His Excellency Jaime Bermudez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia,
Her Excellency Adriana Meija, Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia,
Ambassador Alfonso Quinonez, Executive Secretary for Integral Development,
Ms. Sandra Alzate Cifuentes, Director for International Cooperation of the Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation of Colombia,
Mr. Enrique Maruri Londono, Director for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia,
Distinguished High Level cooperation authorities of the Hemisphere,
Distinguished Permanent Observers to the OAS,
Distinguished Representatives from International and Regional Organizations, and the affiliated development oriented entities of the OAS, the YABT, PADF and Trust for the Americas,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introduction

It gives me great pleasure to be back in Bogota, so soon after my last visit in early September 2009 when I had the pleasure to visit some of the development projects in La Libertad and El Reten in the context of the MAPP/OEA peace process.

I thank the Government of Colombia for hosting this important meeting and their efforts to promote a strong representation of member states and I believe you have been able to achieve that objective.

I am also very pleased to see so many representatives from the member states and to participate in this Specialized CIDI Meeting of High Level Cooperation Authorities, a continuation of the dialogue which started one year ago in Playa del Carmen in Mexico.

I congratulate Colombia as Chair of the Management Board and wish all the best to Dr Enrique Maruri, Director of International Cooperation in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. My Office stands ready to work with you.

The objective of this meeting is an important one and I believe that it is indeed timely to continue the dialogue among member states and development cooperation agencies on the structure, substance and delivery of development cooperation in the Organization of American States.

Before I go into why it important and timely to reflect on existing mechanisms, let me state clearly that the Organizations of American States in the past decades has been able to support the political, social and economic development of its members states through projects, programs and technical expertise up to many hundreds of millions of dollars.

Having said this, the first reason for this is that it is good policy to evaluate the effectiveness of the development framework in the OAS every so many years, so as to adjust to new circumstances and improve on delivery capacity.

Secondly, the development resources of the OAS, especially FEMCIDI, have been depleting over the past years as major donors withdrew their funds, which, by the way, have been channeled through other means to the General Secretariat; at the same time we have not been able to build enough confidence and trust to reverse this trend and to attract new resources from member states, permanent observers, development cooperation agencies, foundations and the business community, and I believe an assessment is needed to understand why this is the case and how to redress this.

The third reason, from my perspective, for a frank and focused assessment has to do with the changed circumstances and several crises in the world, in the Western Hemisphere and in countries, resulting in declining resources for multilateral development assistance, and the need to prioritize the allocation of available resources primarily to domestic priorities.

I believe that this discussion on the effectiveness of the hemispheric cooperation program therefore should be frank, focused and concrete. It is from this perspective that I will share with you my views.

Development challenges

While neo-liberal policies and approaches focus on important sectors of development in society, it has proven to be not sufficient as a strategy to foster peace, stability, equality and prosperity for all in our countries.

At the same time, with the advent of democracy and governance on the basis of free, fair and credible elections, there is the expectation with the population that this new environment of freedom will result in social and economic development and meaningful improvement in their personal lives.

Regretfully, many millions in our Hemisphere, and among them substantive portions of youth and women, have not benefitted from these gains in democracy and the Hemisphere continuous to be the region with the highest levels of income inequality, despite the reasonable economic growth figures each country has achieved over the past years.

The social and economic statistics and recent political developments in the Western Hemisphere, in my view, clearly indicate that additional efforts are needed in two areas.

Firstly, the need to further strengthen democracy in the Hemisphere, thereby focusing on what I call “second generation” measures to continue embed democratic principles and values in the actions of the State and the people at large, especially in the areas of fighting corruption, transparency, accountability, more efficient services, engagement of the business community and the civil society in policy making, sound public policies to facilitate equity, equality and social justice.

The second area in which, I believe, a renewed thinking is necessary is the delivery of social and economic goods. Maybe it is time to consider a more holistic development paradigm that not only focuses on the importance of trade and economics, but one that is all encompassing by taking into account the human potential and related creativity in our countries, one that considers in a meaningful way the impact of the particular vulnerabilities of small economies, one that aims not only at absolute growth and wealth creation in our societies, but also puts in place distributive mechanisms to facilitate equality, equity and social justice, one that is truly transformative and fosters sustainable progress in society, one that builds on conditions of peace and security, in short a holistic development paradigm with a human face focusing on sustainability rather than short term gains for the few,

I believe these additional efforts should be center stage in our discussions about a hemispheric development cooperation program, keeping in mind that all countries need to work together to overcome or effectively mitigate the impact of the many cross-border problems. Whatever framework is agreed upon is has to be in service of the objectives of making the life of the individual citizen in the Western Hemisphere better.

