the collective interest) and which do not necessarily aspire to "change the world", but rather to demonstrate their solidarity through specific or continuous international development activities.
All such groups possess a minimum of permanence and organisation, typically place a priority on volunteer work, and do not directly seek economic benefits for their individual members.
Civil Society and International Development Co-operation
Once a basic working definition of civil society has been established, its relationship with international development assistance can be briefly analysed. In general, the existing development aid model in any donor country expresses, to a certain degree, the dominant social model of the country in question. A country's aid policy and its social organisaton are, therefore, two related and inseparable realities. This indivisibility explains the large number of existing differences in the development assistance policies of the 15 EU member states.
Still, one can also detect certain similarities among EU countries which reflect certain shared values. For example, in all countries solidarity is perceived, with greater or lesser intensity, to be a duty of the state, as well as of individual citizens. So much is this the case that those who openly oppose international development assistance form only a tiny minority in European societies. (3) To be fair, however, it is also true that the universe of those active in development co-operation is not very large.
To understand how European civil societies involve themselves in international development co-operation, it is necessary to first analyse the general context in which they operate. This context can be summarised by outlining different key factors including, among others, the historical characteristics and evolution of the country in question, the relative importance of its distinct social sectors (state, civil society, private sector, etc.), and the general framework of the country's international relations.
With respect to the historical evolution of civil societies, one question frequently raised is: "Where do CSOs come from? A complete answer would require an exhaustive study of the history of the relevant countries. Neverthless, certain key factors can be underlined for the purposes of this study.
First, civil society has been an identifiable phenomenon in Western Europe for at least two centuries now, having emerged more or less at the same time as the modern state. Throughout its history, the importance of civil society has varied significantly. Many experts therefore attribute to civil society a certain role in the long formation process of the democratic state. On the other hand, some commentators argue that civil society is rather the result of such political development.
In addition to democracy, other factors have contributed to the shaping of European civil society, including, among others: the idea of "civicness", mass literacy and the spread of the mass media, the idea of nationhood, economic freedom, equality for women, and the importance of voluntary organisations (Jorgensen, 1996: 14-15).
The organisations of civil society have different origins, of which the following four are the most important.
1. The first significant origin of CSOs in all countries is the Church, including both the Protestant and the Catholic churches. From its beginnings, the church has had an internationalist vocation, expressed principally through its missionary activity. In some European countries (especially Ireland and the countries of Southern Europe), the large majority of organisations active in international development assistance are either linked to, or maintain ties with, formal ecclesiastical institutions (which, at times, are also lay). In such cases, social activity is closely linked to religion and manifests itself, among other ways, as "Christian charity", even if the major tendency is separate religious work from development assistance. Many of these organisations are grouped into international networks and in some cases, like Cáritas, European federations play a very important role. In recent years, there have also emerged social institutions in Western Europe linked to other religions, some of which have international activities.
2. A second group of organisations grew out of the European process of industrialisation, and are related to trade unions and leftist political parties, particularly socialdemocratic parties. Such organisations, important in the Scandanavian countries and in Germany, would soon show a clear internationalist vocation. In particular, the German political foundations have been very active internationally since the 1960s. A less extensive but more recent phenomenon has been the appearance of a number of organisations linked to conservative movements and political parties which could also be grouped into this category.
3. As a part of the social secularisation process, there emerged a third type of organisation, with a middle class social base, connected to the humanist movement. These organisations have a large number of followers in certain parts of Europe (one example included in this text is HIVOS, a Dutch organisation) and treat the issue of solidarity from an "exclusively ethical perspective" (Funes, 1995: 173). As opposed to the groups which have emerged from the church or from the left, these organisations consider themselves lay and do not directly support any political ideology. Their structure is very un-hierarchical (compared to church-inspired organisations) and their relations with other organisations are very fluid. Possible historical precursors of such organisations include the benefit and philanthropic societies that appeared in the United Kingdom during the 19th century.
4. A fourth group of organisations of diverse origins but growing significance is that formed by the so-called "professional" associations. They come out of various realms, including the university, professional collectives (doctors, architects, engineers, etc.), or the private (or "third") sector (i.e. foundations). Their motivations combine a certain ethical sense with a professional enthusiasm for their work, while ideology recedes to a secondary plane. An example of such a professional organisation is Médicos Sin Fronteras (Doctors Without Borders), the inspiration for a large number of other "Without Border" entities.
Currently it is possible to identify these (and other) origins interlacing among all of the CSOs of the old continent. What binds them all, in the end, is their firm solidarity and their commitment to development co-operation.
The next question to answer is: In what form do these organisations manifest themselves? A brief response would point out that organisations active in international development assistance appear in all imaginable forms, including neighborhood associations, special departments of trade unions, university centres, professional colleges, chambers of commerce, political foundations, grassroots organisations and non-governmental organisations, to name but a few.
If one were to place CSOs along a continuum according to their level of activities, the grassroots organisations and neighborhood associations would be found at one extreme. These organisations, organised in an informal manner, concentrate on local issues and interact principally with actors from the same community. At the other extreme would be the NGO coalitions, together with the political foundations, both of which are characterised by their nationwide extension and their national headquarters almost always located in the capital. They have a formal structure, and their activities take place at the national and international level. Both extremes will be found in any country, along with a mass of organisations situated in various intermediate positions on this continuum (Jorgensen, 1996: 47).
However, once we focus upon development cooperation--and exclude all other CSOs with equally important objectives, be they cultural, academic, or of any other nature--the universe of CSOs becomes rather limited. In fact, the so-called non-governmental organisations (NGOs) stand out clearly among these relevant CSOs. These groups, which define themselves by their very non-governmental nature, have experienced significant growth in recent years. Indeed, a multitude of organisations have adopted the NGO label precisely because of the international recognition and prestige now bestowed on NGOs. The definition of NGOs has expanded to such an extent that many observers have come to identify them as the only form of civil society working in the field of development co-operation--a claim which does not strictly correspond to reality.
Indeed, this study did encounter a number of problems in identifying CSOs active in development co-operation with Latin America which were not NGOs. One possible explanation is that once development assistance becomes one of the principal objectives of a CSO, it seems natural to consider it as part of the open world of development NGOs (DNGO: a term used to distinguish such organisations from NGOs with solely domestic activities). In reality, the term NGO obscures the internal richness of such organisations, including their distinct origins, philosophies, work systems, membership behaviors, methods of finance, etc. The fact that many NGOs are created by grassroots collectives or solidarity groups as another mechanism to achieve their solidarity objectives, only further reflects the richness and complexities of civil society as a whole.
The authors wish to be clear, however, that the CSOs actively involved in development co-operation are not limited only to DNGOs, despite the fact that the DNGOs do dominate the field both in terms of their numbers and in terms of their influence upon debates and policy.
The Relationship of Civil Society with the State
Another way in which European civil societies differ is to be found in the nature of their relationship with the state in the field of development cooperation. In the Netherlands, for example, the institutions of civil society are more autonomous with respect to the state than in other countries. In Germany, on the other hand, this relationship has changed over time. Until the 1980s, there was a clear, palpable distance separating civil society from the state, with civil society maintaining a parallel development policy, especially in the case of the foundations. Slowly, however, the situation evolved in such a way that opposing positions were depoliticised and increasingly brought together in a mutual collaboration between the German state and civil society. At opposite pole is Austria, a country in which the state and a large part of civil society maintain a mutually dependent, neocorporativist relationship. Mechanisms for dialogue between NGOs and the state on development policy have been established and currently NGOs play more of a protagonistic role in the field of development assistance. A similar phenomenon has been observed in other countries, like Spain, where the role of civil society in development assistance has expanded considerably.
