Cooperation: Over 4 billion euros annually in public money
€400,000 for a leadership program and €1.35 billion against climate change in developing countries: the breakdown of Spanish public spending.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
€155 million for irrigation in Mauritania and microcredit in Djibouti
A program designed to help Latin American and Caribbean women 'strengthen their citizenship' and train in political leadership. Cost: €400,000. It is financed by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), charged against the General State Budget. This allocation is not based on rumor; it appears in public calls for proposals that any citizen can consult. And it all fits on a single page.
That is the problem. The question of where public money goes is answered much better by the fine print in expenditure breakdowns than by any floor speech. When several of these items are added together—€400,000 here, €800,000 there, €1.35 billion further away—the discussion shifts from ideological to arithmetic.
How much Spain spends on international cooperation
The most frequently cited figure is over €4 billion committed to cooperation throughout 2025. It is not a single transfer: it is a constellation of calls for proposals, agreements, voluntary contributions to multilateral funds, establishment of bodies, and appointments, with commitments extending into future fiscal years. Each piece is small on its own. Together, they weigh heavily.
The published breakdowns from official calls allow for detail. There are €155 million distributed among flood risk reduction in Pakistan, irrigation techniques in Mauritania, microcredit in Djibouti, and water resource management in Honduras and Mongolia. There are also €800,000 against a marine algae issue in the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, and Mexico. And there are contributions to the Climate Change Adaptation Fund that accumulate year after year without passing through ordinary parliamentary debate.
Those who defend these allocations argue that cooperation buys influence and markets, and that abandoning it leaves the field open to other powers. Those who question them respond with a simpler question: what has been built, who verified it, and why the detail never appears in the Prime Minister's press summary.
Climate as an itemized expense: €1.35 billion for developing countries
The largest figure brought to the table is €1.35 billion dedicated to combating climate change in developing countries. It is the kind of announcement that is defended alone: no one wants to be the one debating the fight against global warming. This rhetorical protection is precisely what complicates scrutiny. The headline passes, and no one questions the execution.
The pattern repeats itself. First, the commitment is announced; then, it is distributed through medium-scale calls for proposals; and finally, it is executed through intermediary bodies whose public accounting is, at best, opaque. This is where cooperation stops being foreign policy and becomes an employment and contracting structure.
Grants for cinema: when aid becomes a business
Another item fueling suspicion is that for cinema. The result is sometimes unintentionally comical: there are productions backed by public money that become cult objects among incurable film buffs, with more devotees in niche circles than tickets sold at their premiere. It is claimed that in past years, some producers bought tickets to their own films during the initial weeks of screening to meet minimum requirements and secure the aid. If this peine, it says much about what was being measured: not public interest, but the formal fulfillment of a requirement.
Who audits all this and why is no one stopping it
The question that arises next is why no political party brings this to court or the floor. Some maintain that the system relies on a tacit pact of non-aggression: they cover for each other because everyone has used the same structures. And this is not solely a state phenomenon. Several autonomous communities have their own international cooperation agencies, with budgets and the capacity to sign agreements with distant destinations.
The result is spending spread across thousands of lines, each below the threshold that sparks journalistic curiosity, bound together by one word that justifies it all: solidarity.
The defenders of auditing point out that there is no need to cut anything to know what the money is being used for. It is enough to demand active transparency, evaluation of results, and real control over execution. Resistance to that step is what truly throws things into question.
With the details now on the table, there remains the hardest fact to explain. In seven days, the contribution to the United Nations went from 1 million euros to 8.4 million. No one has yet detailed what changed between one week and the next.
A program designed to help Latin American and Caribbean women 'strengthen their citizenship' and train in political leadership. Cost: €400,000. It is financed by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), charged against the General State Budget. This allocation is not based on rumor; it appears in public calls for proposals that any citizen can consult. And it all fits on a single page.
That is the problem. The question of where public money goes is answered much better by the fine print in expenditure breakdowns than by any floor speech. When several of these items are added together—€400,000 here, €800,000 there, €1.35 billion further away—the discussion shifts from ideological to arithmetic.
