The Case of Energy and Infrastructure Integration in UNASUR: Analysis from

the Perspective of Multilevel Governance

DRAFT
Wilmar Alberto Giraldo1& Jessica Delgado Agredo2

Abstract
In this paper we discuss the concept of multilevel governance, as well the
theoretical and methodological variations that have been proposed on the
subject. From the conclusions of the discussion we propose a framework
for analyzing the case around energy integration and South American
regional common infrastructure within the framework of the supra-regional
instance incorporated in the Union of South American Nations,
UNASUR.Our main goal is to contrast theoretically the multilevel
governance model within the energy and infrastructure integration
initiatives created from UNASUR.
Understanding the multilevel governance as a vertical structure
between the central and subnational levels of government (first level of
action), with respect to other sectors of society: local governments,
businesses, social organizations and the general (second level action).
We are interested in elucidating the embryonic governance model
UNASUR, analyzing the decisions that have been taken towards
integration addressed energy and infrastructure in the region. Highlighting
the possible social, economic and political impacts of those integration
initiatives, which allow concluding the progress and setbacks around the
best governance practices within the multilevel model.
Key Words
Multilevel Governance, Unasur,
Integration, Integration Policy.

Energy

Integration,

Infrastructure

Introduction
Although the birth of UNASUR is recent (2008) and the Treaty entered into force
on March 11, 2011, its goal seems very clear, the integration of South American
nations in what they call as a new form of regional integration. According to the
1

BA in Political Science.Member of the Research Group in Public Policy and Management.National

University of Colombia.
2Political Science Student.Member of the Research Group in Public Policy and
Management.National University of Colombia.

Treaty of UNASUR signed on May 23, 2008 in Brasilia, the goal of the organization
is exposed as follows:
Build a participatory and consensual manner, an integration and union in the cultural,
social, economic and political affairs of their people, giving priority to political
dialogue, social policies, education, energy, funding, infrastructure and the
environment, among others, with a view to eliminating socioeconomic inequality,
achieving social inclusion and citizen participation, strengthen democracy and
reduce asymmetries within the framework of strengthening the sovereignty and
independence of States (UNASUR website ).

The intention to create a space for South American integration in the areas of
energy and infrastructure was established in the specific objectives 4 and 5 of the
treaty of the organization: 4) Energy integration for integrated, sustainable and fair
use of region resources. 5) The development of an infrastructure for the
interconnection of the region and among our people according to criteria of
sustainable social and economic development.
However, the integration of 12 South American countries is not easy. Member
States have sustained (and some maintain even today) disputes ranging from
border disputes over territorial boundaries, marked ideological differences that
result in different ways of locating and executing public resources, disputes over
projects undertaken along, until even allegations encroachment on the sovereignty
of its neighbors. However, this does not mean that it is impossible for the South
American subcontinent to integrate under a supranational institution such as
UNASUR, not that the projects undertaken are doomed to fail, what does remain
clear is that these difficulties must be taken into account if you want to carry out a
process of effective regional integration that can be translated as well as proposed,
improved socio-economic conditions in the region, increased citizen participation
and strengthening of democracy in general.
Meanwhile, discussions about relationships in multilevel governance mostly
been developed in Europe. The term was first adopted in 1992 by Gary Marks to
describe the new dynamics of governance and participation that emerged after the
creation of the European Union. The concept of multilevel governance, although it
has more than fifteen years within the European academic debates, is almost
unknown or little used by South American academics. It is unclear why the slightly
academic interest in the subject; probably because in the region still persists a very
discreet level of sub-national institutions clearly decentralized that at the same time
get involved in coordination with central or entities, or because civil society does
not have or use channels of effective participation in the construction of public
policies; However, even taking into account the institutional, social, economic and
cultural South American conditions, we consider it possible to perform an analysis
from the multilevel governance to clarify the current state of the model in the
region. A clear knowledge about it, allows a future model of participation and
coordination of actions proposed in multilevel governance to be disseminated and
applied in the future. Therefore, the present research work intends to identify
progress and setbacks existing in adopting the multilevel model, through the study

of the South American context, and specifically in the areas of infrastructure and
energy within UNASUR. Being aware that the proposed integration of the South
American nations has been in effect for no more than 3 years, thats why the main
goal is to identify beyond the existence of the multilevel model, the possibilities and
impacts of its possible implementation.
The integration in the case of infrastructure has greater advances that
integration in the energy field. UNASUR is currently developing 31 projects
considered strategic investment for an amount estimated at U.S. $16,713.8 million,
among others, mostly national infrastructure projects not so determinants, but still
important for integration; however, the integration in the energy field is more
difficult due to the lack of political intent when generating a South American
common market; this is partly due to inequalities in the distribution of energy
resources which cause various positions when it comes to concrete actions in favor
of integration, some countries still choose bilateral agreements rather than
committing to the proposed integration, other countries are reluctant to the topic
because they consider that there is not a regulatory framework that supports and
protects investments in favor of the South American energy integration.
To address the subject from the perspective of multilevel governance, the first
chapter proposes to analyze the status of multilevel governance in South America;
the intention is to create a framework for analysis of South American multilevel
governance, with which can be identified the characteristics interactions of this
model governance, without ignoring the structural, political and cultural
particularities that the region faces.
I. Multilevel Governance in South America
The concept of multilevel governance arises from the need to create a conceptual
framework that explains the complex and global reality of the relationships between
the various actors in society. Integration, cooperation and interdependence
scenarios, led the institutional machinery to mutate and make way for government
structures articulated at different levels of action, where multiple actors are
involved and interact. Multilevel governance is defined as "a system of continuous
negotiation between multiple types of government, belonging to different territorial
levels, which are embedded in a policy network that exceeds the limits of the public
sphere" (BACHE & FLINDERS, 2004:13). To Simona Piattoni, multilevel
governance "denotes a variety of agreements, or a system of coordination and
negotiation between independent entities who have complex relationships between
them, but at the same time, through coordination and negotiation continue to
redefine these relations" (PIATTONI, 2010:26).
The idea of multi-level governance is centred mainly on the fact that there is a wide
variation of externalities in the provision of public goods. And such externalities are
not internalized by a single government scale, requiring a negotiation among various
scales to reach a final decision. Often, this negotiation also involves sectors of
society, such as enterprises, non-governmental organizations, professional
associations, etc. (MARKS & HOOGHE, 2004:16).

