La gestion d'un programme "Sud-Sud-Sud": L’experience du Benin a travers la mise en oeuvre de cooperation Sud-Sud pour le developpement durable entre le Benin, le Bhoutan et la Costa Rica

Dr. PASCAL TCHIWANOU, Researcher at LAVUE Laboratory Paris II and former Program Officer for the Program South-South Cooperation on Sustainable Development, tells Cafezinho about his experience in managing the trilateral project "Non Timber Forest", implemented simultaneously in Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica. The experience is featured in the study "Enhancing Management Practices in South-South and Triangular Cooperation." Read Dr. Tchiwanou's post in 80+ languages with the translator widget on the right side of the screen.

Cafezinho is a collaborative blog. Authors are responsible for the concepts, ideas, views and opinions disseminated in the blog posts.

                                                            *  *  *
Le Programme de Coopération Sud sud pour le Développement Durable (PSC) entre le Bénin, le Bhoutan et le Costa Rica est né de la Volonté des trois pays du sud supra cités de s’unir  pour accéder au Développement durable. A cet effet, le Pays-Bas, le Bénin, le Bhoutan et le Costa Rica ont signé en 2002 à Johannesburg un accord de partenariat sud sud et triangulaire pour atteindre cet objectif.

Pour ce faire, trois critères ont été identifiés à savoir la réciprocité, l’égalité et complémentarité. Les projets qui sont sélectionnés dans ce cadre doivent être simultanément exécutés dans les deux ou trois pays à la fois.

Ces trois Etats ayant des modes de gestions administratives et comptables différents, un manuel de  procédure a été mis en place de commun accord avec les trois pays et le Royaume des Pays-Bas.

Ce système mise en place a permis au trois pays de conduire de la même manière tous les 22 projets mis en œuvre dans les 3 trois pays et a permis d’atteindre les résultats escomptés. Pour associer la théorie à la pratique, je vous présenterai l’expérience du Projet «Information and methodologies for Non-Timber Forest Products Management» exécuté simultanément par le Bénin, le Bhoutan et le Costa Rica.

Cadre stratégique (description du système de gestion)

Dans le cadre du suivi évaluation des activités des projets du PSC, un manuel de procédure et quatre guidelines ont été mis en place. Si les guidelines nous renseignent sur comment exécutés les activités du projet et leur reporting, le manuel de procédure nous indique ce que la stratégie à mettre en œuvre pour une gestion efficace et efficiente des activités du projet tant sur le plan administratif, financier que technique.

Ces différents outils mis en place et surtout le manuel de procédure (handbook) arriment avec les différentes politiques de développement ou de mise en œuvre  des projets par les trois pays concernés par cette coopération sud sud. Ils riment avec les exigences de système de gestion des ressources du budget national du Bénin, des autres pays partenaires et des institutions étrangères bien sur avec quelques différences près.

Ils [manuel de procédure et quatre guidelines] riment avec les exigences de système de gestion des ressources du budget national du Bénin, des autres pays partenaires et des institutions étrangères bien sur avec quelques différences près.

L’agence d’exécution du programme désignée par le Mécanisme National du Programme est le Centre de Partenariat et d’Expertise pour le Développement Durable (CePED) au Bénin. Cette agence étant une structure multi bailleurs, elle a eu toute la flexibilité à s’adapter aux exigences des partenaires, ce qui a fait que les exigences n’ont pas constitué des handicaps à la mise en œuvre du programme. Par contre, elles ont  rendu le suivi évaluation des projets un peu difficile vu que les promoteurs et les bénéficiaires du projet n’étaient pas habitués à un tel système de gestion administrative et financière.

Ce modèle de gestion unique mis en place par le PSC a permis la mise en œuvre des activités des différents projets même si quelques difficultés de rigidité du système sont à relever.

Ce modèle de gestion unique mis en place par le PSC a permis la mise en œuvre des activités des différents projets même si quelques difficultés de rigidité du système sont à relever.