In general, the foreign ministries and aid agencies of each country are still the primary agents articulating aid policy, although civil society has an increasingly relevant role in the design of such policies. In some cases, like in Sweden, Finland and Ireland, civil society operates in harmony with such state activities. In other cases, however, like in the United Kingdom and Greece, relations between state and civil society are more tense and difficult. The case of the United Kingdom is even more complex due to the fact that the largest NGOs have the capacity to dialogue directly with the government, something which the smaller NGOs lack. This difference has created something of a rift in the UK NGO network.
France is a peculiar case: coordination between NGOs and official state aid agencies is carried out through the Development Assistance Commision (CCD) and the NGO Liaison Mission.
The Development Assistance of Civil Societies in the EU
The European Context. What distinguishes the development co-operation of the CSOs of the EU from those of other countries like the United States, Canada or Japan? With respect to the practice of development assistance, there are no real significant differences. This is due, fundamentally, to the noticeable convergence of organisational forms, management and finance systems, and types of activities which has taken place in recent years among CSOs around the world.
The most relevant difference lies in the context in which the CSOs of the EU operate. Two elements are worth mentioning in this regard. First, while in other countries CSOs operate on two levels--national and multinational (i.e. the UN, the World Bank)--European CSOs also operate on a third plane of relationships: through the institutions of the European Union. The CSOs of the EU operate on the community (EU) level both to seek financing and to exercise influence upon EU policies and programmes. This arena also allows European CSOs to establish contacts with other member state CSOs, both within formal organisations (i.e. the EU Development NGOs Liaison Committee, EUROSTEP, Cáritas Europe) and through particular collaborative efforts and consortia. In addition, many CSOs establish relationships with the European Commission and Parliament, complementing their links with national and multinational entities.
In this way, such organisations form part of an embrionic European civil society that also incorporates the efforts of other organisations in fields concerned with youth and environmental issues. For the CSOs of new member countries, or countries with less well-developed civil societies (for example, Greece), such networks are very useful to CSOs in their attempt to adapt to the "community system".
Nevertheless, due to the peculiarities of each country, the civil societies of the EU remain quite heterogeneous. Germany, for instance, is a good example of a broad, well-developed, diversified and complex civil society, with three large types of organisations: churches, political foundations (very influential in German civil society), and other entities, including solidarity and charity groups. All these organisations have a strong presence and actively participate in German foreign policy.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is Belgium. Belgian civil society is characterised by its fragmentation, marked heterogeneity, weak internal organisation and dearth of links to political power. Ever since the federalisation of the Belgian state, the northern part of the country has been dominated by the conservative Christian current while the south has been under socialist influence. The major organising principals of Belgian civil society have been linguistic, political, territorial, cultural or economic, with many such influences often meshing together.
The second important characteristic of the CSO environment in the EU is the relative importance of local and regional administrations. In recent years, European citizens have been witnesses to a process of decentralisation, often times linked to movements defending or promoting local and regional languages and cultures. This decentralising process has even reached the United Kingdom, despite the fact that local power has been considerably weakened by the actions of successive conservative governments.
To further explore this topic, and to complement the present study, publication of a working paper on Catalonia, the autonomous community in Spain, has also been planned. This region, like the Basque Country and Navarre, is considered one of Spain's historic communities and has taken on more autonomous powers than other regions. Above all, however, Catalonia is home to a very dynamic civil society, with many organisations active in international development, like Intermon, one of the largest Spanish NGOs.
In this new European context, these decentralised actors are demanding greater powers and increasingly demonstrating an interest in international development co-operation. Individual citizens and CSOs are fomenting this spirit, which has contributed to a growing number of local grassroots organisations, including many which are not DNGOs active in international development. The "localism" of some civil society organisations working with developing countries is yet another characteristic of the broad universe of existing organisations.
This observation leads directly to the concept of "decentralised aid", currently very much in fashion. In a broad sense, this term refers to development assistance undertaken by agents which do not form part of a country's central government. NG0s, universities, business networks and decentralised administrations are some examples of decentralised actors. Decentralised co-operation appears to be the most dynamic in Southern Europe, particularly in Italy.
The European Union and many national governments avidly foment and support decentralised aid. A number of reasons justified such a policy. First, there is the belief that this type of aid involves the participation of the people to a greater extent, and therefore, makes aid policy more legitimate in the eyes of public opinion. Secondly, there is a clear intention in this phenomenon to seek a broader plurality. And thirdly, decentralised aid forms part of the efforts to support democracy in developing countries, since such development assistance often implies cooperating with organisational counterparts in developing countries with the aim to strengthen their institutional capacities. Along these lines, the European Commission has launched the AFLA programme to promote the formation of thematic networks among universities in various countries of the EU and Latin America. Some European governments have similar programmes. For example, Spanish development co-operation supports the creation of networks among Spanish and Iberoamerican foundations dedicated to co-operation between universities and businesses.
Profile and Historical Background. Defining the relative dimensions of civil society in each European country is problematic, but it is clear that the differences are notable between societies. In the Netherlands, the Scandanavian countries and the United Kingdom, civil society has a long and continuous tradition, making them the strongest and most consolidated civil societies in Europe. These societies are very organized and can exercise considerable influence in the public sphere. At the same time, while they maintain a relationship of mutual confidence with the state, permitting them to reach broad consensus on different issues, these relations are not completely free of tensions.
Neverthless, even in other countries where there has also been a tradition of cooperation between civil society and the state, CSOs have often endured long periods of weakness as a result of the persistence, up to recent times, of authoritarian regimes--as in Spain, Greece and Portugal--or due to other historical factors, as in the case of Ireland, for example, a country that has suffered constant population decline over the last century. Such countries are home to civil societies currently in the process of consolidation but still with a limited capacity to operate in the public sphere.
In some intermediate position, one finds other European countries with civil societies that are consolidated but moving along different trajectories. In Germany, for example, civil society has reemerged and transformed itself during the postwar period, a process which has been strongly supported by the state. In France, civil society emerged within the context of a strongly centralist state. In Italy, the unequal development of the country shaped a dynamic civil society in the north while creating another weak civil society in the south which, by the 1990s, was confronted with a grave political crisis.
On factor to consider is the varying weight, or influence, of the distinct social sectors in Western European countries. In Denmark, for example, the strongest organisations developed out of the Protestant church or the socialdemocratic movement. Organisations of union origin are very important in Swedish civil society. In Spain, organisations of religious origin, especially in certain autonomous communities, like Navarre and the Basque Country, are predominant for the moment, although since the 1980s new associations and foundations have been created on political and ideological foundations. With regard to Italy, the organised "parcelisation" characteristic of its political system during the 1980s demanded the necessary affiliation of many CSOs within the orbit of a particular political party or ecclesiastical sector.
Another important aspect of the evolution of European civil societies is the nature and range of international relations established by each country. The required economic "openness" to the outside world on the part of countries like the Netherlands and Belgium has stimulated their societies to build a dense network of relationships with other countries inside and outside of Europe. The British Empire left as a legacy, in a similar way, a transnational network of relationships that reach even into regions that were never British Colonies, as in the case of Latin America (the former British colonies of Belize and Guyana are exceptions, of course, but then they are also typically categorised as part of the Caribbean region). In a similar manner, the stimulus provided during the last two centuries by the French state in the spreading of French culture has helped to create close contacts with many parts of the world which are maintained to the present day.
Although Latin America is not the central focus of any European country other than Spain, all EU countries have maintained interests in the region. Nevertheless, the U.S. dominance in Latin America this century has led European countries in general to maintain a discrete profile in the area.