As the concept of multilevel governance blanket the concept of governance,

negotiations are conducted not only between different levels of government, but
also involving different social actors, including businesses, groups of civil society
organizations, pressure groups, etc.
Similarly, multilevel governance involves a multidimensional form of analysis
where levels of interpretation interconnect. The multi-level word then refers to the
interdependence of governments operating on different territorial levels, while the
word governance notes the growing interdependence between governments and
non-governmental actors at various territorial levels (BACHE & FLINDERS,
2004:15) In this way according to Lan Bache and Matthew Flinders, the concept of
multilevel governance contains both the horizontal dimension and the vertical
dimension of policy making. In other words, the focus of multilevel governance
implies the existence of a process fluid and coordinated in the relationship of the
actors who simultaneously converge on a vertical and horizontal dimension. The
first dimension of interaction occurs in a vertical structure between central and subnational levels of government (first level of performance), and the horizontal
structure interactions occur between government and other actors in society
(second level performance).
Multilevel governance can be divided into two types. The first one (type I) is closely
related to federalism and consists of the dispersal of authority for jurisdictions in a
limited number of levels, such as: international, national, regional and local levels.
These jurisdictions have their roles based on various themes. Besides, the first type
of governance stands by the fact that there is no intersection among their
jurisdictions. In Brazil, the Constitution makes clear this jurisdictional division into
three spheres of government (federal, state and municipal), each one with its skills
delineated, but not always exclusively (MARKS & HOOGHE, 2004:16)
On the hand,
The second type of governance (type II) consists of specialized jurisdictions,
restricted to specific troubleshooting. The big difference in this type of governance
lies in the fact that it is not restricted to a specific number within the various levels of
jurisdiction (they are flexible), insofar as the demand requires and includes the
participation of non-governmental actors. Another point that sets it apart is the fact
that there is intersection among its members (MARKS & HOOGHE, 2004:17)

Piatoni clarifying the subject defines the levels of multilevel governance as

follows: the first level denoted as political mobilization indicates multiple players
who move freely between different levels of government and different spheres of
authority (Piattoni, 2010:20), the second level refers to the way in which
relationships and agreements between policy makers are given and the third
concerns the structure of the State, which enable certain types of relationships
between the different actors in society. This distinction may be better understood
by addressing the concepts of politics, policy and polity respectively. At the same
time the understanding of these levels must occur within a spectrum of spatial
analysis, ie, the relations must be understood from the supranational, national and

sub-national as a whole. So every territorial level has a certain degree of authority

and capabilities that allow you to exercise specific functions over a given territory
and a particular population.
This makes clear the importance of studying the processes of decentralization
when it comes to an analysis from the perspective of multilevel governance. Of the
thirteen countries in South America only three present a federalist government
structure is as follows: Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, other States have a
unitary government structure but often have two levels of government. Some states
such as Colombia, have made great strides in decentralization, specifying the
different responsibilities of territorial authorities in areas such as "national subpolicy design, tax design framework of powers, capacities of authorities to fulfill the
mandate and framework transparency and citizen control" (Fernndez & Weason,
2012:11). This is how Colombia is considered as "the most decentralized unitary
country in Latin America with a percentage of decentralized expenditure that
exceeds 40%" (Stein, 2010 in Fernndez & Weason, 2012:11). The other countries
in the region to lead the decentralization process are: Bolivia, since the
proclamation of the present constitution of 2009, it maintains and reinforces the
decentralized model, clarifying regional and municipal powers, to making room for
the creation of Municipalities Indians; Ecuador in 2010 after giving the Organic
Code of Land Management, Autonomy and Decentralization (COOTAD) Peru
during the period 2002 to 2005 dictate different rules among which the Law of
Regional Governments, the new Organic Law of Municipalities, the Law on
Decentralization Law and Fiscal Framework for Participatory Budgeting; Chile with
the opinion of the Constitutional Law on Government and Regional Administrations
(GORE) which gives the possibility of a regional government requested the
President the transfer of powers and resources. Other South American countries
are moving in different degrees to the consolidation of decentralization in their
territories. It should be noted, that is not possible to say that due to the political
structure of the South American states, can only be found characteristics of Type I
multilevel governance in the federal states of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and
therefore it is possible to identify the type II multilevel governance unitary or
centralist; on the contrary, here it is proposed that due to the peculiarities of the
South American States, the results of the analysis of multilevel governance in
many cases show a mixture of the two types of governance characteristics.
In the South American context, the existence of a fluid and coordinated
process in the relationship and decisions of actors find major incidents, mainly due
to the complexity of the process of decentralization. While vertical level indicates
the complementary relationship, participation and consistency in decision-making
and implementation by the actors from the levels of central, regional and local
government; as well explain Fernndez & Weason (2012), despite the fact that in
South America countries have made progress in the decentralization process, in
most cases the relationships are still a large centralist:
The evidence suggests that the truly important issues are resolved in the capital, and
that even if the case is given, where they have transferred competence, seems to
have legitimized a customary right to reverse the powers transferred in the event that

the matter warrants (...) From the point of view of the relationship between regional
and local level is usually repeated the same centrality in regional (Fernndez &
Weason, 2012:6).