Si le PSC a opté pour des instruments de gestion de projets imposé par le pays donateur qu’est le Royaume des Pays Bas, la Japan-Brasil Partnership Program, JBPP (Enhancing Management Practices in South-South Cooperation, p.72-79) quant à elle, a adopté une approche plus «autonome». Cela signifie que peu de ces instruments de gestion de projet sont en fait commun à tous les partenaires. Par exemple, le Brésil et le Japon adoptent leurs propres évaluations et de sélection des projets des mécanismes internes et les outils de suivi et d'évaluation. Pourquoi le PSC n’a-t-il pas adopté une approche aussi autonome comme celle du JBPP? Quelles étaient les conditions particulières qui ont conduit à cette décision?

Pour ce programme, plusieurs facteurs ont amené les différents acteurs a convenu de ce mode de gestion. Il s’agit des facteurs culturels, géographiques et linguistiques.

Nous avons en premier lieu le facteur langue qui n’a pas trop arrangé les promoteurs de projet béninois dans ce programme. Si la deuxième langue officielle dans les deux autres pays étaient l’Anglais, au Bénin c’est seulement le Français qui est parlé. Aussi les promoteurs de projet avaient des difficultés à faire des rapports financiers et techniques vu que ces derniers sont exigés dans un format unique pour les trois pays. Pour palier à cette difficulté, il a été procédé au renforcement des capacités en reporting et en anglais.

La situation géographique a été également une difficulté, vu que les trois pays étaient chacun sur un continent, le Bénin en Afrique, le Bhoutan en Asie, le Costa Rica en Amérique Latine. Les contacts se font par mail mais par an tous les responsables des mécanismes se réunissaient pour évaluer et valider les rapports d’activités. Le renforcement du dispositif de la connexion internet a été faite pour  résoudre cette difficulté.

Aussi, la pluralité des différents acteurs intervenant dans le projet, ne nécessite elle pas aussi un dispositif approprié?

Aussi, la pluralité des différents acteurs intervenant dans le projet, ne nécessite elle pas aussi un dispositif approprié? En effet, pour le projet Non Timber Forest, les différents acteurs étaient le CePED constitués des Experts en charges de la Gestion des Projets de Coopérations Sud sud et triangulaires, la Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques du Bénin (FSA), les populations bénéficiaires et le Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Elevage et de la Pêche.

Si le CePED joue le rôle de la coordination et de suivi de mise en œuvre des résultats du projet conformément au guideline, au handbook et au document de projet, la FSA est l’agent d’exécution comme l’Institut National de la Biodiversité (INBIO) au Costa Rica.

Le Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche, s’approprie des résultats de recherche du projet pour le disséminer dans ses structures techniques afin que ces derniers soient pris en compte dans l’élaboration stratégies de développement et à leur opérationnalisation. Comme bénéficiaires du Projet, il y a les populations de la zone d’intervention du projet, les étudiants pour la recherche, les structures techniques décentralisées.

Description du Dispositif du suivi évaluation du Projet

Bien que le programme est imposé un système de gestion peu autonome au pays dans le cadre du suivi évaluation du projet, les activités de planification, du  suivi évaluation qui sont exécutées sont en partie conformes à la gestion classique des projets. Le CePED par des visites de terrains, du Promoteurs et avec les audits financiers et organisationnels est arrivé à faire exécuter toutes les activités prévues dans le projet. Mis à part cette évaluation nationale, le programme a également initié des visites conjointes de suivi évaluation des projets.  Au cours de ces visites conjointes, les chargés de programme des trois différents pays se rendent ensemble dans chacun des pays pour évaluer la mise en œuvre du projet.

Résultats

Cette expérience de coopération Sud-Sud et triangulaire à travers les multiples que connait le Bénin à travers le CePED a permis d’avoir de nouvelles expériences for appréciables.