As a subset to this new thinking, two areas have particular importance: the strengthening and sometimes modernization of state institutions and the creation of domestic capacity to effectively design, program, implement and evaluate development policies.

Role of the OAS

So what is the role of the Organization of American States in this new environment to foster peace, stability and prosperity ?

The OAS, as the oldest regional political organization in the world, has the unique convening power to bring together, at this time, 33 active member states around one table and provide political momentum to issues of critical importance and in consensus agree on policies and actions.

Many important documents of the OAS speak to the role of the OAS in regard of development. Let me just refer to the language in the Charter of the OAS, as adopted in this city 61 years ago.

Article 2 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, describes in sub f and h that:

“The Organization of American States, in order to put into practice the principles on which it is founded and to fulfill its regional obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, proclaims …. to promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social, and cultural development” and … “to eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples of the hemisphere”.

It is clear that the OAS, taking into account its principal purposes, cannot be characterized as a development agency, but the Organization does have a development orientation, manifested also by the several actions taken by the Ministerial meetings in the technical areas of education, labor, development cooperation, etc.

Permanent Committee on Integral Development

From the perspective of the political debate on development challenges there is, in my view, need for a less fragmented approach. There is no single dialogue or policy space to discuss and build consensus on related development issues. I believe that the experience so far has been that we have witnessed a decline in the level of representation and attendance in existing dialogue mechanisms outside the political body of the Permanent Council, such as CIDI and CEPCIDI, thereby not allowing for the so urgently needed complete and comprehensive assessment of development challenges and agreement on concerted action on how to respond these individually and collectively.

I believe that in the spirit of article 2, sub f. and h. of the Charter of the OAS and the many expressions in the Inter-American Democratic Charter on the inter-relationship between democracy, peace, development and security, there is need for a policy dialogue space in the political organ of the Organization.

Such a dialogue space can be facilitated through the creation of a Permanent Committee on Integral Development, elevating the importance of the third strategic pillar -development- of the OAS to the same level as the other two: democracy and security, which are dealt with in the Permanent Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs and the Permanent Committee on Hemispheric Security respectively.

The principal mandate of this new committee could be to not only discuss development issues, but also to prepare a hemispheric development cooperation program for the OAS, to be submitted to CIDI for recommendation for approval by the General Assembly. This process must be all inclusive, meaning that all member states should be part of the consultative process of determining a diversified strategic development cooperation program, keeping in mind that the needs, challenges and interests differ from country to country and from sub-region to sub-region. At the same time a meaningful and sustained engagement between the Permanent Committee on Integral Development and the other development partners at the national and regional level is suggested.

This would then suggest the elimination of CEPCIDI, resulting in a more direct relationship between the CIDI Ministerial and in extension with the General Assembly, in line with the relationship between other ministerial and the other Permanent Committees of the Permanent Council, as well as with the Summit of the Americas process.

The establishment of a Permanent Committee on Integral Development in the Permanent Council will, in my opinion, elevate the discussion and possibly foster more confidence to re-attract “lost” resources and mobilize new resources.

Such a consideration, that is the establishment of a Permanent Committee on Integral Development, in my view, does not necessarily need to wait for the required technical streamlining of the operational and administrative development framework.



Restructuring development structure in the OAS

With regard to effectiveness of the existing development framework to serve the member states I’ll be brief, as from the discussions in the last two last years in the OAS it seems clear that there is need for assessment, adjustment and reform.

The existing framework seems to be complicated in many ways, overlapping or duplicating as well as cumbersome in the relationship and mandates between the different components making up the system.

As indicated earlier, the level of attendance to the CIDI and CEPCIDI is not at the required level, reflecting poorly on the political commitment to the existing dialogue structure as well as the substantive debate on key development challenges.

