NeST launches analytical framework for South-South cooperation

This post was originally published on the SAIIA website. Authors are responsible for the concepts, ideas, views and opinions disseminated in the blog posts.

In March 2015 a group of 25 prominent academics and development co-operation experts from the Network of Southern Think Tanks (NeST) gathered in Midrand, South Africa to discuss a common analytical framework for South−South co-operation. Representatives from Brazil; China; Colombia; India; Kenya; Malawi; Mexico; Mozambique; Namibia; South Africa; Turkey; Uganda; and Zimbabwe; provided insights and discussed conceptual and methodological dimensions of measuring the quantum, quality and impact of South-South Co-operation within the arena of international development.

This was the first meeting in a series of Technical Working Groups tasked with developing a Southern analytical framework. As part of a wider consultation to provide inputs to NeST’s conceptual work, a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on the topic ‘Emerging Partners in Africa’s Development’ was organised to discuss the rol and contribution of South−South co-operation to international development and appropriate monitoring and accountability frameworks for such. A subsequent Technical Working Group has since been held, in Johannesburg in early September to further develop the indicators to measure the quality of South-South partnerships and processes.

The working document titled; “Developing a Conceptual Framework for South-South Cooperation”, summaries the insights, consensus and divergences emerging from the various technical workshops of the Network of Southern Think Tanks. The working document covers areas such as: Defining South-South Co-operation; Information Management for South-South Co-operation; Evaluating the Impact of South-South Cooperation; Assessing the Quality of South-South Cooperation; along with updates from the various National and Regional chapters of NeST.

Private sector contribution to development: the Interamerican Development Bank ‘South-South Knowledge Transfer Program’ experience

* Read the blog in 80+ languages with the translator widget on the right side of the page!

The exchange of knowledge and technology among countries of the global South to accelerate development has gained new impetus over the past years. Most South-South cooperation, however, focuses on government-to-government initiatives, thereby overlooking the potential contribution of non-state actors, particularly private sector organizations and networks.

Within the South-South and triangular cooperation framework, chambers of commerce, business associations, private foundations, universities and financial institutions have been developing innovative solutions to development challenges. Many are investing in knowledge and skills development to build productive capacities and integrate the disadvantaged to the market. Others are developing innovative business and financial instruments to foster entrepreneurship. These initiatives are being exchanged by private entities directly or in collaboration with governments through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs).

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) has been using the vast repository of knowledge generated by private entities to boost development in the region. Launched in 2009, the South-South Knowledge Transfer Program replicates successful MIF projects by capturing knowledge derived from those initiatives and reusing it in other institutions facing similar development challenges. Between 2009 and 2014, 11 projects in areas like value chain development, youth entrepreneurship, microfinance and business incubation were funded. These projects provided direct benefits to 45 public and private organizations, 150 additional local institutions, 350 technical staff, and more than 3,500 individuals in 17 countries.

In Colombia, the MIF supported the Chamber of Commerce of Cartagena (CCC) develop methodologies, technical assistance initiatives, and training programs to enhance small retailers businesses. The service sector accounts for approximately 50% of Colombia’s gross domestic product and employs 60% of the economically active population. Approximately 700,000 neighborhood shops provide more than one million jobs, and account for 62% of the sector’s businesses. Yet, Colombian retailers face numerous challenges such as limited business education, inadequate facilities, and unfamiliarity with the laws governing businesses. CCC and MIF helped over 300 retailers move from survival strategies to efficient and profitable businesses.

The Chambers of Commerce of Ibagué, Cauca, Guajira, and Quibdó, who had been exposed to CCC methodologies, expressed their interest to learn more from the experience. These chambers had started similar initiatives, but they were mostly ad hoc efforts with little impact on the ground. Working with CCC and the South-South Knowledge Transfer Program was therefore an opportunity to develop more structured and systematic initiatives based on a previously tested experience. In Cauca, the project helped increase sales by 20% and USD20 million were reinvested to expand and/or modernize businesses. In La Guajira, the microenterprise development program was incorporated into the portfolio of the Chamber of Commerce and is being replicated in other sectors.

Through the various initiatives supported so far, the South-South Knowledge Transfer Program has learned that the limited availability of best practices and mechanisms in matching the supply and the demand for knowledge and technology hinder more pro-development initiatives by the private sector. Acquiring, adapting, and applying the knowledge generated by private entities is a medium-term process, and recurrent interaction is necessary in all relationships. Hence, the program has been combining one off activities (i.e. trainings and visits) and support services (i.e. technical assistance, advisory, mentoring, and online communities) over time to advance and strengthen partners’ learning process.

One example was the transfer of the Uruguayan Ingenio’s expertise in supporting startup businesses to other business incubators in El Salvador, Panama and Paraguay. The transfer consisted of a sequence of training and mentoring activities in each participating country designed to match specific partners’ needs. The transfer also included reference materials and networks to enhance personal ties and contact opportunities beyond the project life span. The project originally intended to create a virtual learning community to deepen networking among the four partners, but the lack of a communication and knowledge management strategy as well as funds to maintain the IT system and manage the community after the end of the project limited the results of this particular effort.

