From the first to the 4th draft of the Mexico HLM Communiqué, "stormy weather"?

                                   1st Draft of the Mexico HLM Communiqué, 3 March 2014

4th Draft of the Mexico HLM Communiqué, 9 April 2014

Three challenges for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

Earlier this year, I published a list of milestone events for shaping the policy field of development cooperation in a post-2015 context. Among these milestone events is the first Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) high-level meeting, convening in Mexico next week.

GPEDC members will meet amid uncertainty regarding what sort of momentum the forum will be able to generate. First announced in 2011 at the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HFL4), the GPEDC would ensure accountability for the implementation of the five HFL4 commitments at the political level: ownership, results, inclusive development partnerships, transparency and mutual accountability. 

Two years onwards, not only the quantity but also the quality of aid seem to have increased. According to the OECD, official development assistance (ODA) rose by 6.1% in real terms in 2013 after a two years of falling volumes and reached the highest level ever recorded (USD 134.8 billion). A OECD/UNDP report covering 46% of total ODA highlights that country ownership continues to strengthen, donors are sharing information on development cooperation more transparently, and there is greater recognition of the important role played by non-state actors in development. 

However, in an evolving international architecture for development cooperation there is much more that needs to be done to shift the global debate from "aid effectiveness" to "effective development cooperation" and actually transform cooperation practices. Under this scenario, some of the issues GPEDC members will face next week in Mexico and beyond are: i) the legitimacy of its agenda; ii) the effectiveness of its monitoring framework; and iii) its relevance to the development cooperation debate. 

Whose interests at stake

The GPEDC high-level meeting next week is expected to provide development actors an opportunity to review what has been achieved since the HFL4 and identify ways forward to effective development. However, a quick look at the agenda of the meeting sheds light on the actual composition of the debate and some of the interests at the table. 

The meeting is organized in five plenary sessions on the following topics: i) progress since Busan, ii) taxation and resource mobilization for development, iii) SSC/TrC and knowledge sharing, iv) development cooperation with Middle Income Countries, and v) business as a partner in development. Could such agenda be understood as an attempt to extend GPDEC's mandate beyond monitoring post-Busan performance to a role in helping frame the Post-2015 development debate? If so, what is the need for such stronger mandate given the already existing MDGs and other UN processes? Could the GPEDC more prominently feed into the post-2015 process on the 'how' global, regional and national development efforts should be undertaken, rather than the 'what' the global development agenda would be?

In addition to the plenary sessions, 37 focus sessions (side events) are expected to engage GPEDC members in in-depth discussions and gather support to voluntary initiatives around the topics of the main meeting. From the 33 focus sessions with information available on GPEDC website [1], 27 are organized by at least one OECD-DAC member and/or think-tank funded by an OECD-DAC country [2]. Only five South-South cooperation partners and/or non OECD-DAC countries (Colombia, El Salvador, Indonesia, Mexico and Mozambique) are co-organizing focus sessions with a traditional donor. The governments of China and India are not leading nor co-organizing any focus session, but one Chinese and one Indian think-tank are co-organizing a focus session with a German think-tank. The governments of Brazil and South-Africa are neither leading nor co-organizing any focus sessions. How representative of the breadth of development players is an agenda apparently dominated by traditional donors?

The unfinished aid effectiveness agenda

Consensus is emerging on the need to adopt a new set of rules and standards that are inclusive of the different development actors. The GPEDC global monitoring framework tracks progress on the commitment and action agreed at the HLM4 based on ten indicators in areas like gender equality and women's empowerment, untied aid, and partners using results frameworks. 

However, questions remain on whether the HLF4 partners beyond OECD-DAC countries (e.g. South-South partners, private sector, civil society and philanthropic foundations) have the incentives to report their development assistance according to this framework, and how the issues of capacity and differentiated commitments tie into this.

For example, three indicators in the GPEDC global monitoring framework measure progress towards the HLM4 principles of transparency and accountability. Indicator #4 specifically measures the state of implementation of the HLM4 common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on resources for development cooperation by cooperation providers.

The 'common standard' referred in Indicator #4 combines three complementary systems and processes for tracking development cooperation flows. These are two OECD reporting instruments (the DAC Creditor Reporting System - CRS - and the Forward Spending Survey - FSS), which contain comprehensive statistical information; and the International Aid Transparency Initiative, a self-publishing system with notifications to a registry that provides current management information on cooperation providers' activities. 

The CRS, the FSS and the IATI standards are primarily designed to track ODA flows down the delivery chain. Despite ongoing efforts to broaden their scope (e.g. through the inclusion of indicators to measure humanitarian flows in the IATI standard for instance), these standards are not yet ready to capture non-ODA flows like South-South and triangular cooperation, non-concessional finance, and climate finance, among others. Consequently, neither should the common standard be. 