Ainsi par la mise en œuvre de ce programme, le CePED, a accru sa richesse culturelle par ce brassage avec les pays du Sud. Il a capitalisé aussi dans le domaine du monitoring des projets par les expériences des autres pays. Ce qui l’amène à être plus flexible sur ses modes de gestion administratives et comptables afin d’intégrer celles des autres. Toutefois, il serait intéressant que dans le cadre de la gestion des projets de coopération sud sud, et triangulaire, qu’une autonomie soit plus accordée à chaque pays sans toutefois ne pas s’éloigner d’un guideline ou manuel de procédure unique.

Latin America divided? Integration and South-South Cooperation

Blogging from Quito, Ecuador today and tomorrow. Participating in the Seminar "Latin America divided? Integration and South-South Cooperation Processes" and exchange with the Ecuadorian Technical Secretariat for International Cooperation on models for South-South cooperation management. 

Live stream: http://iaen.edu.ec/2014/02/seminario-latinoamerica-dividida-procesos-de-integracion-y-cooperacion-sur-sur/

Approved the UNOSSC strategic framework, what's next?

@karin_vazquez

The strategic framework of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) 2014-2017 was approved by the UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS Executive Board in its first regular session 2014 (27-31 January) - see decisions adopted by UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS Executive Board at its first regular session 2014.

Overall, the Board was supportive of the work of the UNOSSC and the new strategic framework. The G77 (represented by Bolivia), China, Brazil, and India were vocal in the discussions. Japan also highlighted its continued support to the work of UNOSSC and triangular cooperation - as opposed to other OECD-DAC countries shy representation.

Not surprisingly, though. The UNOSSC has long been seen by the G-77 and China as a "neutral" articulator for SSC in the UN system. But does this mean excluding allegedly "Northern-driven" processes like the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPDEC) from the debate? In the run-up to the GPDEC Ministerial Meeting in Mexico (15-16 April), I would like to have seen GPDEC co-chairs and current members of the Executive Board UK and Indonesia playing a more active role in the discussions last week. Topic for a future post, João Moura...!

In the meantime, here are other highlights of Executive Board discussion last week:

UNDP continues to host UNOSSC

UNDP's own contributions to South-South cooperation lies not in trying to represent, duplicate, overlap or replace the mandate and functions of the UNOSSC given by the UN General Assembly as an independent entity and coordinator for SSC on a global and UN system-wide basis. Rather, UNDP's comparative advantage for support to South-South cooperation is through its own global, regional and country programs within the mandate and areas of focus approved by the Executive Board. The Board praised the establishment of a "Multi-agency Outcome Board" consisting of representatives from ILO, FAO, IFAD, UNIDO, and UNDP to ensure the coherence and coordination of UN support to South-South cooperation during the Strategic Framework period. 

Countries are asked to invest more in multilateral forms of SSC

The G77 and China urged member states in a position to do so to contribute more generously to the work of the UNOSSC through its United Nations Fund for South-South Cooperation, as reiterated in General Assembly resolution 60/212 in which it designated the UNFSSC "as the main United Nations trust fund for promoting and supporting South-South and triangular cooperation." The Board also encouraged increased contribution to Southern-led facilities like the IBAS fund, currently managed by UNOSSC.

More effective institutional environment for  SSC at the UN and country levels

UNOSSC will contribute to the monitoring of the UNDP global program. UNDP's Regional Bureau for Africa invited UNOSSC to its Advisory Board, and other UNDP's programming units and UN system organizations were encouraged to do the same. At the country level, UNOSSC was encouraged to work with national development cooperation authorities to increase the use of the 3-in-1 South-South support architecture and to strengthen country capacity to manage SSC more systematically. 