Beginning in the 1960s, but particularly in the 1970s, a sector of the European population agitated governments to design a new policy for Latin America, one that would be more independent of U.S. direction. The motivating factors behind this change were various. First, there was a growing level of awareness in Europe about the region. Secondly, many new experiences were related to Europeans by others who had visited the region, and many new contacts established with the growing number of Latin American students in Europe and others seeking political asylum there. Thirdly, the social changes taking place in Europe would produce a heightened awareness of the problems facing other parts of the world, particularly those associated with the violation of human rights and increasing economic inequality. Indeed, the dependency theories disseminated by Latin American intellectuals and scholars during this period had a significant impact in many Western European countries.
All of these factors contributed to a certain relaunching of the European presence in Latin America, particularly as the Central American crisis of the 1980s developed, and as democracy was reestablished in the Southern Cone during the same decade. The consolidation of the European Community and its greater protagonism on the international arena also helped to strengthen this presence.
Since then, distinct European CSOs, in many cases inspired or even created by members and employees of Latin American origin (CIPIE in Spain, for example, was founded by Chilean exiles), have worked to bring Latin American issues to the attention of European leaders. These organisations undertake a great many development assistance activities and at times have acted as indirect agents in the formulation of certain European countries' foreign policies toward the region (i.e. the "parallel diplomacy" of of the German political foundations).
Interests and Motivations. As previously pointed out, the interest of CSOs in Latin America emerged with force at the end of the 1970s as a result of the installation of authoritarian regimes in the region and a growing preoccupation with the violation of human rights. German and Swedish civil societies, in particular, were mobilised in the wake of the Cuban revolution and the overthrow of the Salvador Allende government in Chile. Nevertheless, the conflicts in Central America during the 1980s, with Nicaragua acting as the epicentre, would prove to be the triggering events attracting most intensely the attention of European civil societies to Latin America.
In general, the greater the participation of civil society in the institutions of the state, the stronger will be its presence, motivation and experience in the world of development assistance. Thus, while the Swedish solidarity movements have supported developing countries for decades--ever since the days of Olof Palme--in other countries like Portugal only a minimal segment of civil society is acutely aware of development co-operation issues.
International solidarity, political and ideological positions, defense of human rights, the democratisation of society, and the search for an alternative path of sustainable development are among the principal motives for a country to take part in development co-operation. Nevertheless, other factors--like a common cultural past, common language, family and other affective ties, a similarity of problems and situations, the influence of the mass media, and rising levels of awareness of the challenges facing other parts of the world--also exert a strong influence on such policies.
II. The General Evolution of European Civil Society Development Co-operation with Latin America
The aim of this book is to analyse the activities and trajectories of those CSOs dedicated principally to supporting the socioeconomic, political and cultural development processes in developing countries, particularly in Latin America.
Viewed from this perspective, development cooperation is oriented toward three principal objectives:
The European organisations at the heart of this study share these objectives and a similar working methodology. Still, each CSO places priority on that aspect which it considers the most important. Only the largest CSOs--Oxfam in the United Kingdom, Misereor in Germany and Manos Unidas in Spain, to name a few--can afford to dedicate sufficient and continual resources to all three of the above objectives.
Two time periods can be distinguished in the evolution of European civil society development co-operation. During the first phase, religious organisations played an important role. Their activities were mainly humanitarian in nature, like aid--donations of food, clothing and other materials of primary necessity--to victims of natural disasters, or civil or international conflicts. During the 1980s, when there were many dictatorial regimes in Latin America, the work of European CSOs concentrated on supporting Central American refugees, and NGOS and other grassroots groups maintaining a weak democratic opposition. In fact, during this period, some countries like the Netherlands and Sweden provided assistance only through non-governmental channels. Such aid would be crucial in those countries which, like Chile, lived under authoritarian regimes. At the same time, another form of co-operation, including scholarships and subsidies, was aimed at Latin American exiles living in Europe, permitting them to adapt to the European environment and maintain decent standards of living. During this period, development assistance for Latin America had a highly paternalistic character, with very little participation on the part of the beneficiaries in the design and execution of aid projects and activities.
As the world context--and with it the Latin American scene--has changed, so too has European civil society development co-operation been transformed. The relative weight of humanitarian assistance has declined considerably and remains relevant only in some countries like Cuba or Haiti, or in cases of natural disasters. The focus of aid has changed and the range of organisations involved has widened. In this second phase, European CSOs have pursued great effectiveness in their activities, and have worked for achieving lasting and sustainable development. One of the major challenges of this new development co-operation is to facilitate the participation of the Latin American counterparts and "empower" them with a sense of control over their own development processes.
It is only recently that donor governments have begun to "discover" the NGOs. It is widely believed that aid projects managed by these organisations reach their beneficiaries more effectively--at least this is the public perception and the source of legitimacy of the NGOs--given the inherent limitations of bilateral governmental aid programmes. The volume of resources allocated to finance NGOs has grown considerably, explaining in part the spectacular growth of such organisations in recent years (Smilie and Helmich, 1993). This new attitude toward NGOs has special significance for Latin America. One of the top priorities of European donors is to help strengthen Latin American civil societies. The co-financing of European CSOs development activities is becoming one of the principal avenues for achieving progress in this area.
III. The Practice of Civil Society Development Co-operation with Latin America
The previous sections have analysed the concept of civil society, along with its relationship to development co-operation and the various related institutional settings. This section provides a panorama of current European civil society development co-operation relations with Latin America through an analysis of their most important features: geographic and sectoral priorities; modes of assistance (programmes, projects, and counterparts) and the characteristics of the principal agents, the NGOs (types, sources of finance, regional presence, etc.) A table providing a synopsis the major contents of this section is also included.
General Characteristics
Before preceding with an analysis of civil society development co-operation, a brief description of the official development aid of European countries to Latin America would be helpful, since this constitutes one of the major frameworks in which European NGOs operate.
Although Latin America is not a priority in the development aid programmes of the EU (representing less than 10% of its total ODA), EU member states administered 43% of the official aid received by the region in 1995 (against the 17% coming from the United States). If the quantities given by EU institutions are added to this share, the EU total contribution reaches nearly 53% of all aid to Latin America--more than $2.2 thousand million in 1995 (an increase of 15% over 1994). The ODA of the EU is predicted to stay at more or less constant absolute levels in the coming years, although it may decline somewhat in relative terms due to a growing U.S. aid effort. Nevertheless, European aid to Latin America is still very fragmented and far from perceived as an integrated whole, with 16 distinct aid programmes (15 member states, plus the Commission) which are rarely coordinated.
With respect to other tendencies, a growing concentration of EU aid resources can be detected in a small number of Latin American countries. Bolivia and Nicaragua, for example, receive 25% of Europe's bilateral aid to the region. There is a strong convergence among EU donors toward aid focused on economic reform, democracy, governmental effectiveness, social equity and poverty, although in each case the emphasis is different.
The intensity of relations with the region also varies. For Spain and Italy, Latin America is the preferred area of activity, while France and the United Kingdom direct their attention toward other regions (above all, Africa and Asia). For Germany, the region has a growing political and geostrategic importance ever since the end of the cold war. In other countries, like Sweden and even Italy, a lack of public resources has caused the presence of civil society in the region to decline. In the case of Sweden, NGOs channelled some 250 million kronas (about 25 million ecus) into development assistance activities in Latin America in 1995. In Italy, despite the lack of resources, interest in development assistance activities remains strong, and Latin America has benefited from the significant increase of development aid resources from regional and municipal governments in Italy.
Nevertheless, it is clear that European NGOs, for different reasons, dedicate an increasingly smaller share of their resources to Latin America. Funds provided by UK NGOs barely account for 10% of the total of UK aid, while Germany dedicates a large share of its development assistance to its neighbors in Eastern Europe. French CSOs have also reduced their budgets destined for Latin America. Still, the "Latin American Group" and "Latin American Space" initiatives, created with the aim of becoming platforms of common ground between NGOs and the French state, could help to revive this flagging interest. Dutch NGOs, on the other hand, foresee maintaining their level of aid resources earmarked for Latin America.