The knowledge generated by private-sector entities and networks has the potential to become innovative development experiences that can be replicated and scaled up. South-South and triangular cooperation should build on this knowledge to catalyze change of greater magnitude, including through public-private partnerships. More information on private sector-led experiences and public-private partnerships in development should be collected to enhance knowledge exchange instruments and the adaptation of these experiences to the local context.

South Africa’s Capacity Building Role in South Sudan: An example of South-South cooperation

AMANDA LUCEY is a senior researcher in the Conflict Management and Peace Building Division of the Institute for Security Studies. Amanda spent time in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she worked with MONUSCO as a political affairs officer, and has previously worked with the UNDP in South Sudan as a rule of law officer. Amanda tells Cafezinho about South Africa’s engagements with South Sudan as an example of South Africa’s experiences with South-South cooperation. Read Amanda'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.

                                         

                                                                                   * * *

South Africa is an important emerging southern actor and a strong proponent of south-south cooperation (SSC). Yet, like many actors involved in these spheres, little is known about South Africa’s activities to date. Cognisant of the need to strengthen and deepen its engagements, South Africa is in the process of setting up the South African Development Partnership Agency  (SADPA), which will coordinate the country’s outgoing development assistance. Research by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) on South Africa’s previous post-conflict development and peacebuilding capacity provides initial pieces of evidence on SSC, including on South Africa’s engagements in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and South Sudan. It also examines lessons learned for South Africa’s future engagements. This post will consider South Africa’s engagements with South Sudan as an example of South Africa’s experiences with south-south cooperation.

The lens through which South Africa views SSC can be gleaned through its 2011 transparent Paper on Foreign Policy, which emphasises south-south solidarity and south-south trade. Although South Africa does not specify its definition of SSC in any official documents, it has subscribed to five key fundamental principles specified at the New Delhi Conference of Southern Providers, namely non-conditionality, respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, mutual benefit and demand driven engagements. South Africa also places its commitment firmly on the African continent, particularly with regards to ensuring peace and security. This commitment is demonstrated by the activities that South Africa has sought to carry out in terms of development assistance, which have focussed on African countries that is has historical ties with, including South Sudan.

To date, South Africa has mostly engaged on a bilateral and trilateral basis on the continent. South Africa’s financing for such arrangements has traditionally relied on the African Renaissance Fund, whose value is worth around US$ 50,000 per annum and it is set to absorbed by SADPA. It should be noted that South Africa is also beginning to explore furthering its objectives through its unique positioning as the only African actor in multilateral arrangements such as BRICS and IBSA, which could maximise South Africa’s limited resources.

For example, South Sudan is one of the countries where South Africa has been particularly involved, given particularly its long-standing connection between South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) and South Sudan’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLA/M), which draws on a common vision for a ‘democratic, non-racial and non-sexist society’ and shares a history of exclusion and repression.  South Africa’s own transitional experience was thus believed to enable it to have a better understanding of context and indeed, South Africa was often described by those on the receiving end of South Africa’s assistance as the ‘big brother’. 

In the past, South Africa engaged in SSC with South Sudan by carrying out a number of capacity building activities, including the training of diplomats by the Department for International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), capacity building for the civil service conducted by the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) and, in conjunction with the University of South Africa (UNISA), the training of more than 900 top and middle-level leaders and managers shortly between 2005 and 2008.  The notion that South Africa was more aptly placed to deliver training given its understanding of context and similar experiences was seized upon by trilateral arrangement engagements with some northern donors, such as German funding for South Africa’s training of South Sudanese rule of law officials and Norway’s funding for South African training of South Sudanese police. 

However, research by the ISS revealed that such engagements often lacked monitoring and evaluation or any kind of follow-up, and were too short. The ISS subsequently recommended that South Africa plan for longer-term engagements that ensured a sustained presence in the country they were engaged with, and that mechanisms needed to be put in place in order to ensure accountability not only on the part of the recipient but also the provider.

South African interventions also often lacked coordination with other South African government actors and showed the need for a coherent vision and strategy. In other sectors, apart from its experiences with UNISA, the South African government has done little to facilitate SSC activities. There have been limited engagements by South African civil society and some university exchanges between the universities of Juba and Fort Hare but these have not been coordinated by the South African government. The same applies to the business sector.

Most recently in South Sudan, South Africa has offered assistance to South Sudanese prisons through the IBSA fund. The scheme offers training on agricultural techniques and the development of infrastructure. The IBSA fund has often been praised for having a significant impact and taking on more risky projects than traditional donors. Despite it’s limited worth (US3 million) it has won a number of awards and said to fill a niche gap by carrying out activities that traditional donors would not pursue.

The South African example shows that SSC can complement traditional forms of assistance and that it does have benefits. However, as demonstrated by ISS research, there is still a need to develop mechanisms for strengthening SSC. South Africa would do well to strengthen its vision and strategy, both individually and jointly with other southern providers and there is a need to begin to operationalise best practices by southern providers to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. If SSC is to provide a viable alternative to traditional cooperation, its advantages must be leveraged and its weaknesses addressed. Providing evidence-based research on the area is the first step.

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

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.