In the other line, the horizontal articulation reflects the coordination and
participation of the actors that are located within the same territorial level.
Agencies, institutions, the private sector and civil society, must be to propose and
concrete territorial public policies to solve common problems. This denition
highlights the nature of engagement of multiple actors within such arrangements.
The nature of engagement is not passive but active and also substantive in terms
of shaping and steering decision making. (Chowdhury & Wessel, 2012:343) In the
region, actions to promote horizontal articulation could be said that has evolved
more than those to improve the vertical articulation, as strengthening the authority
of sub-national entities. Initiatives for dialogue between the government, business
and civil society throughout South America abound. Undoubtedly, the
implementation of participatory budgeting is one of the most successful examples
as an expression of direct democracy under which the community is involved in the
formulation of municipal investment plan (Rosales, 2012) Currently the model is
applied in 100 Brazilian municipalities, and municipalities in Argentina, Ecuador,
Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile. Although this is the most successful
example applied in some municipalities in the countries mentioned, and although
there are other spaces for dialogue, only in very few cases the proposals are
incorporated and / or transformed into public policy. Often governments either
central, regional or local organize areas of discussion more like a requirement to
be met within the framework of democratic governance and not as a real
commitment to strengthening public policies extended in time.
That is why the existence of a multilevel model in either of two types, implies
that the decentralized structure has a real legitimate power, enabling it to act with
autonomy and authority regard to the competencies and resources that have been
assigned to them. according Piattoni the challenge which faces the multilevel
governance model is in the fact that the levels should keep their objective nature,
understood as a kind of legal integrity or autonomy to territorial authority and
exercise their functions, and their subjective nature, that would still retain an
integral relationship with the actors "directly involved" to allow them to continue to
be perceived as legitimate, doers of consensus and abiding respect and
accountability (Piattoni, 2010:27). Meanwhile, formal authority is defined as
Exercised authority in relation to explicit rules, Usually written in constitutions,
legislation, treaties or statutes. A regional government has some degree of
authority, with Respect to some territorial jurisdiction, over Uncertain actions
(Hooghe, Marks and Schakel, 2010). Similarly, Fernndez Losada believes that
"decentralization is not feasible if there is not assignment or devolution of power.
Moreover, the power attributed to the territorial governments must come
contemplated in the legal system, by way of the legislative allocation of powers,
and protected, by way of legal recognition of the principle of local (or regional)
autonomy (Fernndez Losada, 2012 in Fernndez & Weason, 2012:7).

In South America in general, the ability of authority in the actions of the

territorial entities has not yet been achieved, this occurs largely by the lack of intent
on the part of national elites, who have not allowed the sub-national entities
operate with authority, as this implies a direct loss of his ability to control decisions
and general resources of the nation. Added to this, inadequate capacities of subnational levels to carry out the tasks entrusted, hinders the development of
multilevel process, especially the vertical model. The lack of capacity of regional
authorities is understood as the lack of human resources to perform specific tasks
and / or resource constraints that prevent the implementation of strategic plans and
projects. Fernandez & Weason regard refer to the following:
Existing weaknesses at territorial level are used as an argument to delay or avoid a
transfer of powers and responsibilities. They are, at once, one more justification that
strengthens the tendency of ministries in practice to choose the path of
deconcentration rather than the effective transfer of powers. Therefore it is
recommended a comprehensive program to strengthen national and regional actors.

Identify the degree of authority of the territorial entities serves as one of the
key elements in defining whether or not a multilevel model. In their research
progress in this area, Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks and Arjan Schakel in their text
called The Rise of Regional Authority. A Comparative Study of 42 Democracies,
2010, created a methodological tool to assess individual levels of government
measured transversely into eight dimensions or variables of the regional authority.
The dimensions measured are: institutional depth, policy scope, fiscal autonomy,
representation, ability to make laws, executive control, fiscal control, constitutional
reform3. This methodological instrument is undoubtedly a powerful tool to identify
one of the key elements for the existence of the multilevel model.4
Another challenge that affects mainly the horizontal articulation is the kind of
political culture5 present in the countries of South America. Collective toward
political objects of the South American citizens perceptions tend to be located
within the categories initially postulated by Almond and Verba as parochial culture
and culture of subjects and not within civic or participatory culture6, the latter being
the type of political culture ideal in which non-governmental actors sit reasons to
request and / or participate in the forums for negotiation and dialogue aimed at the
3

For more information about the eight dimensions of the regional authority, go to the first chapter:
Measuringthe regional authority, HOOGHE, MARKS and Schakel (2010).
4
This paper realizes an intermediate step in our research. The methodological tool given by Hooghe, Marks
and Schakel for measuring regional authority, shall be later used in our investigation.
5
Political culture is understood by Josep Valles as the attribute of a group of citizens that follow the same
pattern of orientations and attitudes to politics "(FERRN Y HERRERA, 1996.265). Almond and Verba are
more specific in describing the guidelines that are given to the political system into its component parts and
to the individual himself as part of the system (TORCAL, 1997, 231).
6
Parish Culture: subjects exhibiting these perceptions toward politics, have a vague or no reference about
the political system. Remain marginal, indifferent or apathetic towards political objects. Culture of servants:
this group of subjects only interested about the positive and negative impacts that the political system might
have on them. Civic or participatory culture: individuals who are equally interested and committed to the
inputs and outputs of the system (Almond and Verba 1965: 15).