In any case, the CSOs of EU countries show more interest in Latin America than their governments, particularly when one keeps in mind the relative weight of the resources which the two actors dedicate to the region. The only exception is Spain, where Latin America is a priority for both the central government and the various organisations of Spanish civil society.
NGO Development Assistance to Latin America
Type of organisations. Social fragmentation is a characteristic which many European countries have in common, and it is clearly present in the world of NGOs. Two examples typical of this situation are Belgium and France. In the former there are nearly 300 NGOs, the majority of which are located in the Flemish zone, divided by political ideologies and the communities in which they operate. Many of these organisations are of religious origin--dedicated to either charity or missionary work--and maintain tight relations with the Catholic church. Their activities have evolved from an emphasis on providing technical assistance and volunteers to a concern with the problems of human rights, emergency relief aid, and the processes of democratisation. In France, the activity of civil society is concentrated in a small number of NGOs. Some 80% of all resources are handled by only 6% of the organisations, which are large and linked together via networks. Aside from their other activities, French NGOs undertake technical assistance projects and act as financial partners on aid projects.
The fundamental difference between Austrian NGOs and their European counterparts lies in their extreme lack of resources, with the exception of those organisations linked to the church. There is also a complete separation between those NGOs operating inside the country and those working abroad. Nevertheless, there are no significant differences between those projects undertaken for official development agencies and those carried out independently.
One peculiarity of such organisations in the UK, especially among the larger ones, is their propensity to form consortia with NGOs from both the UK and other countries. Another current trend is for organisations which were original British to transform themselves into multinational organisations, as is the case of OXFAM, Save the Children, and Amnesty International. Another peculiar characteristic of British civil society is the strong interest shown in recent years for the diffusion of information on the large themes of development assistance among the population at large. This concern has grown to such an extent that development education and sensitising of public opinion to the issue of solidarity have even become the major objectives of certain NGOS. The situation is different in Germany, where the institutions of civil society do not generally operate within consortia, and where there is no particular interest currently in activities dedicated to raising citizen awareness to the levels once reached in the 1960s and 1970s.
Sources of Finance. In most European countries, the state contributes a significant percentage of NGO finances, particularly through public calls for proposals. NGOs are also financed by EU funds and private contributions, as is the case with individual donations, annual funding campaigns and sponsorship programmes. The International Plan (Foster Parents Plan) in the Netherlands or the international network of Action Aid are good examples of the latter strategy. It is not easy to completely comprehend how NGOs are financed, due to the very little information that they generally provide. Neither does the annual variability of public funds and their destination help to clarify the issue.
In Germany, the churches and foundations are the institutions that absorb most of the public funds, basically from the Ministry of Economic Cooperation. The institutions of civil society, particularly the smaller ones, have great difficulties is accessing public funds. All together they receive no more than 6% of the public development assistance budget.
Around 60% of the funds handled by Spanish NGOs come from the public budget. Such considerable dependence on the state threatens to increase with the rise of decentralised aid, most of which is also channelled through NGOs, and the increase as of 1995 of contributions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In that year it was estimated that Spanish NGOs managed around 15 million ecus earmarked for development assistance activities in Latin America. A similar situation has developed in Austria, where NGOs are highly dependent on public financing. Despite this financial dependence, however, Austrian NGOs executed 60% of the contry's bilateral technical development assistance projects. With respect to the destination of these funds, a significant quantity is directed to development projects in Latin America. For both Spanish and Austrian NGOs, the annual state budget approval process complicates the planning and management of multi-year projects. In the Netherlands, the four largest NGOs depend on the Dutch government for financing. Their collective budgets can reach as high as 350 million ecus, with approximately 40% destined for the Latin American region.
Danish NGOs, dependent in large part on state subsidies and European Commission resources, find themselves in the same position. These organisations demonstrate more interest in Latin America than their government. Nevertheless, there is no single criterion guiding the utilisation of their resources. Some direct nearly 50% of their funds to Latin America while others dedicated hardly anything to the region. Their counterparts tend to be local NGOs of similar ideology. The NGOs of Luxembourg are also closely linked to the state through the system of public financing. In recent years the co-financing of projects has significantly increased and, since 1995, the law has favoured the concession of public subsidies to NGO projects. In that same year, the number of NGO projects increased 28% with respect to the previous year. The government of Luxembourg may co-finance up to 75% of a project, a capacity which tends to stimulate coordination among NGOs. With respect to Swedish NGOs, they also depend on public finance for 80% of their spending. Indeed, the principal mechanism for channelling most of Sweden's development assistance is through state co-financing of NGO activities. It does appear, however, that this dependence has diminished in recent years.
In Finland most development assistance is channelled through co-financing of the activities of the large NGOs. According to the available data, in 1995 Finnish NGOs had budgeted around 25 million Finnish marks for development assistance activities in Latin America.
In the same year, the resources handled by Greek NGOs reached 1,937 million dracmas, of which 117 million were destined for Latin America. Greek NGOs depend mainly on the resources of the European Union and only tap into Greek public funds in a minor way. This is typical of those countries that do not have a consolidated system of development assistance. A similar case is that of Portugal. Portuguese NGOs are financed through a number different systems (annual consciousness raising campaigns, fundraising, private donations, organisation of annual symposia), but the majority apply for funds from international organisations.
Even in France one notes a decline in recent years of independent financing of NGOs and an increase of public subsidies from international organisations, particularly from the EU. Italy is also in this situation, to a certain extent, even if the dependence of its NGOs on national public funds has diminished (in the recent past, government subsidies had reached 90% of the costs of NGO projects). Italian NGOs have increased their contacts with the EU and the UN, however, and funds from decentralised aid have been increasing. In the United Kingdom, NGOs are relatively independent of the state, despite the fact that the largest organisations have received block grants in recent years or financing for joint projects.. In 1994/95, more than 185 million pounds sterling of public funds was earmarked for British NGOs.
Finally, Latin America has not been an important region for Belgian aid. In 1993, only 19.1% of all Belgian public co-financing went to Latin America. Nevertheless, the continent is of more interest to the NGOs which contribute their own independent funds to finance projects in Latin America. The aid given by the Belgian AGCD can not exceed 25 million Belgain francs or a maximum project period of 5 years, and can never exceed 75% of the total cost of an approved programme or project. In addition to this aid, NGOs benefit from the financial contributions approved by districts and provinces for undertaking development assistance activities.
European Commission Co-financing for Latin American Projects. The various lines of EU financing for NGO projects are one of the principal sources of income for these organisations. From an observation of total co-financing figures for the years 1992/95 (see the corresponding tables in the Appendix) a number of conclusions can be drawn:
1) The five major beneficiaries of EU aid were: Brazil (46 million ecus), Peru (25 million), Bolivia (20 million), Chile (15 million), and Ecuador (10 million). On the other hand, the five largest recipients of project aid carried out by consortia were: Brazil (9 million ecus), Peru (2 million), and Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti (all receiving more than 1 million ecus). In any case, in both contexts, Brazil and Peru occupy the top positions, with Brazil far ahead of all other countries. By regions, Mercosur received the highest percentage of aid (39.5%), followed by the Andean Pact countries (33%) and Central America (16.5%), a distant third.
2) With respect to the principal European receivers or EU aid, Italy was the country with the highest number of co-financed projects (1,012), followed by Germany (821), Belgium (556) and Spain (513). With regard to the total quantity of finance received, Italy (46 million ecus) occupies the top position, followed by Germany (39 million) and Spain (30 million), with the rest of the EU countries far behind. Brazil is the principal beneficiary of EU funds from Italy (13 million) and Germany (10 million), although Germany also directs significant funds to Peru and Nicaragua. Spain, on the other hand, dedicates almost 7 million ecus to Peru and 5 million to Bolivia.