SSC contribution to the post 2015 agenda

The Brazilian delegation noted that the implementation of the post-2015 agenda will be limited by the effective coordination of the different modalities of cooperation, and called UNOSSC to play a greater role on SSC effectiveness and accountability. The discussion on how to promote effective SSC should take place initially with the SSC focal points in the countries (including through ABC-JICA-UNOSSC project ‘Capacity Development in Management of South-South and Triangular Cooperation’), and then taken to the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) and the High-Level Committee (HLC). Once again, how does this play with UNDP coordination (and co-hosting of the GPDEC Secretariat with the OECD-DCD)? How much can the UNDP support the GPDEC discussion on SSC?

  

READ ALSO:

Part #1: Enhanced UN support to South-South Cooperation? The United Nations Office for Development Cooperation Strategic Framework 2014-2017

Part #2: Enhanced UN support to South-South Cooperation? The United Nations Office for Development Cooperation Strategic Framework 2014-2017

Part #2: South-South and triangular cooperation contribution to the post 2015 development agenda

@karin_vazquez

The six experiences analyzed in the study "Enhancing Management Practices in South-South and Triangular Cooperation" provide lessons to countries interested in how to develop, expand or enhance their capacity in SSC/TrC management.  These lessons convey both the successes and the challenges that these countries have faced when introducing enhanced management practices.

Enhancing management practices in SSC/TrC is an ongoing trial-and-learning process. 

Developing countries are actively sharing their experiences and engaging in development cooperation initiatives with their peers. Capacity constraints have not stymied the resourcefulness of these countries in producing relevant contributions to South-South and triangular cooperation and creating innovative management mechanisms. The examples of the ‘Partners in South-South Cooperation Program’ (Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica) and the ‘Japan-Brazil Partnership Program’ demonstrate that partners spent many years strengthening the relationship and developing the necessary managerial infrastructure to run joint programs, projects and other SSC/TrC initiatives. 

Organizations in charge of SSC/TrC benefit from leadership with clear and strong institutional mandates. 
The domestic development challenges that South-South cooperation providers still face coupled with growing pressure on domestic resources pose difficulties for the governments in these countries to communicate the rationale for SSC/TrC and justify such initiatives to their Parliaments and society. Leadership can catalyze political and public support in favor of such initiatives. In the Chilean case, the mandate of AGCI’s Director and his accountability line to AGCI’s Council and the Presidency were clearly defined by Law, helping mainstream SSC/TrC within the different Ministries and other public sector institutions involved in Chilean development cooperation. In the Mexican case, leadership prompted public support for innovative modalities of SSC/TrC and the scale-up of government’s initiatives, even in the absence of a specific legal framework for international PPPs.

Light, autonomous, and decentralized institutional arrangements facilitate the rapid implementation of SSC/TrC initiatives tailored to partner countries’ needs.  
Development cooperation agencies have a central role in linking the expertise available across the government with the demand for cooperation in the partner country. The Chilean experience showed that the establishment of a dedicated unit for South-South Cooperation in the country’s development cooperation agency and the use of Chilean embassies network allowed for such connections to be made and maintained with relatively little human and financial resources. This basic structure is complemented by a dedicated unit for partnership development with multilaterals responsible for joining up efforts and coupling national funding for horizontal initiatives with foreign resources. 

Integrated coordination mechanisms facilitate the delivery of the SSC/TrC expected results. 
South-South cooperation providers often face coordination challenges, as often multiple ministries and actors are involved in delivering development cooperation. Likewise, ensuring policies from different areas of government do not undercut or contradict one another is a key factor for the successful delivery of development cooperation. In a highly decentralized institutional setting, coordination mechanisms are critical to ensure the consistency and coherence of SSC/TrC initiatives. The Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica as well as the Mexican cases provided good examples of how coordination at the working level can support SSC/TrC initiatives. The cases further demonstrated how working-level coordination integrates with higher-level governance mechanisms, and creates upstream linkages with policy making.