creation, execution or redefinition of public policy7. Is clear that the type of

participatory culture necessary goes far beyond the mere electoral participation, by
contrast, interest and constant social commitment to the management of public
administration and political action is needed. Comparing perceptions of politics as
political participation in South America using data provided by the Public Opinion
Project in Latin America: Americas Barometerin their study entitled "The Political
Culture of Democracy in Colombia and the Americas , 2012: Towards Equal
Opportunities ", is possible to conclude that the support of South American citizens
into the political system is not high. The data shows that the country with the
highest approval towards the political system is Uruguay with 60.7%, followed by
Guyana with 58.2% and 56.2% in Venezuela8. The countries that are lower
approval rating are Brazil with 45.4%, Paraguay with 47.0% and Bolivia with
48.1%. These values can be associated with the disinterest of population in
participation and leadership. Data shows that participation in municipal meetings is
alarmingly low; countries that have greater participation are Suriname only 13.9%,
Venezuela 13.2% and Guyana 12.6%; countries with lower participation are Chile
with 4.1%, Argentina with 4.4% and Brazil with 5.1%9. Participation and community
leadership do not exceed 32.9% and 11.1% respectively, with the lowest level of
community involvement in 12.4% and the lowest of community leadership with
2.9%10. As discussed, the absence of a participatory political culture in the region,
is one of the reasons why there is a low representation of different interests and
social groups. In other words, if there is no will among citizens and other
stakeholders to participate and interact in coordination with the government (at any
level); dialogue, consensus and cooperation among them never will be given. In
sum, with the intention of consolidating and / or improve interactions in the
horizontal plane, it is also crucial to promote a participatory political culture in nonstate actors.
A key point to keep in mind to not confuse multilevel governance model, with
other types of governance, is clearly exposed by Piattoni as follows: multilevel
governance is not resembled to the "Network Governance", or the "Committee
Governance" , much less with so-called "New modes of governance", as in the
case of "experimentalism governance" (Piattoni, 2010:37). In each of these models
is still visible hierarchical power structure only within multilevel governance,
horizontal relationships are possible and therefore the active participation of other
actors in society. Similarly, the model of multilevel governance, seeks to close the
gap between the centers of government (as would be the administrative capitals of
the respective countries) and the periphery; to achieve particular attention to the
administrative, economic and social effectiveness of all actions carried out by the
different levels of government is provided. It also seeks to harmonize relations
7

For more information regarding the type of political culture: ALMOND, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney. Thecivic
culture, politicalattitudes and democracy in five nations. An analytic study. Boston: Little Brown, 1965
Vertambin WELCH, Stephen.The concept of political culture.. Ipswich: St. Martin's Press, 1993.
8
See Figure 1
9
See Figure 2
10
See Figure 3

between the state and society, as well as between national and supranational
organizations.
Returning to the main objective of developing a Unasur regional integration to
achieve citizen participation and strengthening of democracy, it could be deduct
that implement estimates of multilevel governance somehow could help narrow
their primary goal.
Therefore the scheme proposed here to analyze the multi-level governance in
the context of South American integration is:

Legal
Decentralization

+
Authority of the
territorial
entities:

-Institutional depth.
- Political Scope.
- Fiscal autonomy.
- Representation
-Ability to make laws.
-Ecutive-Control.
-Tax Control.
-Constitutional
reform.

Political
will
expresse
d in
concrete
actions

Participatory
Political
Culture which
has to be
translated into
a high
representation
of interests
and social
groups

Throughout this chapter, in broad strokes were analyzed the characteristics of

multilevel governance in South America. It is clear that factors such as regional
decentralized structures, in some cases embryonic and lacking real authority,
National and regional elites who monopolize the government decision-making, lack
of political will when it comes to concrete actions and facts in the declarations of
intent of integration, and the absence of a participatory political culture that
supports horizontal interactions are factors hampering the development of a
coordinated and autonomous multi-level governance model in South America.
The following chapters analyze precisely multilevel governance in the areas of
infrastructure and energy in UNASUR.
II . Energy and infrastructure integration in UNASUR
Although the above analysis clarifies the complexity of studying the South
American integration, is considered pertinent to investigate this scenario with
multilevel approach because it presents different perspectives of analysis. Hence,

the aim of this article is to analyze the potential and constraints presented currently
by the region, its individual member States and Civil Society, on common tasks,
such as the possible creation of supranational institutions, also in the configuration
of different forms of interaction at the regional level. These potentials or constraints
lie on the institutional capacity installed in each country, as well as in cultural
factors like the level of participation of civil society in decision-making, among
others.
The development and construction of a process of integration can be better
understood and investigated with theoretical approaches such as regionalism or
the intergovernmentalism, among others. However, a functional and operational
integration, imply the overcoming of the theoretical models that are effective to
explain the conditions of its construction, giving way and greater relevance to the
operation of the same, a field in which the multilevel approach can be much more
accurate.
The implementation of technical studies in search of economic and juridical
complementarities in many areas of interest for the South American States has
been a constant that has accompanied by regional integration initiatives.
The present study analyzes two strategic sectors for South American
development, the energy and the infrastructure sectors. To realize the integration
in these areas, it has to be taken into account such factors as the institutional
capacity installed and developed by member States, the geopolitics of the
distribution of resources, the incidence of civil society in decision-making; they all
determinants for an integration process.
Initiative for Regional Energy Integration
Energy integration for example, represents for UNASUR one of its primary
objectives at this stage:
Energy integration is precisely one of the subject catalytic areas of birth of the Union
of South American Nations, UNASUR; from the moment of the signing of its
Constitution in 2008, the Presidents have emphasized this aspect of regional
integration. The political decision to use it as an instrument of territorial
transformation, reducing the asymmetries and inequalities in the welfare and quality
of life of about 400 million inhabitants, distributed in the 17.7 million square
kilometers of the region, is one of the central axis of action of UNASUR. (UNASUR,
OLADE, 2012:9).