Office Presence/Representation in Latin America. The establishment of permanent representive offices in Latin America is not habitual for European organisations. The preferred practice is to make short visits to the field. The German political foundations, the important of which maintain a network of local and even regional offices in this area, are the exception to the rule. Some organisations have set up a single office to cover all of Latin America, as in the case of some Austrian NGOs with their Regional Offices in Nicaragua. Other organisations, like the Finnish and Greek NGOs, have managed to maintain timely follow-up and tracking of activities by sending representive, collaborators or volunteers. Spanish NGOs find themselves in a similar situation: very few have any permanent representation, while one important organisation in particular, Intermon, maintain a network of representative that might be transformed, at some time in the future, into formal offices. The British NGOs have hardly any offices and, in fact, are diminishing their permanent physical presence as well as their long-term field personnel.
In Sweden, various NGOs act as intermedaries for other Swedish organisations, providing offices and representation in Latin America, and allowing a great number of Swedish organisation to send personnel into the field. Dutch organisations are beginning to set up offices in Latin America, typically in collaboration with other European NGOs. Given the strength of Italy's presence in the region, Italian NGOs have opened offices in many different Latin American countries and, in some case, even a national coordinating office for Italian DNGOs operating in a particular country. It is increasingly frequent for the central headquarters of such organisations to delegate more and more functions to such local offices, facilitating their professionalisation.
In any case, the number of representations will likely increase in the coming years. In addition, the increase in resources helps the process of professionalisation of aid personnel. Currently, the tendency is to send technical support personnel into the field on short-term assignments, particularly in the health sector.
Geographic, Thematic and Sectoral Concentration
Countries and Sub-regions. Most CSOs from EU countries tend to concentrate their activities in certain geographic zones. In some cases, such concentrations change over time, but in others, like the UK and Italy, activities have been and remain quite diversified geographically.
German organisations concentrate 30% of their development assistance activities in Latin America. While the political foundations tend to cover the entire continent--given certain priority to the larger countries--the churches and solidarity gruops work more in Central America and the Andean countries. Priorities in the selection of countries have changed with the political situation. During the 1960s and 1970s, Peru and Chile were the principal beneficiaries of aid, but during the 1980s and 1990s, Bolivia, Guatemala and Colombia and become the leading recipients.
Those European countries with fewer resources, or those for whom Latin America is not a preferred region for development assistance, often undertake activities in particular countries. For example, Luxembourg has projects in El Salvador and Brazil. Greece paid special attention to Ecuador in 1995 and 1996. France concentrates its project activity above all in Mexico and Brazil. Likewise, the Portuguese NGO, OIKOS, has projects in Honduras, Chile and Uruguay.
One particular case is Nicaragua which for years has been a priority zone for the development assistance aid of many northern European countries (Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands and Finland). The reasons behind this interest and support are ideological and political. The triump of the Sandinista revolution over the Somoza dictatorship represented for some progressive sectors of European civil society a certain victory for their own ideas.
Italian development assistance is one of the most diversified. The institutions of this country have established their presence in the Southern Cone with the objective of strengthening the strategies and organisational systems of their local counterparts within the context of the Mercosur. In addition, Italian NGOs are also interested in the Caribbean countries, and especially in Nicaragua. In the UK, the size of particular organisations conditions their presence in the region. Some large British NGOs like SCF-UK, OXFAM, Christian Aid and CAFOD operate in almost all Latin American countries. Others of smaller size, like CIIR or HELPAGE, are present in three or four countries while other like CODA have a presence only in Nicaragua. Spain also maintains a presence across the entire Latin American region: 45% of its non-governmental aid is channelled to the Andean region, especially Peru; 30% goes to Central America; 15% is directed to the countries of the Southern Cone; and 10% goes to the Caribbean.
With respect to Belgian aid, the versatile nature of the country's NGOs--particularly the ones from the Flemish zone--facilitates a presence in a large number of Latin American countries. Chile Brazil, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador receive more than 50% of the NGO projects co-financed by the Belgian public sector.
Principal Themes and Sectors
Poverty, institution building, democratisation and support for micro-businesses are the major sectors or areas or concern for the organisations of certain European countries like Austria, Spain and Germany. In the case of Germany, church and solidarity groups both demonstrate the above priorities, although this is not true of the political foundations which, oriented more toward the middles and upper classes of the population, have other primary concerns. In addition to these themes, health, environment and education are also priorities for many European donors, like Greece, Portugal, Italy, Denmark and Finland.
Nevertheless, some countries prefer to work in specific areas or sectors. For example, Ireland is concerned above all with the defence of indigenous cultures and the resolution of military conflicts. Portuguese organisations engage in technical assistance and provide machinery and equipment. Luxembourg works primarily on women-related issues and business promotion. Greek NGOs are dedicated to the promotion of preventive medicine and integrated rural development projects. The Netherlands collaborates on projects related to the informal urban sector, while Belgian NGOs are particularly involved in infancy issues and with indigenous populations.
Modes of Cooperation and Aid
Programmes and Projects. The entirety of European civil society cooperation is undertaken through the execution of development programmes and projects of varying durations.
In Germany, the average duration of development projects is more than five years, although they can vary from a few months up to ten years. Management, in the case of German church group projects, is delegated to local counterparts and coordinated with the offices in Germany. The projects of of solidarity groups are managed mainly by the central offices in Germany while expatriat technical experts directly managed the projects of the political foundations in close contact with the home offices.
In Spain, projects tend to have an average duration of just over a year. In general, these projects are modest, with a finite duration and linked to other activities. More than 50% of Spanish NGO projects are oriented to Latin America, and it is not uncommon for Latin America to be the sole focus of Spanish NGOs. With respect to their management, several characteristics are worth underlining. First, very few development NGOs conceive of their projects within the context of programmes, with the exception of some foundations that have launched a number of diverse of scholarship programmes, but which are designed unilaterally. Secondly, there is no tradition among Spanish NGOs to work in consortia or to propose projects together with other organisations. Only 10% of the projects presented for funding between 1989 and 1994 were proposed by two or more NGOs. Finally, consciousness-raising activities aimed at the general public are increasingly important, and are nearly always linked to activities in Latin America.
Italian DNGOs cooperate above all through projects and almost all attempt to guarantee the continuity of their presence in the region. Nevertheless, there has been frequent criticism of the policy emphasis on projects, while the dominant vision currently is one of transforming specific actions into integrated projects within the framework of local development programmes, in line with the decentralised focus of German cooperation.
The French regional administrations must have the previous approval of the national government to undertake specific activities. Such decentralised administrations tend to favour co-financing and involvement with a number of communities. The local counterparts of French organisations are usually professional organisations, chambers of commerce, businesses, hospitals, schools, etc. The cooperation of Swedish NGOs is usually undertaken through long term projects, although these usually depend on civil society.
In the United Kingdom, the fundamental principal guiding cooperation between British civil society and Latin America is that oif "co-development", that is, mutual benefit. The objective is to develop cooperation programmes based on the concept of association through the creation of networks of citizens of different nationalities with common ideals, breaking with the traditional North-South cooperation schemes. Nevertheless, the typical programmes of civil society institutions continue to be the independent project of limited duration which in practice can be autimatically renewed. These projects are quite diverse although they deal with broad generic issues.