Coordination mechanisms in the partner country’s development planning process can further help deliver the SSC/TrC expected results. 
One of the key challenges concerning effective coordination of development cooperation is that SSC/TrC is often led and dealt by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, while other forms of development cooperation (i.e. development finance) are usually dealt and managed by the Ministries of Finance and/or Planning. In many cases this has prompted some confusion in the development planning process in partner countries with regards to the coordination of development projects and their alignment with national strategies and priorities. In the Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica case, high-level representatives from each of the three partners ensured that the PSSC was adopted into the foreign policy and national plans of their respective countries. This set the stage for governments to incorporate SSC/TrC into their international relations agendas.

Domestic experiences can be adapted to international cooperation for development and different cooperation modalities can be combined, innovating SSC/TrC. 
The legal framework that governs development cooperation can create an enabling environment for innovative SSC/TrC management. The Mexican case showed that PPPs allow for more flexible development cooperation spending, cost sharing among partners, and better use of each actor’s comparative advantage. The cases further pointed to the need for legal frameworks that allow for the combination of different SSC modalities, thus offering more options to the management of SSC/TrC and to the delivery of the expected results.

Non-state actors can be a resource, not just in their capacity as deliverers of SSC/TrC but also as development actors in their own right. 
The involvement of organizations beyond central governments in the management of SSC/TrC varies considerably in the case studies. The involvement of the civil society in PPP models (Mexico) further demonstrated how the capacity to respond to a demand for SSC/TrC can be considerably expanded and enhanced to deliver cooperation in fairly complex environments. The Chile case provided an interesting example of non-state actor involvement in SSC/TrC management through the representation of the academia in AGCI‘s institutional arrangement. The mechanisms through which AGCI relates with the larger non-government sector (e.g. through the participation of knowledge-based organizations, civil society organizations, and other non-state entities in the formulation of national development policies, and in the delivery monitoring and evaluation of AGCI’s SSC/TrC programs) were less evident in the study.

Complementarity between North-South and South-South cooperation is enhanced when partners exchange knowledge about development solutions as well as official development assistance and South-South cooperation management. 
North-South and South-South Cooperation can complement and leverage each other through different mechanisms and approaches. The Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica case demonstrates how the lessons learned from the partnership with the Netherlands (in addition to funding) were key to launch the PSSC, harmonize the management practices among the three partners, and help the program reach maturity over the years. The ‘JBPP’ in turn showed how a more autonomous approach to TrC management, with fewer codified and common practices, can also help deepen and enlarge TrC. In both cases, the trust fostered among the partners throughout the years created an enabling environment for the exchange of knowledge on development solutions and management practices, regardless the approach adopted in each of the cases.

Human resources development and involvement of professionals outside the government are vital to overcome capacity ‘ceilings’ and to the long-term sustainability of SSC/TrC initiatives. 
South-South cooperation providers often face capacity constraints in relation to the availability of public sector expertise and to the management of SSC/TrC. Investments in staff training on functional aspects such as project management, coordination negotiation, M&E, in addition to mentoring programs, performance assessments and other initiatives, can help attract and retain qualified human resources for SSC/TrC engagements. The increased use of professionals from the academia, local governments, civil society organizations and the private sector, can further help overcome the time constraints (and in some cases even expertise) that many civil servants face when engaging in SSC/TrC. Thailand experience showed that through volunteer programs TICA was able to identify and deploy human resources from outside the government to SSC/TrC projects with very unique characteristics and requirements. These cases further pointed to the need for capacity development, performance appraisal, and information systems related to the volunteers to be embedded in HR policies, conferring more institutional stability over time and across changes of government.

Which examples of North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation in the implementation of the MDGs can be highlighted and increased in light of the post-2015 development agenda?

READ ALSO:

Part #1: South-South and triangular cooperation contribution to the post 2015 development agenda

Upcoming events in South-South and triangular cooperation

Part #1: South-South and triangular cooperation contribution to the post 2015 development agenda

@karin_vazquez

The post-2015 development agenda will require more effective, strengthened and improved modes of development cooperation to support its implementation. Technical, scientific and technological cooperation will be fundamental for increasing innovation, strengthening environmental protection and driving social and economic development worldwide.

