Understanding SSC in the context of aid effectiveness agenda - Conclusions from working session 1 of the TT-SSC launch
South-South cooperation (SSC) is a historic y very diverse form of collaboration among developing countries, which has been included in the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action [pdf], a new milestone in the evolving aid effectiveness agenda.
Concretely, the AAA invites all partners to explore the synergies between SSC and the aid effectiveness agenda within more effective and inclusive development partnerships. In practices, this means that actors involved in SSC (in particular middle-income countries) should take a strong stake in the aid effectiveness agenda. During its launch, the Task Team on South-South cooperation (TT-SSC) agreed that in order to implement article 19 of the AAA, analytical work (in particular, case studies) will be conducted on South-South technical cooperation, covering thus a very specific niche of SSC, which however will be coordinated with other ongoing studies addressing broader issues, e.g. at the UN Development Cooperation Forum.
With this overall context in mind, the working session addressed the "three-fold mandate" of the AAA (see upcoming concept note) after stating that, in general, impact assessment, the comparative advantages and institutional capacities of SSC providers (including the graduation of "baby agencies") still pose challenges to be addressed more effectively. The vivid debate addressed the three-fold mandate of the AAA with the following outcomes:
A.- Adapting the PD and AAA principles to SSC (“point of reference”, AAA art. 19a),
There was a strong consensus that SSC is already very much inspired in ownership and leadership of the recipient, as well as being implemented in alignment with national priorities (not necessarily with national systems). More difficulties are perceived in the area of harmonisation, with few experiences in programme-based approaches and only incipient examples of the inclusion of SSC in existing donor coordination mechanisms (however, Mozambique is advancing in this direction). Managing for development results is sometimes difficult to ensure due to the lack of information which is one of the most sensitive issues to be resolved in the near future, since it relates to a lack of capacities (registries, information systems, etc.) rather than commitment. In terms of mutual accountability, it is paramount to develop capacities at the provider side in order to improve the permeability to recipients' needs. The graduation of "baby agencies" (for example in Korea and, more recently, in Thailand) might be of critical importance for deepening the understanding of how to improve institutional capacities of provider countries.
B.- Enriching the aid effectiveness agenda with the practice and experiences of SSC (“learn from the experience of developing countries” and “role of middle-income countries”, AAA art. 19b)
Participants agreed that SSC is prone to consistently support ownership in general and foster national capacities to lead development processes, in particular. For instance, South-South knowledge exchange might enhance country systems and public reform. Among the comparative advantages of SSC, participants highlighted its adaptability to (shared) development challenges, its cost efficiency, the relevance and effectiveness of South-South technical cooperation, less conditionalities and the bid for horizontal development relationships (overcoming thus power assymetries which are inherent to the traditional donor-partner model).
C.- Identifying complementarities between SSC and North-South cooperation (“a valuable complement”, AAA art. 19e)
Synergies with North-South cooperation are still to be explored in a more structured way, but the discussants felt that particularly from the perspective of partner countries, both forms of cooperation need to be complementary and mutually enriching. Thus, strong leadership of recipient countries seems to be key for a consistent and collaborative environment of coordination which, ultimately, should be focussed on achieving development results at the country level.
Towards a continued exchange of ideas
The participants stressed that the debate on the synergies between SSC and the aid effectiveness agenda has just begun and should be deepened on the basis of evidence and concrete country experiences and from a self-critical and open-minded perspective.
Therefore, within this discussion thread we would like to invite all colleagues and in particular those from partner countries to engage in a continued exchange of ideas addressing the following key questions:
1. Country leadership over development and sector policies is difficult to achieve and consolidate. Do you feel that the SSC you receive or provide is supporting country ownership and if so, why? Are there experiences where national capacities to lead development and aid coordination have been strengthened directly or indirectly by SSC?