Since there is not a South American energy treaty in force to generate

commitments from member states, this part of the article will focus on several
aspects that would allow us to see the current situation of the South American
energy integration. Among this determinant aspects would be the energy capacity
and legal provisions regarding the ownership and management of the resources of
the member states of UNASUR, on the other hand would be consider the existing
institutions responsible for decision making at the regional level to identify their
composision and the actors participating. The South American region,

has enormous resources and potential energy; considering only oil, has about a fifth
of the world's reserves, arriving today, the order of 335 billion barrels (...) should also
be remembered that has diversified fuel production through the expansion of biofuels
(mainly ethanol and biodiesel) sources in which some countries in the region are
world leaders from the point of view of production technologies for supply, logistics
and end-uses. (Noboa, 2013:4)

The region also holds 3.44% of total world reserves of natural gas, and 1.45%
of total world coal reserves, in addition to installed capacity utilization and
processing of other energy sources, in comparison with the world is 14.91% in
hydropower, in wind power 0.88%, geothermal energy 0.01% and the 33.33% on
biofuels. Besides of having significant reserves of mineral resources and projects
for the potential use of alternative energy sources. (OLADE, UNASUR, 2012:1314)
Unlike other regions, Latin American countries have different natural
resources that allow an interesting mutual exchange. This, coupled with the
heterogeneity of socio-productive countries economies and structure, makes that
natural resources, especially energy, can be the backbone of Latin American
integration (Mansilla, 2011:1) These circumstances make the proposal for
integration not only appear as a viable path, but almost forced to develop stability
and promoting regional development.
The economic complementarity appears as one of the heaviest arguments, but
there are additional arguments that drive the integration, one is the energy security
of the region, also becomes important to emphasize that the integration would
make possible to planning the use of energy resources in a responsibly regarding
the use of reserves and their impact on the environment, would also enable
undertake ambitious regional projects that currently could not carry out any South
American State alone. According Noboa "The South American region is
characterized by its abundant supply of natural resources and energy. But the
region needs both policies and comprehensive strategies to enable in the short and
medium term, to potentiate and ensure those resources, and in this way its energy
sovereignty" (2013:1)
Based on the above in relation to the potential energy and mineral resources
at South America, we now analyze how these resources are owned by the member
states and what is their role in the administration thereof. "In general terms, for
reasons of a juridical nature, UNASUR member countries agree that the State, be
it national or provincial, holds the ownership of the mining and hydrocarbon
deposits. This particular property is displayed in the right to require those who want
to access these resources, assets or income distribution as owner" (OLADE,
UNASUR, 2012:13-14)
With respect to the role in the administration of the same, variations in the level
of involvement of states are evidenced, which means in this case, more or less
private sector participation in the development of energy resources depending on
the country and the energy field.

At present, we can find that States like Colombian have low dominance in the
development of electric power industry, the hydrocarbon sector and the mining
sector, giving a prominent role to private development of resources. In contrast we
find countries like Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia which have total control of the
activity to the State in these three areas, the other countries of South America have
a higher or lower level of participation that varies depending on the energy sector.
(OLADE, UNASUR, 2012:13-14)
From the above we can deduce two important things, first is that since energy
resources in South America constitutionally belong to States, political will and a
genuine regional projection does not actually have a legal barrier that prevents
energy integration. The second thing we can deduce is that since in some
countries in the region, the private sector participation in the development of
energy resources is allowed, it is possible that the latter have an impact in the
Regional energy integration, a crucial element that will be taken into account as
part of the analysis with the multilevel approach.
We turn now to analysis the institutions of the energy sector, to begin with it
should be noted that the States part of UNASUR have developed a strong
institutional framework around the energy and mining resources in their territories
Constituted by governing bodies of policy; agencies of regulation and control of
activities;, national and binational public or mixed, national and binational companies
and recognized research centers linked to the work of these companies. The field of
action of these structures, ranging from the formulation and implementation of public
policy, to economic and socio-environmental management. Its composition and
purpose respond to the institutional and policy arrangements prevailing in each
country. (OLADE, UNASUR, 2012:15-16)

Although there is still no clarity on the role to be played by these institutions in

terms of energy integration, the developments, researches, experiences and
findings of these at the national territories in which they are entitled, will be a basis
of each member state to assess the processes that are carried out facing the
integration process, on the other hand in relation to multi-level approach, it is
important to note that these institutions are present in the institutional structure of
the Member States at different territorial levels, with different capacities for
influencing decisions in the energy field of each country, which is an important item
to consider in monitoring the Regional energy Treaty which is under construction.
Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure.
Infrastructure development is one of the main challenges for the integration
process in South America; the need to physically interconnect is one of the pillars
of the proposal for UNASUR.
The efficient provision of infrastructure services is one of the most important aspects
of a development strategy, in both national and regional levels, the lack of proper
infrastructure and the efficient provision of services is an obstacle in the primary
effort to implement a policy of social development effectively, achieve sustained
economic growth rates and achieve integration goals (UNASUR, CEPAL, 2011:7)