How much Spain spends on international cooperation
The most frequently cited figure is over €4 billion committed to cooperation throughout 2025. It is not a single transfer: it is a constellation of calls for proposals, agreements, voluntary contributions to multilateral funds, establishment of bodies, and appointments, with commitments extending into future fiscal years. Each piece is small on its own. Together, they weigh heavily.
The published breakdowns from official calls allow for detail. There are €155 million distributed among flood risk reduction in Pakistan, irrigation techniques in Mauritania, microcredit in Djibouti, and water resource management in Honduras and Mongolia. There are also €800,000 against a marine algae issue in the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, and Mexico. And there are contributions to the Climate Change Adaptation Fund that accumulate year after year without passing through ordinary parliamentary debate.
Those who defend these allocations argue that cooperation buys influence and markets, and that abandoning it leaves the field open to other powers. Those who question them respond with a simpler question: what has been built, who verified it, and why the detail never appears in the Prime Minister's press summary.
Climate as an itemized expense: €1.35 billion for developing countries
The largest figure brought to the table is €1.35 billion dedicated to combating climate change in developing countries. It is the kind of announcement that is defended alone: no one wants to be the one debating the fight against global warming. This rhetorical protection is precisely what complicates scrutiny. The headline passes, and no one questions the execution.
The pattern repeats itself. First, the commitment is announced; then, it is distributed through medium-scale calls for proposals; and finally, it is executed through intermediary bodies whose public accounting is, at best, opaque. This is where cooperation stops being foreign policy and becomes an employment and contracting structure.
Grants for cinema: when aid becomes a business
Another item fueling suspicion is that for cinema. The result is sometimes unintentionally comical: there are productions backed by public money that become cult objects among incurable film buffs, with more devotees in niche circles than tickets sold at their premiere. It is claimed that in past years, some producers bought tickets to their own films during the initial weeks of screening to meet minimum requirements and secure the aid. If this peine, it says much about what was being measured: not public interest, but the formal fulfillment of a requirement.
Who audits all this and why is no one stopping it
The question that arises next is why no political party brings this to court or the floor. Some maintain that the system relies on a tacit pact of non-aggression: they cover for each other because everyone has used the same structures. And this is not solely a state phenomenon. Several autonomous communities have their own international cooperation agencies, with budgets and the capacity to sign agreements with distant destinations.
The result is spending spread across thousands of lines, each below the threshold that sparks journalistic curiosity, bound together by one word that justifies it all: solidarity.
The defenders of auditing point out that there is no need to cut anything to know what the money is being used for. It is enough to demand active transparency, evaluation of results, and real control over execution. Resistance to that step is what truly throws things into question.
With the details now on the table, there remains the hardest fact to explain. In seven days, the contribution to the United Nations went from 1 million euros to 8.4 million. No one has yet detailed what changed between one week and the next.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (199 replies).
More summaries
-
Euthanasia in Old Age: Autonomy vs. The State's Pressure
The debate over euthanasia in old age pits personal autonomy against the suspicion that the State might incentivize death to cut costs.
-
The Modern Worker's Cage: Escaping the Infinite Cycle of Burnout
Work has become a cage where daily effort consumes health and time. Discover why we push ourselves so hard and how to break the cycle.
-
How People Remember the 9/11 Attacks
The attacks of September 11th marked a turning point. Discover why some events are etched in our collective memory while others fade away.
-
Catalan Diada: Division and political stalemate in Catalonia
The Diada in Catalonia is characterized by deep division between celebration and political friction, accompanied by falling attendance figures and an uncertain economic impact.
-
Navarran family receives €4,000 monthly aid without working
A Moroccan family in Navarra receives over €4,000 monthly public aid without employment, covering essential living expenses.
-
Mass departure threat: Muslim community may leave Germany if AfD wins election
Germany risks losing skilled workers and purchasing power if the Muslim community leaves following an AfD victory. We analyze the economic implications.