Rule makers, rule takers...‘rule spoilers'

The GPEDC adopted a multi-stakeholder governance mechanism for itself, portrayed as “global-light and country-heavy” with high-level meetings every 18 to 24 months. However, this governance mechanism "has not been subject to an encompassing intergovernmental negotiation and has never been endorsed by the UN membership"[3]

Skepticism persists among the big emerging economies in terms of continued association of the GPEDC with the OECD-DAC. China and India openly criticize the new set-up as “too Northern” and have yet to engage. Brazil in its turn argues that discussions on development cooperation effectiveness should start among the country focal points. In a second stage, it should be taken to the High-Level Committee on South-South Cooperation (in the case of South-South partners), and ultimately to the Development Cooperation Forum.

On the other end of the spectrum, Mexico, Korea and Turkey (all new members of the OECD) have agreed to participate in the DAC systems and report more systematically on their aid. Other middle-income countries like Colombia, Indonesia and Peru have also taken an active role in the GPEDC Steering Committee.

Although these emerging economies are not a unified block and have very different policy approaches to development, they generally share a disapproval of the mainstream aid-effectiveness agenda and a preference for engagements with other developing countries on the basis of horizontal partnerships, exchange, friendship and solidarity.

Many of these emerging economies have been developing their own definitions, standards, information databases and measurement systems to support the accountability of their development cooperation at the domestic and/or regional levels. 

At the global level, however, there is still an overall lack of leadership in defining norms, frameworks and instruments for such modalities of development cooperation and/or for meeting the needs of some of these countries which still play a dual role as both recipients and providers of development cooperation. 

One of the challenges for a greater engagement of emerging economies in the global development debate is the lack of a natural 'home' for South-South cooperation in the same way that the OECD-DAC is the reference point for the North-South cooperation. In fact, as the lead intergovernmental bodies within the UN for coordinating South-South and overall development cooperation, the High-Level Committee on South-South Cooperation and the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) would have such role. However, the DCF has no mandate to negotiate political outcomes and has achieved few tangible results since its creation in 2008. The forum meets every two years and has few follow-up mechanisms in-between the meetings.

The efforts to strengthen the DCF are also hampered by the political incentives that countries have to maximize their individual influence through parallel discussions on the GPEDC and the DCF (or even through the absence of discussion!). Countries like Colombia, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Peru and Turkey would still be able to negotiate at the DCF through the G-77 and China, as well as individually through the GPEDC. Others like Brazil, China, India and South Africa have been sending strong messages against the current state of affairs but have yet not shown their leadership in shaping the new development cooperation debate. 

This 'sequestration' of the global development agenda could have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of cooperation. First, by missing the opportunity to substantively contribute to the implementation of the post-2015 agenda. Second, by creating additional structures with dubious legitimacy. For example, one of the proposals for the GPEDC meeting next week is the re-launch of the Task Team on South-South Cooperation, a 'spin-off' from the OECD Working Party on Aid Effectiveness with no participation of the big emerging donors. 

The way forward

Could the GPDEC concentrate on its mandate to monitor HLM4 commitments? Knowledge exchange on how this agenda links with broader development cooperation issues and how existing ODA-focused norms, standards and systems could contribute to the development of norms, standards and systems on broader modalities of development cooperation would also be welcome. These exchanges could feed into the DCF, which would have the normative power over the broader development cooperation agenda and its links with the post-2015 process.

In order to increase the legitimacy of GPDEC's agenda; improve the effectiveness of GPDEC's monitoring framework; and ensure GPDEC's relevance to the broader development cooperation debate, at least three questions need to be answered:

Whose and what interests are really at stake during the Mexico meeting and beyond? 

Can the GPEDC set standards and indicators that are truly inclusive of the different developments actors? 

Could the GPEDC be an 'implementation arm' of the DCF? 

READ ALSO:

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

[1] http://effectivecooperation.org/first-high-level-meeting-draft-agenda/

[2] Only the organizations that were listed as (co) organizers and that provided a contact person were considered.
[3] See D.I.E report

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

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

@karin_vazquez

Three issues to watch for this Wednesday during session 4 of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS Executive Board First Regular Session 2014, and after:

Issue #1: UNOSSC hosting by UNDP, UNOSSC participation in the UN Development Group, and coordination of mandates

In her opening statement at the UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS Executive Board this morning, UNDP Administrator Helen Clark noticed the continued efforts to step up the promotion of South-South and triangular cooperation in UNDP’s new Strategic Plan. “Our two main entry points are through our hosting of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation and through our extensive country and program reach. The latter will enable us to provide a global operational arm for South-South co-operation, which is also accessible to the broader UN Development System, as envisaged in our new Strategic Plan. These two entry points complement and support each other.”