One of the leading contemporary backgrounds, prior to the consolidation of the

integration initiative we know today by the name of UNASUR, was the coordination
of member countries in infrastructure projects for integration.
The priority for the integration of the infrastructure is based on political coordination
process among South American countries. Between 31 August and 1 September
2000, the South American leaders met in Brasilia to celebrate the First Meeting of
Heads of State of South America. On that occasion, for the first time, On that
occasion, for the first time were discussed joint actions for the modernization of the
infrastructure as a means of promoting development and integration of the least
favored areas to national economies (SOUTH AMERICAN COUNCIL OF
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING, 2012:1)

As a result of this summit was created the Initiative for Integration of Regional
Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA), which carried out infrastructure projects in
various sectoral areas of interconnection in the period from 2000 to 2010.
IIRSA, with an initial term of ten years, is an institutional mechanism for coordinating
intergovernmental actions of the twelve South American countries, with the aim of
building a common agenda to promote projects of integration of transport
infrastructure, energy and communications. This initiative was inspired by the
principle that the integration of regional infrastructure would promote the creation of
a privileged space cooperation of fundamental importance to sustainable
socioeconomic
development.
(SOUTH
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING, 2012:1)

Following this the IIRSA initiative was formally absorbed by UNASUR in 2009
and went on to be the technical forum of South American Infrastructure and
Planning Council (COSIPLAN), one of the twelve sectoral councils belonging to the
institutional structure of UNASUR.
One of the general objectives of COSIPLAN is: "To develop an infrastructure
for regional integration and continuing to recognize the achievements and progress
of the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America
(IIRSA), incorporating them into its framework." (SOUTH AMERICAN COUNCIL
OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING, 2012:4)
To meet this objective COSIPLAN has a portfolio of projects for the year 2013
which consists of "583 infrastructure projects for integration in the sectors of
transport, energy and communications, organized into 48 groups of nine projects
Integration and Development Axes , reaching an estimated U.S. $ 157,730.5
million investment. "(UNASUR COSIPLAN, 2013:11) This portfolio is composed of
the form,
88.2% of projects and 67.7% of the Portfolio's investments are for projects in the
transport sector, while energy projects account for 10.1% and 32.3% respectively.
The Road Transport Project prevail in the portfolio with nearly half of the initiatives
and more than 50% of the investment sector, followed by projects in rail, maritime
and inland waterway transport in order of importance. Significant importance are
acquiring projects in border crossings, which constitute more intensive efforts

developing and coordinating intra and interinstitutional relations, than in the

infrastructure sector, but they play an important facilitation of regional trade and
integration role. The portfolio of the communications sector does not reach 2% of the
number of projects and a total investment estimated at $ 44.7 million. (UNASUR
COSIPLAN, 2013:11)

It was considered important for the development of this analysis to highlight

the current geographical location of infrastructure projects part of the COSIPLAN
portfolio are distributed in the following way,
For its geographical location 481 COSIPLAN Portfolio Projects are projects whose
scope execution is purely national. However, most of these projects contribute
directly to complete, improve or readjust infrastructure for integration and therefore
have an impact with regional reach. Of the remaining projects, 96 are bi-National and
five tri-nationals. There are only two projects that are multinational,
telecommunications between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela in the
group of 10 projects of the Andean axis. In terms of financing projects, the main
source is the public sector (74.5%). The private presence and public / private
partnerships represent similar proportions with 12.5% and 13% respectively.
(UNASUR COSIPLAN, 2013:12)

Regarding the multilevel approach, which is intended with the above

information is to have a concrete view on various aspects, the first is to understand
the importance of infrastructure in the integrationist strategy today. The second
point to note is that COSIPLAN has projects running, so we are able to determine
whether there is interaction between different actors at different levels. Hence other
aspects to consider are: the sectors that COSIPLAN focuses, the number of
national, binational, tri-national and multinational projects, the actors involved and
the types of investments they receive. To achieve this it is necessary to note that
the COSIPLAN has an agenda of priority projects of integration (API).
API is a bounded set of strategic high-impact projects for physical integration and
regional socio-economic development. The components of this Agenda are not
isolated projects, but "structured projects." A structured project is one that
consolidates a network physical connectivity with regional scope, in order to promote
synergies and address the shortcomings of the implemented infrastructure. In terms
of geographical scope, such structured projects are implemented in different
Integration and Development Axes and precisely propose improving the connectivity
in this space. They are composed of one or more projects from the Project Portfolio
of COSIPLAN denominated for the purpose of this Agenda "individual projects".
Currently, the API consists of 31 structured projects and 101 individual projects for a
total investment estimated at U.S. $16713.8 million. (UNASUR COSIPLAN, IIRSA,
2013:13)

Regarding the financing of projects in the Priority Agenda,

It is noted that for the total estimated investment API, the main source is the public
sector (72.2%). The private presence through various contractual forms (16.4%) and
public-private partnerships (11.4%) help complete the picture. Note that the strategic
importance of the draft Agenda and the priority it is given by countries, international
organizations and especially the institutions of the CCT, are contributing to the

achievement of pre-investment and financing works. In this sense, among the three
regional institutions of the CCT (IDB, CAF, FONPLATA) are being supported either
the steps of pre-implementation or enforcement, 19 of the 31 API structured projects
for an amount of investment approximately U.S. $1,208 million. (UNASUR
COSIPLAN, IIRSA, 2013:30)

To complement the information on API, should be clarified that,

The Amazon Axis is the one with the largest number of projects that are funded by
the private sector (77.8%), representing an investment of 74.6% of projects of the
Axis. These projects are national, corresponding to Peru, and belong to the river and
maritime sectors (29% respectively) and road and multimodal (21% respectively).
Meanwhile, in the MERCOSUR-Chile 50.7% of the Axis investment is funded by the
public / private sector (UNASUR COSIPLAN, IIRSA, 2013:32)