2. Capacity development is a strong part of SSC provided by middle-income countries. In fact, technical cooperation might constitute one of the main comparative advantages of SSC. From your experience both as a provider and as a recipient, which are the benefits of South-South technical cooperation in comparison to North-South assistance?
3. Peer learning and South-South exchange are a missing dimension in the Paris Declaration and the AAA. Which are the opportunities and caveats for SSC to shape more effective and inclusive partnerships among developing countries, for example at the regional, cross-regional and global level?
4. So far, SSC has been promoted mostly without synergies with North-South cooperation, but many new opportunities are arising now. As a recipient and/or provider, do you have any (potential) experiences in implementing triangular cooperation, for example in the realm of capacity development?
Concretely, the AAA invites all partners to explore the synergies between SSC and the aid effectiveness agenda within more effective and inclusive development partnerships. In practices, this means that actors involved in SSC (in particular middle-income countries) should take a strong stake in the aid effectiveness agenda. During its launch, the Task Team on South-South cooperation (TT-SSC) agreed that in order to implement article 19 of the AAA, analytical work (in particular, case studies) will be conducted on South-South technical cooperation, covering thus a very specific niche of SSC, which however will be coordinated with other ongoing studies addressing broader issues, e.g. at the UN Development Cooperation Forum.
With this overall context in mind, the working session addressed the "three-fold mandate" of the AAA (see upcoming concept note) after stating that, in general, impact assessment, the comparative advantages and institutional capacities of SSC providers (including the graduation of "baby agencies") still pose challenges to be addressed more effectively. The vivid debate addressed the three-fold mandate of the AAA with the following outcomes:
A.- Adapting the PD and AAA principles to SSC (“point of reference”, AAA art. 19a),
There was a strong consensus that SSC is already very much inspired in ownership and leadership of the recipient, as well as being implemented in alignment with national priorities (not necessarily with national systems). More difficulties are perceived in the area of harmonisation, with few experiences in programme-based approaches and only incipient examples of the inclusion of SSC in existing donor coordination mechanisms (however, Mozambique is advancing in this direction). Managing for development results is sometimes difficult to ensure due to the lack of information which is one of the most sensitive issues to be resolved in the near future, since it relates to a lack of capacities (registries, information systems, etc.) rather than commitment. In terms of mutual accountability, it is paramount to develop capacities at the provider side in order to improve the permeability to recipients' needs. The graduation of "baby agencies" (for example in Korea and, more recently, in Thailand) might be of critical importance for deepening the understanding of how to improve institutional capacities of provider countries.
B.- Enriching the aid effectiveness agenda with the practice and experiences of SSC (“learn from the experience of developing countries” and “role of middle-income countries”, AAA art. 19b)
Participants agreed that SSC is prone to consistently support ownership in general and foster national capacities to lead development processes, in particular. For instance, South-South knowledge exchange might enhance country systems and public reform. Among the comparative advantages of SSC, participants highlighted its adaptability to (shared) development challenges, its cost efficiency, the relevance and effectiveness of South-South technical cooperation, less conditionalities and the bid for horizontal development relationships (overcoming thus power assymetries which are inherent to the traditional donor-partner model).
C.- Identifying complementarities between SSC and North-South cooperation (“a valuable complement”, AAA art. 19e)
Synergies with North-South cooperation are still to be explored in a more structured way, but the discussants felt that particularly from the perspective of partner countries, both forms of cooperation need to be complementary and mutually enriching. Thus, strong leadership of recipient countries seems to be key for a consistent and collaborative environment of coordination which, ultimately, should be focussed on achieving development results at the country level.
Towards a continued exchange of ideas
The participants stressed that the debate on the synergies between SSC and the aid effectiveness agenda has just begun and should be deepened on the basis of evidence and concrete country experiences and from a self-critical and open-minded perspective.