Both Finnish and Irish NGOs typically undertake independent projects and medium-term programmes, while Austrian assistance only takes the form of individual projects. Greek NGOs have little experience or capacity to organise complex programmes, and therefore usually undertake projects of short duration (three years or less) which generally are managed by their Latin American counterparts. Many Portuguese organisations have similar problems, with scant activity in the region and projects of generally little significance. The increase in funds and the creation of a Cooperation Framework Programme may allow for an improvement in the relations between the Portuguese Institute for Cooperation and the institutions of Portuguese civil society.
The large Belgian NGOs channel a significant portion of their resources to cooperation with Latin America (i.e. Oxfam and Dmos-Comide spend 45% of their resources on the region, while Broederlijk Delen, another NGO, allocates 40% of its resources to Latin America).
Latin American Counterparts. The projects of German churches and Danish NGOs are those that most support the system of local counterparts in the region. Generally these are intermediary NGOs and grassroots organisations. Austrian NGOs also choose these types of organisations as their local counterparts, since they do not typically work with public entities. The counterparts of the German political foundations, on the other hand, tend to be trade unions, cooperatives, chambers of commerce, political institutions and training and research centres. Dutch NGOs also support and train their local counterparts. Many of these are municipalities that make their own contributions to development projects. In many cases, such Latin American counterparts are also local NGOs of the same religious or ideological affiliation, although this characteristic is increasingly less relevant compared to the importance given to the technical capacities of the NGO in question. The most important projects of the Dutch NGOs in recent years are those which support local credit systems and fair trade organisations.
In Spain nearly all projects are managed directly by Latin American counterparts. These tend to be NGOs, both intermediaries and grassroots organisations, as few Spanish NGOs work with public entities or business firms in Latin America. Mutual confidence and previous knowledge of an organisation are the criteria generally used when selecting a local counterpart. Many NGOs work almost exclusively with local homologous organisations, as in the case of Cáritas and its international network in the region. Some of the larger, more experienced Spanish DNGOs have tried to develop partnership relationships with their local counterparts, but without yet having defined completely their strategy. This interest in promoting a relationship of true association is also shared by certain actors within the decentralised framework of Italian development assistance. Italian local counterparts tend to be similar entities, chosen for the affinities of interests with their homologous Italian organisations. In Sweden, the counterparts tend to be local or international NGOs and, on occasion, public entities themselves. UK NGOs normally with with local organisations.
The counterparts of Greek NGOs are, on the one hand, local DNGOs integrated with international networks and, on the other, certain local social groups (trade unions, human rights and women's associations). The local counterparts of Portuguese NGOs are basically organisations linked to the Church which have inspired the confidence of Portuguese organisations.
IV. Conclusions and Reflections
It is clearly no easy task to draw conclusions for the information presented in these 15 national studies and their accompanying documents. In this section some conclusions are made, however, based on the information summarised in the previous sections, along with the more general reflections.
In this first part, we outline some conclusions concerning European civil society cooperation with Latin America. The first feature to highlight is the wide variety of organisations active in development assistance, as well as the different types, level and forms of cooperation. Indeed, despite the fact that European CSOs share a common space--the EU link--and hold a range of interests and concerns in common, it is possible to distinguish clear national subnational peculiarities. To cite just a few examples of this diversity, the tri-pilar structure, now in crisis, characterises Dutch civil society, while the special function of the German political foundations is unique in the European--and even the international--context. The existance in the UK of a series of "multinational" NGOs (like Oxfam) working in many different fields is also a unique feature of British development cooperation.
The growing importance of the EU as a source of financing and as a decision-making centre for a number of issues relevant to North-South relations has contributed to further convergence--or "Europeanisation" of CSOs. Nevertheless, this is a slow process. The relative weaknesses manifested by the majority of European CSO networks do not help to infuse this process with more dynamism.
Latin America is a priority region for relative few European CSOs. Nevertheless, many organisations consider it to be a zone of secondary importance. There are a number of reasons for this. First there was the interest in the region demonstrated in previous decades. During the 1960s and 1970s, and even during the "lost decade" of the 1980s, Latin America transmitted a considerable sensation of political and social dynamism which captured the attention of many European CSOs. In the 1990s, however, it is perceived as a more or less democratic region, firmly on the path to economic development. Even where clear problems still persist, the region is considered to be relatively well-equipped to confront them.
A second reason lies in the extreme situations in which other regions of the world find themselves: Africa and certain parts of Asia suffer from a much more acute poverty than does Latin america and therefore demand a greater claim on resources. Thirdly, the countries of the EU feel particularly responsible for the eocnomic and socio-political transitions of their neighbors in Eastern Europe. The growing quantities of resources destined for that region demonstrate a clear interest in supporting those processes, and therefore a number of CSOs of diverted their attention to this new zone of poverty.
That leaves, therefore, those European CSOs that are truly interested in the Latin American region and cooperate with the objective of establishing deeper relations over the long run. This study provides a reasonably broad sample of the associative fabric of the 15 EU member states, offering many reasons for optimism, even if it only shows a portion of this existing universe. In general, these organisations are highly committed to Latin America and are interested in expanding and deepening their relations. Still, as has been pointed out, only a small group of organisations--in particular, those inclined to create European and Latin American networks, whether of a general (i.e. Copenhague Initiative for Central America, the CIFCA, a lobbying network of a dozen European organisations) or more specific character (i.e. coalitions on Cuba, Chiapas, etc.)--are actually capable of achieving this goal.
The organisations most active in Latin America, on the one hand, are those linked to the church--not only the Catholic church, although these are the most numerous--and, on the other hand, those of the solidarity type with roots in the leftist groups supporting revolutionary movements during the past decades. There are other active CSOs in the region, however, with different origins and motivations.
There is no single action strategy, however. On the contrary, some organisations have a more paternalistic focus on aid, while others strive for "co-development". Many groups are found in some intermediary position. Only the large organisations of the EU seem to have a working focus based on multi-year programmes of an integrated character, instead of concrete, independent long-term projects. These large organisations are also the ones most motivated to help strengthen their Latin American counterparts in an institutional sense. Some smaller and medium-sized organisations also fall into this last category, but the majority of these lack a defined strategy. Instead they move from project to project, from counterpart to counterpart withou establishing permanent relations. On the other hand, this is often the work mode preferred by many Latin American NGOs.
Although the available information on the financial resources which European CSOs channel to Latin America is scarce, the data does suggest that in economic terms the effort being made is far from insignificant. This is evident in the fact that in only four years, from 1992 to 1995, the European Commission granted, through co-financing avenues, more than 200 million ecus subsidies to European NGOs for undertaking more than 4000 projects in the region.
There are signs, however, that this form of financing has reached its limits, partly because the Commission presents difficulties for the managing of such a magnitude of dispersed activities (4). The total budget for this line item has also grown only weakly in the msot recent years, and may even suffer some cuts in 1998. On the other hand, the number of NGOs soliciting funds has increased significantly, partly due to the entrance into the EU of three new member states in 1995. The Commission has the (political, if informal) obligation to distribute its resources in the broadest and most equitable form possible among the organisations of all the member states. This practice, however, does not appear to be most suitable for achieving the most effective results from work in developing countries. One peculiar feature of cooperation with Latin America is the fact that some governments allocate more resources to the region through co-financing of NGO projects than through their own bilateral assistance programmes. To a certain extent, co-financing makes up for the secondary importance that official development assistance confers on the region, although this is not necessarily an intended result.
In general terms, European civil cooperation centres on two subregions--Central America and the Andean region--and on single country--Brazil. Among the Central American countries, Nicaragua stands out. However, while it appears that the cooperation activities have reached a limit there as well, cooperation with Guatemala has noticeably increased. In the Andean zone, the two traditional destinations of European civil society development aid--Bolivia and Peru--maintain their significance, no doubt as a result of their poverty rates, still the highest in the region, and their marginalised indigenous populations.