Another important fact is the way in which the investment occurs by sector, the
transport sector has a high public investment of 75.6%, a private investment of
18.4% and only 6.0 public-private partnerships. In contrast, the energy sector has
an investment where public-private partnerships are predominant with 57% of
investment and 43% of investment of public resources. (UNASUR COSIPLAN,
IIRSA, 2013:32)
The second feature that allows custom interactions of multilevel governance,
including the actions in the horizontal plane, is given by the methodology carried
out to identify and test the feasibility and appropriateness of the projects. During
the period of validity of the IIRSA (2000-2010) the projects were divided into four
stages: profile, pre-implementation, execution and concluded. With the entry into
force of the COSIPLAN arose the so-called methodology of the project life cycle, it
was decided then to subdivide the previous stages of pre-implementation and
execution. The new sub-stages are respectively: resources studies (related to
obtaining the financial resources to manage the project), studies in development
(when has been engaged in some studies of pre-execution), approved studies
(when you have the approval of the studies by part of the competent authorities),
permissions granted (when you have completed all the requirements and
institutional requirements), resources works (phase which has all the financial
resources and the necessary permits to develop the project).
The question that arises is, what is new about this methodology and what
benefits it brings to the multilevel articulation? The clear differentiation of the substages and specifically the sub-stage one, two and three would allow both local
governments and civil society actors to participate in a certain way by expressing
their opinions on the viability and relevance of the projects, although so far has not
been identified that social groups or sub- national entities may propose new
projects directly to be heard in the supranational level.
On the contrary, the participation or better, the query that manage to be linked
for civil society, is directly related to the intention of the local government to
incorporate them as active actors especially in the sub-stages of the preimplementation of the project, but all that would depend on the will of the central

state to incorporate sub- national levels, and even then, that would only be in the
implementation stage of the project, not in any decision making.
In other words, if the project is carried out in a place where the local
government has been characterized by developing a strong governance structure
where there are multiple channels of participation, very probably that the subnational entity and the community directly affected by the project would be able to
participate in any way in the implementation, but is not likely yet they could
possibly impact on the decision making of which kind of project would be executed.
On the contrary, to develop the project in a country with a high degree of
centralization, participation of any kind and at any level would not be possible.
In sum, despite the fact that within the methodological framework of an
integrated infrastructure in UNASUR, there are mechanisms that favored the
multilevel articulation both horizontal and vertical; the real interactions within the
multilevel model are subject to the structures of government and governance of
each of the countries where the projects were implemented. Because until now
UNASUR does not account with mechanisms that "force" to the states to run the
SMP or to implement in a unified manner the "programming methodology of the
cycle of life", each country will apply these methods according to their special
features. Achieve regional integration in issues of infrastructure under the tenets of
multilevel governance, would imply a greater integration in the regulatory
frameworks of the South American countries with regard to the implementation and
the development of infrastructure in the region. Although the above postulate is
mentioned as one of the general objectives of UNASUR in the area of
infrastructure, there is still much to be able to consolidate the policy integration that
sustains a real integration.
In conclusion in terms of infrastructure, there is a higher level of interaction,
and although the role of the state remains extremely high, there are other actors
involved in decision-making with some degree of incidence. On the other hand, in
the implementation of infrastructure projects was noticed a very low level of
participation of sub-national entities and a much lower level of participation of civil
society.
Institutional Structure of UNASUR
Now we will analyze the institutional system of UNASUR, in order to concrete the
elements to be analyzed with multilevel approach, to ascertain which actors have
an impact on decision-making in the organism, in which levels and how these
relations are given.
The current UNASUR institutional structure is composed by:
The Council of Heads of State and Government as its highest body, its main
responsibilities are: To establish policy guidelines, action plans, programs and
projects of the South American integration process, deciding priorities for
implementation and decide on proposals presented by the Council of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs.

Next in the hierarchy is located the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs

which has among its main functions to: Adopt Resolution to implement the
decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government, propose draft
Decisions and prepare the meetings of the Council of Heads of State and
Government, coordinate positions on central issues of South American integration,
develop and promote political dialogue and cooperation on issues of regional and
international interest.
Down in the hierarchy follows the Council of Delegates which has as duties:
Implement by adopting the relevant provisions, the decisions of the Council of
Heads of State and Government, and the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs, with the support of the President Pro Tempore and the General
Secretariat, prepare the meetings of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
prepare draft decisions, resolutions and regulations for consideration by the
Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs , to harmonize and coordinate efforts with
other UNASUR regional integration processes and subregional entities, in order to
promote the complementarity of efforts.
This is followed by the General Secretariat, a body under the leadership of the
General Secretary, executes the mandates conferred upon the bodies of UNASUR
and exerts its representation by delegation. Its responsibilities are to: Assist the
Board of Heads of State and Government, the Council of Ministers of Foreign
Affairs, the Council of Delegates and the President Pro Tempore in the fulfillment
of their duties, propose initiatives and to follow the guidelines of the organs of
UNASUR, participate with voice and exercise the secretariat at meetings of the
organs of UNASUR.11
Measured in incidence level the previous are followed by the twelve sectoral
councils working in different thematic areas facing the Regional integration, within
these sectoral councils are the South American Energy Council CES and the South
American Infrastructure and Planning Council COSIPLAN.
Given the above, it is understood that within the structure of UNASUR at
supranational level, decision making is too centralized, the only entity with full
decision making on all movements and projects of UNASUR is the Council of
Heads of State and government, this may be because the integration is still at an
embryonic stage, added to this, it is important to note that energy integration is the
main pillar to promote South American integration and the process of building the
South American Energy Treaty has not ended, this may affect the development of
supranational institutions for regional integration.
Therefore is concluded that the current regional institutional structure do not
leaves room for different actors other than the heads of Member States in the
supranational level; neither involves a significant interaction in other levels of
interaction, so the multilevel approach does not apply to the analysis of existing
supranational institutions of the region.
11