However, being hosted by UNDP prevents UNOSSC from participating in meetings of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB). This issue was brought up again today, at the first meeting of UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS Executive Board First Regular Session 2014, by the delegation of Brazil. The Group of 77 and China advocate UNOSSC participation in the CEB and other UN system-wide task forces, teams and similar mechanisms to be established in the future in keeping with its status as a separate entity within the UN for global coordination and promotion of South-South and triangular cooperation for development on United Nations system-wide basis, in accordance with UN General Assembly resolutions.

The G-77 and China note UNOSSC absence from the composition of the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda and argue that the Office is empowered to participate independently in the work of such system-wide coordination mechanisms. The issue of the independence of the UNOSSC within UNDP will need to be addressed by the HLC.

Regardless of the UNOSSC status, there are specific coordination issues between UNOSSC and UNDP that need to be further clarified. UNDP has placed SSC at the heart of its policies and programs in its Strategic Plan, 2014-2017 and while developing its corporate SSC strategy, it will need to step up its support for UNOSSC in a coordinated fashion.

Some of these coordination challenges were outlined in Part #1. The study Enhancing Management Practices on South-South and Triangular Cooperation further exemplifies UNOSSC and UNDP potential for coordination in terms of enabling an effective institutional environment for SSC partners. This collaboration could be deepened, for instance, through joint evidence-based research and analysis of country examples for the annual report of the UN Secretary General, the biannual reports of the HLC, policy briefs, policy dialogue, and knowledge products for the Global South-South Centers of Excellence Facility.

Issue #2: UN programming support to SSC, including to transferring knowledge, measuring progress and assessing results

Despite efforts made by many organizations at mainstreaming SSC into their work and operational activities, lack of understanding of the definition and concept of South-South and triangular cooperation, and of the differentiation between the regular technical cooperation programs and those dealing specifically with SSC persist. Few UNDAFs make reference to SSC, and even fewer have a relevant SSC-related outcome. 

More needs to be done in terms of planning, tracking, monitoring and evaluating SSC activities supported by the UN system. Some ideas are the development of programming instruments that allow for the UN organizations to plan jointly with the governments in the concerned regions, and of a “South-South Cooperation Marker”, inspired on the Gender Marker, to measure the degree to which UN outputs and projects support SSC.

In regard to knowledge sharing, the delegation of Bulgaria at the first meeting of UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS Executive Board First Regular Session 2014 reinforced the need to scale up global knowledge and country experiences through forward-looking, multidisciplinary research, a multi-year research agenda, and partnerships with the global centers, the Human Development Report Office, and other UN entities – and to put less emphasis on traditional programmatic approaches.

Issue #3: SSC partners and OECD-DAC countries contribution to South-South and triangular cooperation

Inadequate financing has been a major stumbling block in advancing support to SSC within the United Nations Development System. The delegation of India at the first meeting of UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS Executive Board First Regular Session 2014 noted that “as host to the only entity in the whole of the UN system, which has a singular mandate to promote SSC, the Office needs to be given the resources, both financial and human, which it needs for its effective functioning and discharge of its mandate.”

There are a few possible reasons for this funding stalemate. First, much activity in the UN system - including SSC initiatives - is now governed by what can be described as a hub and spoke bilateralism, whereby individual state and non-state actors contract directly with UN agencies and forgo the collective decision-making associated with multilateral governance.

Second, despite the increase of triangular cooperation, there is still a lack of strategic thinking with regard to policies and financing mechanisms governing such cooperation.

Third, if UNOSSC is indeed to become an independent office as claimed by the G-77 and China, funding for its work needs to be immediately mobilized from its new hosting organization – possibly UN Secretariat funding.

What can be expected from SSC partners in the UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS Executive Board (e.g. Brazil, China, Indonesia, Korea, Russia)? How are OECD-DAC countries in the board (e.g. Germany, UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden) responding to triangular cooperation as a complement to SSC? Could thematic trust funds like the Perez Guerrero Trust Fund and the IBSA Fund play a greater role in bridging UNOSSC funding gap while reducing the transaction costs for SSC partners?

What other issues should we be watching for?

Watch session 4 of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS Executive Board First Regular Session 2014 this Wednesday (29 January) live at http://webtv.un.org

READ ALSO:
Part #1: Enhanced UN support to South-South Cooperation? The United Nations Office for Development Cooperation Strategic Framework 2014-2017
Upcoming events in South-South and triangular cooperation

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

@karin_vazquez

United Nations Webcast webtv.un.org

Full steam ahead! The Strategic Framework of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC), 2014-2017, will be presented this Wednesday (29 January) for consideration and approval of the Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations  Population Fund (UNFPA), and the United Nations Office for Projects Service (UNOPS) in its First Regular Session 2014 (27-31 January, New York).