From an operational perspective several elements need to be assessed in terms of their functionality, effectiveness and cost. The status of FEMCIDI, the appraisal procedure, the priority setting in light of diminishing resources, etc. require an in-depth analysis before new modalities for improvement can be discussed and decided upon.

In this regard I believe that the following may be taken under consideration by member states:

1. Given the limited resources member states may want to consider and agree on fewer priority areas, so that the assistance provided is not so thinly spread over so many areas that the overall impact cannot be measured. Fewer priority areas will facilitate a sub-regional programming approach as well as provide the opportunity to engage in long term programming, rather than individual projects; such an approach will also facilitate meaningful evaluation of the impact of the programs in countries and sub-regions, out of which best practices can be identified.

2. Member states may want to consider a more differentiated approach to the in-take and appraisal procedure, whereby projects up to for instance US$ 25.000 have a shorter procedure to go through in comparison to larger projects with a multi-year projection.

3. To create confidence in the OAS as a development partner and to respond more adequately and timely to the needs of member states, consideration must be given to restructuring the appraisal process, for instance by establishing in Washington DC an Appraisal Committee made up of experts of the IDB, PAHO, OAS, PADF, and IICA, so that this committee can meet more frequently and to offer their views and submitting their recommendations to an sub-committee of the Permanent Committee on Integral Development every three months for decision making, at the same time saving almost US$ 80.000 to be used for direct programming.

4. Possibly member states may wish to consider an allocation formula by sub-region and by area, so as to ensure that the resources are benefitting all in a more equal manner.

5. I believe there is consensus with regard to the promotion of horizontal, South-South and triangular cooperation as well as cooperation between sub-regional systems.

6. The need remains to continue improving policy coordination and consultation within the OAS between the different Secretariats and directorates, especially with regard to the application for funds, as well as with the affiliated entities such as PADF, YABT and the Trust for the Americas.

7. The same can be said about a more structured relationship with the principal inter-american institutions, such as the IDB, IICA and PAHO, to exchange information, build synergies as well as develop joint projects and apply together for the funding.

8. In improving the relationship with member states, possibly, a more structured relationship needs to be also established with the national development cooperation agencies, and foster more structured communication and information exchange with technical ministries.


I certainly welcome the proposed Inter-American Cooperation Network, which can potentially be an important mechanism to continue the debate on a more effective hemispheric cooperation structure.

Conclusions

In conclusion, in my view, it is clear that the mutually reinforcing inter-relationship between democracy, development and security requires a new approach on development cooperation, both from a substantive perspective as well as from the operational aspects.

I believe that within the context of the OAS and the provisions of the Permanent Council a great deal of the suggested reforms can be realized, including the establishment of the Permanent Committee on Integral Development.

I believe that this can be done without additional cost and possibly even achieving savings, and at the same time creating trust and confidence with member states and international donors.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I may have presented a perspective and concrete suggestions to improve the dialogue on development cooperation in the OAS and the inter-american system, that suggests too much change at the same time, and perhaps not all can be implemented at this point, but I wanted to be as complete in my assessment as possible, keeping in mind the limited effectiveness of the structure now in place, the need for a reconsideration as well the realities which we face in the Hemisphere and the individual countries, and that a piecemeal approach may not be delivering the anticipated results. I therefore ask you to regard my presentation as just one way of thinking about this matter; others may have other useful suggestions.

Ultimately we need to establish a cooperation framework that radiates trust and confidence and is capable to attract substantive financial resources to deliver development services to member states in a timely and effective manner to alleviate poverty and to foster social and economic prosperity.

Whatever strategy and priority programming member states will reach consensus on, it must be realistic, concrete, achievable and measurable, so that it delivers on the set objectives, so that it reaches and improves the lives of those in need, and so that we can measure the impact the development assistance through the OAS has on a community, a country or a sub-region. Only by showing that the OAS can meaningfully deliver on its objectives by improving in a meaningful way the life of individual citizens, we will be able to gain the trust of donors, the business community and development foundations and expand our development function and portfolio.

Ladies and Gentlemen, ultimately whatever we undertake, it has to be to service of the three “P’s”: PEOPLE, PEACE AND PROSPERITY in our Hemisphere, through sound policy making and, if possible, less politics !

I thank you for your attention, wish you fruitful discussions and I look forward to the concrete decisions coming from this meeting.