Brazil's condition as the country of top priority for European civil cooperation is justified for a number of reasons: its large size and significant inequalities between regions; the existence of large pockets of poverty, and in particular the problem of the street children; its environmental problems, especially the issue of its tropical forests; the strong ties it maintains with Europe; and finally the insignificant priority this countries has for official European development assistance. In fact, Brazil is the primary beneficiary of the CSO cooperation from some European countries, like Italy and Portugal, far ahead of other Latin American countries.
Another country of growing interest for European CSOs is Cuba. The insignificant amount of official cooperation, the belief that only the non-governmental route is capable of inducing reform, and the ideological motivations of certain NGOs that perceive Cuba as the "last bastion of anti-imperialism" explain this increasing attention.
At the same time, there is a certain tendency to reduce the activities (although not the presence) of civil society cooperation in countries with the highest economic levels of development (Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela). In spite of this, some Latin American organisations from these countries are attempting to undertake cooperation activities in the countries of the South, that is to say, in the poorest countries of their region, and they have sought out partners from among European CSOs. Although these efforts for the moment remain anecdotal, this formula offers many possibilities for cooperation in the future and due attention should be paid to it.
With respect to issues of concern and sectors of activities, there are no universal priorities, with the exception of institution building. Although this has been a traditional sector in development cooperation, it has now been given a new emphasis on training and education, aspects which are automatically integrated into programmes and projects. Support for micro-firms through technical financial assistance is capturing more and more attention as well. Also, parallel to the process of administrative decentralisation which many Latin American countries are now experiencing, European CSOs are augmenting their support for local development through projects strengthening municipalities, training local organisations, undertaking education campaigns, etc.
In some particular countries and regions the priorities are clearer. In Central America, for example, one of the top priorities in the rehabilitation and reintegration of armed and military groups. In the Andean zone, the great challenge is the social integration of indigenous populations while at the same time maintaining their cultural identities. The "alternative development" projects promoting alternatives to the cultivation of coca also exist, but are much more controversial. In Cuba, cooperation is basically humanitarian assistance, due to the withdrawal of Soviet aid and the last of sufficient autonomous civil organisations.
With respect to their physical presence in Latin America, nearly all European NGOs operate via their Latin American counterparts. These are the organisations that initiate, in general, the processes which eventually materialise in concrete activity. EU financing tends to favour smaller counterparts while some Latin American organisations, particularly the larger ones, operate fairly autonomously. In any event, the European CSOs with many programmes in the region prefer to open local offices which the objective of improving their knowledge of the local and national realities and increasing the possibilities of achieving a real impact with their development assistance.
Nevertheless, only a few organisations have established permanent offices in the region. Other NGOs are more inclined to send volunteers, normally for limited periods and linked to specific projects. Still, the current tendency is to send fewer young volunteers without experience and to replace them with volunteer experts on shorter assignments. In this way, cooperation can avoid over-dependence on European personnel and lower unnecessary costs.
Like their European counterparts, the Latin American organisations tend to be of diverse types. There are nevertheless two basic types. The first group includes grassroots organisations, whose members belong to the community where they work. These organisations tend to be small and limit their activity to a defined local area. Some even lack a legal identity. The second group is formed of intermediary organisations, of larger size, with a regional or even national base, and with full legal recognition. Frequently, a grup of grassroots organisations will come together to form "umbrella" institutions which with time transform into intermediaries. These intermediary organisations establish the most consistent and permanent links with international organisations, for not only do they have access to more information and more highly trained personnel (often educated in Europe or the United States), but they also have closer contacts with Latin American governments, and are frequently subcontracted to manage particular social programmes.
Many European CSOs are establishing, along with the local counterparts, contacts with Latin American public administrations, both at the central and rural municipal levels. This is true, for example, of many European NGOs working in Bolivia. The "Popular participation" process currently underway there obliges such organisations to enter into direct dialogue with mayors, municipal councils, vigilance committees, and other local decision-making and consultative bodies.
The second part of these conclusions includes some more general reflections based on an analysis of all the information collected during the course of this research project. Underlying the entire analysis is the enormous capacity that CSOs can wield to mobilise people and resources for development cooperation. It is this capacity which in large part explains why some countries maintain development assistance for Latin America when no other interests exist. This also helps to understand why civil society dedicates in proportional terms more resources to cooperation with Latin America than the state.
Nevertheless, this strength and potential of civil society is not unalterable. Rather it modifies itself to the changing national and European contexts in which it emerges. It is likely that the current discourse on the importance of civil society exaggerates its capacity to achieve a significant change in the current system of Euro-Latin American relations. One should not think, therefore, that CSOs can resolve by themselves the problems of these interregional relations.
The organisations of civil society, however, add complexity and richness to the texture of these relations. Like governments and businesses--those other principal actors in development cooperation--CSOs reveal divisions and differences of opinion among themselves and with respect to the other development actors. These conflicts and tensions extend across numerous arenas, not only with respect to economic issues (i.e. NGOs which demand better conditions within co-financing programmes), but also concerning their legitimacy (i.e. some donors believe that NGOs should dedicate themselves solely to grassroots projects). The sometimes extreme difference between CSOs and private businesses over how the development process should proceed is an important source of continuing tensions in their relations, although positive experiences of collaboration and mutual cooperation are everyday more common.
These reflections connect with another issue which is repeatedly present in the national studies: how to improve the dialogue and coordination between CSOs and states. That is, what should be the position that CSOs maintain in order to preserve their autonomy and avoid becoming bureaucratic machines that lose touch with the human side of development cooperation. The pressure on CSOs from above (governments) and below (their own grassroots constituencies) are often contradictory and force them to maintain a very delicate equilibrium. Since the 1980s, funds for co-financing projects have noticeably grown in the majority of European countries. This has led NGOs to question their own non-governmental identity. At the same time, the governments of the EU member states have become more interested in maintaining a permanent and fluid dialogue with these organisations on increasingly broad questions of development cooperation and assistance policy.
In this context, then, CSOs feel the need, on the one hand, to clarify the real differences between themselves and the state and, on the other hand, to attend to the pressures of their constituents and international counterparts. One line of action is to try to influence all those policies related to North-South relations (trade, defence, finance, etc.). Still, CSOs face many obstacles. First, despite the high level of capacity for organisation and project execution, these organisations are weak at information gathering, generation of new knowledge, and in dealing with their social environment. In fact, a large number of the CSOs studied here tend to be isolated, limiting themselves to managing their own projects and, at best, to participating passively in various networks. Their relations are often limited and shallow, while they lack any significant capacity for analysis, reducing their possible influence upon those processes that require a more global or "macro" vision. Some organisations are aware of this and have designed strategies for overcoming these weaknesses, but the majority do not appear to be worried about much beyond their own survival.
Secondly, governments limit considerably the possibilities that such organisations have to influence state policy. Other dominant interests--be they economic or geostrategic--tend to be of overriding concern. The situation inside the EU is not much better: the necessity to reach a consensus leads to slow changes which are unsatisfactory for many NGOs with ambitions to affect more important transformations in the structure of North-South relations. There are, however, some hopeful elements. It is worth mentioning, for example, the efforts of diverse sectors in Italian civil society to unite themselves in the undertaking up decentrata (decentralised) cooperation activities. This, along with other interesting examples, demonstrates that many new ideas are surfacing at the local and regional levels. More attention will need to be paid to this new dynamic, instead of focusing only on analyses of the national tendencies. Decentralised cooperation, conceived of in the broad sense, should play a central role in development assistance in the future.