From www.unasursg.org 2014

Conclusions
Multilevel governance is a model not yet in its fullness in South America, however,
is possible for it to take place in the region, for that to happen would be necessary
to materialize an integration process that takes into account the multiple levels that
would shape it as a an integrated entity and levels within the State units composing
it, in addition to the multiple actors that might be involved in this shared field.
Worth mentioning that the multilevel approach is a powerful tool to analyze the
case of South American integration, even in the embryonic stage of development in
which it is located, which implies a commitment by our research group to continue
implementing it as far as the integration initiative in South America follow the
course towards consolidation, for this to happen should be considered creating
flexible institutions with legal adaptability and that in its context count with a
Regional political will that enables and facilitates its development.
To strengthen the integration process is considered important for UNASUR to
start regional strategic plans to strengthen civil society, in order to give legitimacy
to the process and append new players who can propel and adhere in the planning
and decision-making of their future together at regional level.
It is pertinent to clarify once again, that the process of UNASUR is very new,
so the implementation of the multilevel approach is still tentative, International
treaties are needed to ratify the commitment of Member States and to regulate
Regional plans in order to have a functioning model that facilitates analysis with
multilevel approach.
Charts

*Graphic 1: Support for the political system in the countries of the Americas

* Graphic 2: Participation in municipal meetings in the Countries of the Americas.

Graphic 3: participation and leadership in community groups in the Americas

* Graph obtained from the Americas Barometer by Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), 2012.

Bibliography
ALMOND, Gabriel y VERBA, Sidney. The civic culture, political attitudes and
democracy in five nations. An analytic study.Boston: Little Brow, 1965.
BACHE, Ian y FLINDERS, Matthew, Multilevel Governance, Oxford University
Press, 2004.
BODEMER, Klaus, Integracin energtica en Amrica del Sur: eje de integracin
o fragmentacin? Una regin en construccin Unasur y la integracin en amrica
del sur. Cienfuegos Mateo, Manuel (ed. lit.),Sanahuja Perales, Jos Antonio
(ed. lit.), pp. 179- 206, 2010.
Fernndez, M. Ignacia y Weason, Macarena,Gobernanza multinivel y traspaso
decompetencias para la descentralizacin y el desarrollo territorial, Rimisp - Centro
Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural, 2012.
FERRAN, Jaume y HERRERA, Enric, Cultura Poltica, en: Caminal, Miguel,
Manual de Ciencia Poltica, Tecnos, Espaa, 1996.
HOOGHE, Liesbet; MARKS, Gary; SCHAKEL,Arjan H, The Rise of Regional
Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Democracies, London: Routledge, 2010.
El Barmetro de las Amricas por el Proyecto de Opinin Pblica de Amrica
Latina (LAPOP), Cultura poltica de la democracia en Colombia y en las Amricas,
2012: Hacia la igualdad de oportunidades www.LapopSurveys.org.
Sennes, R. y P. Pedrotti (2007), Integracin energtica regional: viabilidad econmica y desafos polticos, ForeignAffairs en espaol, vol.7, n3, julioseptiembre, pp.31-46.
Piattoni, Simona, The Theory of Multi-level Governance: Conceptual, Empirical,
and Normative Challenges. Oxford UniversityPress, 2010.
TORCAL, Mariano, capitulo 10: Cultura Poltica, en: Del guila, Rafael, Manual de
Ciencia Poltica, trotta, Valladolid, 1997.
WELCH, Stephen. The concept of political culture.Ipswich: St. Martins Press,
1993.
UNASUR & COSIPLAN. (2013).Agenda de Proyectos Prioritarios de Integracin.
Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura y Planeamiento. Santiago, Chile: Author.
UNASUR & COSIPLAN. (2013). Cartera de Proyectos. Chile: Author.

IIRSA. (2012). Organizacin de la Iniciativa IIRSA en el COSIPLAN. Recuperado

el 3 de Julio de 2014, de: http://iirsa.org/Page/Detail?menuItemId=43.
COSIPLAN. (2012). Plan de Accin Estratgico 2012-2022.Author.
UNASUR & CEPAL. (2011). Infraestructura para la Integracin Regional. Santiago,
Chile: Author.
Noboa, E. (2013). El Sector Energtico en Suramrica. Evolucin, Potencial e
Integracin. FES.
UNASUR & OLADE. (2012). Potencial de Recursos Energticos y Minerales en
Amrica del Sur: Coincidencias jurdicas hacia una estrategia regional. Author.
Cienfuegos, M. (2007). Mercosur y Unin Europea. Argentina: Lerner Editora.
UNASUR & OLADE. (2012). UNASUR: Un espacio que consolida la integracin
energtica. Quito, Ecuador: Author.
Mansilla, Diego. "Integracin Energtica y Recursos Naturales en Amrica
Latina". La revista del CCC [en lnea]. Enero / Abril 2011, n 11. [citado 2014-0718]. Disponible en Internet: http://www.centrocultural.coop/revista/articulo/212/.
ISSN 1851-3263.
Sitio oficial de la Unin de Naciones Suramericanas: http://www.unasursg.org/