As we approach the deadline for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, how can South-South and triangular cooperation (SSC/TrC) partners shape the post-2015 debate and implement the new global development framework?

First, by promoting the SSC principles of respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, equality, non-conditionality, non-interference in domestic affairs and mutual benefit as the basis of a more inclusive international development agenda.

Second, by strengthening their capacity to manage growing development cooperation flows, scale-up initiatives, and realize the full potential of SSC/TrC in line with their national priorities and their partner’s priorities.


The study "EnhancingManagement Practices in South-South and triangular cooperation" contributes to the debate by showcasing practical measures taken by SSC/TrC partners to strengthen their legal frameworks, institutional management and coordination mechanisms, project and program management, human resources management and communications.

The study further addresses key questions about SSC/TrC management:
1. How did these measures help yield visible results and scale up projects?

2. How can these measures positively influence the key aspects of SSC/TrC?

CASE 1: THE CREATION OF THE CHILEAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY, presents the challenge that the Chilean International Cooperation Agency faced in dealing with a typical issue a Middle Income Country faces: managing its dual role as a provider of SSC while tackling its unfinished development agenda.

The case points AGCI’s effort to develop a  rationale for the allocation of domestic human and financial resources for cooperation initiatives with other developing countries through the decentralization of its institutional arrangement; regional strategy based on Chile’s thematic expertise, domestic capacity, and the needs of partner countries; and triangular cooperation.

CASE 2: THE ‘MEXICO FOR HAITI ALLIANCE’ MODEL OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, introduces the Mexican government challenge to harness and coordinate humanitarian assistance for the reconstruction of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, through public-private partnerships with private foundations and NGOs in Mexico and Haiti.

CASE 3: BENIN, BHUTAN AND COSTA RICA: MONITORING A TRIANGULAR COOPERATION PROJECT IN AGRICULTURE, introduces the experience of Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica in managing the ‘Partners in South-South Cooperation’ initiative. Different management practices among the three countries and cultural/language differences created transaction costs to the planning, design, implementation and monitoring of the projects supported by the PSSC.

Common procedures were developed to harmonize the different management, financial and accountability practices and roll them out to all PSSC projects. They also included guidelines on ‘how to’ develop project technical and financial reports, and apply indicators to measure the financial stability and the sustainability of the program as a whole.

CASE 4: SELECTING AND MANAGING TALENT IN THAILAND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY VOLUNTEER PROGRAM, recounts the Thailand International Development Cooperation Agency experience in managing the ‘Friends from Thailand Program’ and how volunteerism helped TICA select and manage specialized human resources and diversify its South-South cooperation modalities.

CASE 5: CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING A COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY IN KENYA, discusses how the Kenyan government improved the communication of its long-term development strategy (the Vision 2030), and formed partnerships to achieve the MDGs.

One highlight of the study is the communication channels between the Ministry of Planning, and other Ministries regarding the implementation status of the Vision 2030. Through the National South-South Standing Committee the Ministry of Planning receives feedback on the implementation of SSC/TrC initiatives in the country, and communicates the priorities of the Vision 2030 that can be delivered or leveraged through SSC/TrC. These channels may also be used in the newly established South-South Centre.

CASE 6: THE JAPAN ‘PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM’ MODEL OF TRIANGULAR COOPERATION, looks into Japan’s ‘partnership program’ model of triangular cooperation, and analyses how TrC program design can deepen partnerships, enlarge cooperation and contribute to achieving TrC results, drawing from examples from the ‘Japan-Brazil Partnership Program’ in order to understand how a TrC program can deepen partnerships, enlarge cooperation and contribute to achieving SSC/TrC results.

READ ALSO:

Part #2: South-South and triangular cooperation contribution to the post2015 development agenda

Upcoming events in South-South and triangular cooperation