A similar discussion has also emerged in Latin America. The weakness of some governments has obliged them to subcontract a large number of social programmes to Latin American NGOs, a phenomenon which affects the relations which the latter maintain with their European counterparts (see the national study on German for special references to this issue). In any case, the fact that Latin American and European civil societies face similar problems can be seen as posititive, inasmuch as this contributes to the creation of a deeper, more frequent and, above all, more equitable dialogue between these parties. It is possible that the organisations of the North have committed something of the paternalistic sin in their attitudes and their excessive protagonism, particular when aspiring to represent the South in diverse fora, often times without having consulted previously with their counterparts in developing countries.
Other weaknesses of these organisations stem from the difficulties they have in establising strategic alliances with other CSOs in the North and in the South. For this, a significant investment of time, along with some minimum commitment of resources, is necessary. Nevertheless, the financing parties--both public and private--are constantly pressing that the totality of funds be destined for specific development projects and programmes. As a result, the establishment of personal and transnational relations and contacts is a secondary activity for many CSOs. Fortunately, Latin American CSOs are strengthening their horizontal links with regional organisations and with those working in other areas of development.
An issue of primary imporance is the impact of all these civil cooperation efforts. The UNDP claims that the majority of NGOs "fail to reach the 5-10% poorest of the poor" in developing countries (UNDP, 1993: 7). One specialist, analising the cooperation of international NGOs in Central America, pointed out that:
The projects I visited during the late 1980s completely failed in their attempt to contribute to the material well-being of the community; or, at best, they made only marginal contributions (Macdonald, 1997: 144).
Although this analysis might be somewhat pessimistic, it reveals a clear tendency in the literature on NGOs (see, for example, Hulme and Edwards, 1997). Even though this impact issue is not covered in our study, it is a very important element in the general debate. For a long time, donors have believed that the work of NGOs was fairly effective on issues such as poverty reduction. Nevertheless, very few conclusive evaluations in this respect have been undertaken, a fact which sows the seeds of doubt among the donor community with respect to the convenience of allocating ever larger quantities of resources to the financing of CSOs activities. This reticence has not meant closing down programmes, only becoming more demanding.
Not only donor governments, but also the very CSOs and their counterparts in the South, are pressuring for increasing effectiveness and for achieving greater impact. What organisations from the South desire from their European partners, above all, is support for strengthening their institutions. In the long run, such assistance will help increase their autonomy with respect to sources of finance. The reality, however, is that very few donors allocate funds for strengthening or building the institutions of organisations in developing countries. As mentioned above, only some European CSOs are paying any attention to this issue because they view it as fundamental for the sustainability of their own actions. Not much is known of the results of such efforts, but this is, of course, an issue which demands more concern and follow-up.
There are also occuring changes in the forms of financing in EU countries. While previously there were two principal sources--the central government and private donations and contributions--many new channels of funding have emerged: decentralised administrations (in this respect, see the study on Spain), private firms, banks and other organisations of civil society. To these new sources of resources, one would have to add the abundant funds placed at the disposition of development NGOs by the European Commission during the 1980s.
This proliferation of financing bodies facilitates the autonomy of any CSO but, at the same time, contributes to the increasing demand for funds. Many new organisations have emerged. Some of these have very diverse social origins and have become interested in development cooperation. This proliferation of organisations, a reflection of a dynamic pluralistic society has, in turn, given rise to fierce competition. CSOs dedicate increasingly more resources to the serach for financing, with the consequent drain on energy which could be devoted to undertaking development activities or to the strengthening of other non-instrumental relations. The smallest organisations are harmed the most, driven frequently into conflict with the larger organisations which have, in general, more priveleged access to development cooperation funds.
Another negative aspect of the expansion in financing sources lies in the tendency for many of these organisms--particularly the decentralised administrations--to lack the necessary rigour for guaranteeing a minimum level of quality and effectiveness of action. This, of course, can lead to negative effects for the general image of the collective whole of CSOs active in development cooperation.
In addition, this plurality of actions, although good in and of itself, also contributes to creating a certain confusion and frustration in those Latin American governments and societies searching for European civil society partners and that need to improve their coordination of diverse sources of international cooperation. While they obviously appreciate all the assistance they receive, on occasions ignorance of the national or local priorities of these new agents causes them some inconveniences and problems.
In conclusion, there are positive factors, but there are also many worrying ones. European civil cooperation, as in the rest of international relations, finds itself in flux. It is likely that the current process of adaptation prolongs itself for some time more, and that in 5 or 10 years the panorama will be transformed considerably yet again. One of the most interesting tendencies is the concern of some European civil society organisation with integrating socially within the European context. In this way, Euro-Latin American civil society cooperation could move beyond the mere relationships between organisations and direct itself toward a true link between societies. This will be one of the great challenges of the future.
AIETI Asociación de Investigación y Especialización sobre Temas Iberoamericanos
Association for Research and Study of Iberoamerican Issues (Spain)
CCD Commission Coopération Développement
Commission for Development Co-operation (France)
CEDLA Centrum voor Studie en Documentie van Latijns Amerika
Centre for Latin American Studies and Documentation (Netherlands)
CERCAL Centre d’Etude et de Promotions des Rélations entre les Pays de la CEE et de l’Amerique latine
CeSPI Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale
CIDOB Centre d’Informació i Documentació Internacionals a Barcelona
Centre for International Information and Documentation in Barcelona
CIFCA Copenhague Initiative for Central America
CSO Civil society organisation
CSP Co-financing Support Programme (European Commission)
EC European Commission
EU European Union
EUROSTEP European Solidarity Towards Equal Participation of Peoples (Belgium)
HIVOS Humanistisch Instituut voor Ontwickkelings landen
Humanist Institute for Co-operation with Developing Countries (Netherlands)
IIK Institut für Iberoamerika-Kunde
Institute for Iberoamerican Studies (Germany)
LAIS Latinamerika Institutet Stockholm
Institute for Latin American Studies (Sweden)
LDC Less developed countries
NGO Non-governmental organisation
ODA Official development assistance
RECAL Red Eurolatinoamericana para el Seguimiento y Análisis de la Cooperación Europea con América Latina
Euro-Latinamerican Network for Monitoring and Analysis of European Co-operation with Latin America
UNDP United Nations Development Program
BIEKART, Kees (1994), La Cooperación No-Gubernamental Europea hacia Centroamérica: La Experiencia de los Ochenta y las Tendencias en los Noventa, Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente, San Salvador.
COMITÉ DE ENLACE DE LAS ONG PARA EL DESARROLLO ANTE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA (1997), Liason News, Nº 29, (julio-agosto), Bruselas.
FUNES, Mª Dolores (1995), La Ilusión Solidaria: las organizaciones altruistas como actores sociales en los regímenes democráticos, Madrid, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.
INRA (Europa)/European Cordination Office (1996), "The Way Europeans Perceive Developing Countries in 1995", Eurobarometer 44.1 (mimeo).
JORGENSEN, Lars (1996), "What Are NGOs Doing in Civil Societies", NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Building Democracy in Transitional Societies, INTRAC, Chippenham.
LINZ, Juan y STEPAN, Alfred (1996), "Toward consolidated democracies", Journal of Democracy, april.
MACDONALD, Laura (1997), Supporting Civil Society - The Political Rol of Non-Governmental Organizations in Central America, Macmillan Press LTD, London-St. Martin´s Press, Inc., New York.
PNUD/Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (1993), Informe sobre el Desarrollo Humano 1993, Madrid, PNUD/CIDEAL.
SMILIE, Ian y HELMICH, Henny, eds., (1993), Non-Governmental Organizations and Governments Stakeholders for Development, París, OCDE.
TIREDY, Roy y ACHARYA, Jagabandhu (1996), "Constructing the Case for an Alternative Framework for Understanding Civil Society. The State and the Role of NGOs", NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Building Democracy in Transitional Societies, INTRAC, Chippenham.