Therefore, within this discussion thread we would like to invite all colleagues and in particular those from partner countries to engage in a continued exchange of ideas addressing the following key questions:
1. Country leadership over development and sector policies is difficult to achieve and consolidate. Do you feel that the SSC you receive or provide is supporting country ownership and if so, why? Are there experiences where national capacities to lead development and aid coordination have been strengthened directly or indirectly by SSC?
2. Capacity development is a strong part of SSC provided by middle-income countries. In fact, technical cooperation might constitute one of the main comparative advantages of SSC. From your experience both as a provider and as a recipient, which are the benefits of South-South technical cooperation in comparison to North-South assistance?
3. Peer learning and South-South exchange are a missing dimension in the Paris Declaration and the AAA. Which are the opportunities and caveats for SSC to shape more effective and inclusive partnerships among developing countries, for example at the regional, cross-regional and global level?
4. So far, SSC has been promoted mostly without synergies with North-South cooperation, but many new opportunities are arising now. As a recipient and/or provider, do you have any (potential) experiences in implementing triangular cooperation, for example in the realm of capacity development?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Morton on -
These are useful observations and demonstrate the increasingly important role of South-
South Cooperation.
The intersection between aid effectiveness and SSC is indeed difficult. The current aid effectiveness agenda was originally devised mainly by donor countries, and the entry of aid recipients and Southern providers into this agenda is relatively recent. The challenge now is to modernize the agenda so that it reflects new realities.
Paragraph 19 of the Accra Agenda for Action provides a promising basis for this. Paragraph 19 (e) is particularly powerful: it states that South-South cooperation emphasizes the importance of non-interference in internal affairs, equality among developing partners and respect for independence, national sovereignty, cultural diversity and identity and local content. This is very strong, forward-looking basis for international cooperation efforts. If North-South cooperation had followed this model from the outset, things would look very different today!
Of the current aid effectiveness agenda, developing country ownership has probably been the toughest nut to crack. Research shows that many Southern stakeholders challenge the conceptualizations of ownership represented in the Paris Declaration. Civil society groups have called for a broadening of the concept so that it reflects “democratic ownership”. Northern donors agree with developing country ownership in theory, but have found it much harder to put into practice. South-South cooperation represents a different take on ownership, and may have important experiences and lessons that can advance current thinking and practice. Yet so far, these lessons are primarily anecdotal, and have not sufficiently entered aid effectiveness policy debates. This is why the TT-SSC analytical studies – and this discussion process – are extremely worthwhile. -
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron Leonard on -
Bill, thanks for adding to the discussion. While I agree that the AAA statement on South-South cooperation is in the right direction, it begs the question whether this is really what "SSC does"? or "should do"? Iara raises the same point in the parallel discussion on definition (http://www.southsouth.info/group/definingssc). In principle, SSC emphasizes the aspects mentioned below. But where are the concrete examples? I have high hopes that this can be demonstrated through case studies and considered as good practices in South-South Cooperation are developed.
Bill Morton said:These are useful observations and demonstrate the increasingly important role of South-
South Cooperation.
The intersection between aid effectiveness and SSC is indeed difficult. The current aid effectiveness agenda was originally devised mainly by donor countries, and the entry of aid recipients and Southern providers into this agenda is relatively recent. The challenge now is to modernize the agenda so that it reflects new realities.
Paragraph 19 of the Accra Agenda for Action provides a promising basis for this. Paragraph 19 (e) is particularly powerful: it states that South-South cooperation emphasizes the importance of non-interference in internal affairs, equality among developing partners and respect for independence, national sovereignty, cultural diversity and identity and local content. This is very strong, forward-looking basis for international cooperation efforts. If North-South cooperation had followed this model from the outset, things would look very different today!