A more strategic role for global and UN-wide policymaking and coherence in South-South Cooperation (SSC) is particularly welcome as the Southern middle class, trade and investment among developing countries, and the demand for new, independent modalities of development cooperation and partnership increase. 

As the home for SSC in the UN system, UNOSSC is faced with the challenge to enhance UN support to the exchange of knowledge, technology, investment, information and capacity among Southern partners based on the principles of respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, equality, non-conditionality, non-interference in domestic affairs, and mutual benefit.

The new strategic framework contains proposals on how the UNOSSC can effectively promote, coordinate, and support South-South and triangular cooperation through i) policy development and advocacy; ii) inter-agency coordination and facilitation; iii) innovative mechanisms; iv) inclusive partnerships and resource mobilization; and v) the exchange of development solutions.

Global and United Nations policy development and advocacy

South-South cooperation has slowly made its way across the United Nations system over the past 30 years. The new UNOSSC strategic framework aims to transform SSC from “an issue of special attention into a modality for regular, day-to-day programming and implementation of the system-wide operational activities for development.” The new strategic framework aims to embed the South-South agenda, perspectives and approaches in the High-Level Committee (HLC) on South-South Cooperation, the General Assembly and the governing bodies of other UN organizations, the post-2015 development agenda, and other relevant intergovernmental and inter-agency processes. This will be achieved through evidence-based research and analysis on demonstrable development outcomes, trends, opportunities and challenges to South-South and triangular cooperation to enable Member States and UN system organizations to make informed decisions and policies.

Inter-agency coordination and facilitation

A growing number of UN agencies are developing strategies and establishing dedicated SSC structures to initiate, coordinate, report and evaluate their support to SSC. As SSC is mainstreamed across the UN Development System (UNDS), attention to coordination, participation, and positive action grows. At the global level, the new strategic framework defines UNOSSC collaboration with UNDP in terms of the collection, analysis and provision of detailed data on South-South and triangular cooperation to improve policy dialogue, and facilitate consensus building. At the regional and national levels, emphasis is given to UNOSSC support to the UN Resident Coordinator System through the development of guidance notes, training manuals and workshops to embed SSC into the UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs) and other UN planning and programming instruments.

Catalyzing innovative mechanisms, fostering inclusive partnerships and mobilizing resources from public and private entities to support multi-agency collaboration in implementing the recommendations in the Nairobi outcome document

The Nairobi outcome document of the 2010 High-level United Nations Conference on South-South Cooperation encourages UN centers of excellence and regional/sub-regional economic groupings (e.g. the UN Economic Commission for Europe International Public-Private Partnership, and the World Food Programme Center of Excellence Against Hunger, UN Industrial Development Organization Energy Technology Centers, among others) to leverage their work through UNOSSC 3-in-1 multilateral South-South support architecture. The new strategic framework aims to consolidate the 3-in-1 support architecture by identifying, documenting and disseminating development solutions more systematically; strengthening the online directors-general forum for dialogue; and enhancing countries’ capacity in utilizing the South-South Gate for the exchange of technical know-how and technologies.

The renaming of the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation to UNOSSC in 2012 not only boosted the Office’s visibility; it also brought the challenge to reposition itself in better servicing Member States and the UN system with little change in core funding sources. The new strategic framework aims to mobilize $20 million in non-core resources to supplement core resources through financial and in-kind contributions to multilateral forms of South-South development assistance, multi-agency participation, and cost-sharing arrangements. Public-private partnerships will be encouraged at the country level through the use of the South-South Gate (SS Gate) by the UN Resident Representative System.

Supporting knowledge-sharing, networking and the exchange of good practices, including through Southern centers of excellence.

The new strategic framework expands the support to self-sustaining and South-owned knowledge exchange networks (e.g. the IPC-IG South-South learning on Social Protection Gateway, the UNEP South-South Cooperation Exchange Mechanism, and the UNFPA South-South Cooperation Platform, to name a few) and piloting a UNDP-led Global South-South Centers of Excellence Facility to connect and leverage the strengths of relevant centers of other UN organizations (specially those of UNDP) such as the Public Service Excellence Center in Singapore, the Rio+ Center in Brazil, and the Istanbul International Center for Private Sector in development.

READ ALSO:
Part #2: Enhanced UN support to South-South Cooperation? The United Nations Office for Development Cooperation Strategic Framework 2014-2017
Upcoming events in South-South and triangular cooperation