Of the current aid effectiveness agenda, developing country ownership has probably been the toughest nut to crack. Research shows that many Southern stakeholders challenge the conceptualizations of ownership represented in the Paris Declaration. Civil society groups have called for a broadening of the concept so that it reflects “democratic ownership”. Northern donors agree with developing country ownership in theory, but have found it much harder to put into practice. South-South cooperation represents a different take on ownership, and may have important experiences and lessons that can advance current thinking and practice. Yet so far, these lessons are primarily anecdotal, and have not sufficiently entered aid effectiveness policy debates. This is why the TT-SSC analytical studies – and this discussion process – are extremely worthwhile. -
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron Leonard on
-
Nils, you've done a great job capturing the working group's discussion here. With respect to question 2 on Capacity development, what I heard in this session was a resounding "yes," SSC is a very important tool for capacity development. The speaker from Mozambique mentioned that, in addition to what you've captured above, the comparative advantage of South-South cooperation is that the similar political and socioeconomic environment between provider/ recipient "facilitates consensus" on projects. Reaching consensus on what should be done and how to do it is a key ingredient in successful development, and something that is far too often overlooked. I think this is a critical point in favor of SSC.
We also heard from a number of participants that SSC is not "new" – it has been practiced already for decades. However, as mentioned, it has not been well documented, making measurement extremely difficult. (The lack of a common definition doesn't help either). In order to better understand and communicate the value of SSC, especially in the context of Aid Effectiveness, we need to be able to document it. Barbara Lee (WB) highlighted 4 key issues for documenting SSC - I think you capture the first point in your questions above.
1) What's the impact? Capture it in any way possible - through stories and/ or anecdotally if need be.
2) Ownership – what is it? What are the key elements of ownership? We need to answer this first before we can document it.
3) How has SSC led to strengthening of country systems?
4) Volume - What percent of aid do developing countries contribute via SSC? (In answer to this last point, another participant gave an estimate of $9 – 12 billion; can someone confirm?).
Would be great to hear from others who participated in this working session. Again, Nils, great job in summarizing. I look forward to the discussion. -
-
Permalink Reply by Mar on -
Hi Nils!
Regarding your last point about triangular cooperation I´d like to add that the last report* of Iberoamerican SSC have given especial importance to Triangular cooperation. In fact is one of the main debates and is considered an important instrument to reduce cultural and language barriers, facilitate the participation of new actors in International cooperation and contribute access to new sources on financial development. There are also seeing it as a “link ”between SSC and NSC.
Iberoamerica have implemented this modality of cooperation in three forms of financing:
1. Common: co finance by the traditional donor and the new bidder,
2. Parallel: each bidder manages their own funds on a separate way,
3. Unilateral: the traditional donor finances the Project and the new bidder is in charge of the technical implementation.
The main sectors that have concentrated most of Iberoamerican Triangular cooperation are: agricultural sector (implemented by Argentina and Japan in Peru), fishing (most of the projects by Chile and Japan) and climate change (Germany and Costa Rica in Bolivia), among others.
The experiences have been successful however there is a need of improving the efficiency by a better coordination among peers and the creation of a system of information that supports decision-making and design of policies.
*www.cooperacionsursur.org/documentos/SurSurCastellano.pdf
-
LATEST NEWS
IBEROAMERICAN PROGRAM
SOUTH-SOUTH CASES
FROM OUR TWITTER
UPDATES
South-South Cooperation Exchange Mechanism. First online portal dedicated to SSC in the field of sustainable development.
Mapping Multilateral Support to South-South Cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Towards Collaborative Approaches. UNDP, 2011. Download PDF (English version) (Versión en Español)
Articulação SUL- South-South Cooperation Research and Policy Center in São Paulo, hosted by the Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning (Cebrap)
Development Policy Blog: Networking can promote knowledge exchange and cooperation on development. By: Maree Tait
IDB Magazine - Regional Public Goods: An innovative approach to South-South Cooperation (English) (Español)
Using Knowledge Exchange for Capacity Development: What Works in Global Practice? KDI and The World Bank Institute
Humanizing Development Gallery. Images from the Global Photography Campaign by IPC-IG/UNDP
Questions/Complaints? Contact the Community Moderator
© 2013 Created by South-South Opportunity.
