Archived e-1 (9 Sep - 20 Sep): Development Cooperation with Actors from the Global South

We thank all participants and moderators for their contributions. This e-discussion has ended and a summary of the discourse will be available shortly.  Read all comments on the discourse on knowledge sharing, South South and Triangular Cooperation, and Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries by scrolling down to the bottom of the page. 

The development landscape is changing rapidly. There are a growing number of countries moving from low-income countries to middle-income country status.While aid financing will remain an important part of reaching the poverty reduction and development goals, south-south cooperation and triangular cooperation is increasing its prominent role in supporting development agenda. Knowledge sharing has also been highlighted as playing an important role in improving development impacts.

A. Knowledge sharing

  1. How can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience? What are the current challenges?
  2. On the other hand, how can knowledge sharing lead to more effective development cooperation? How can the Global Partnership help in increasing its effectiveness? 

B. South South and Triangular Cooperation:

  1. Should more be done to scale up south-south cooperation? If so, what?
  2. Has there been any joined up strategy to facilitate synergy and complementarity of south-south cooperation and other development cooperation? If so, does the strategy differ from how they manage traditional donors, and how?

C. Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries

  1. What are the greatest poverty challenges in middle income countries? How, if at all, do these differ from those challenges in low income countries?
  2. What challenges do you face or are aware when countries in low-income country status make transition to middle-income country status? How has the development cooperation supported or not adequately supported such transition?

e-discussion 1

e-discussion 2

e-discussion 3

e-discussion 4 

e-discussion 5

Development Cooperation with
Actors from the
Global South

Development Finance

Private Sector Engagement

Inclusive Development

  Progress Since Busan

  • Knowledge Sharing
  • South South and triangular cooperation
  • Development in middle income countries
  • Domestic resource
    mobilization / Tax reform / Illicit flows


  •  Engaging the private sector
  • Inclusive Development /
    Partnerships
  •  Implementing the
    Busan Commitments

9 Sep - 20 Sep

16 Sep - 27 Sep16 Sep - 27 Sep

25 Sep - 11 Oct

25 Sep - 11 Oct
     

 






Go back to the home page of "e-discussion on Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation". You can also contact our moderator Artemy Izmestiev (artemy.izmestiev[at]undp.org) with any further remarks about this discussion or participate in the other e-discussion that are taking place. Regarding the topics of this e-discussions we invite you particularly to participate in the upcoming e-discussion 5 in which you could relate this topic to the actual Implementation of he Busan commitments

Moderators

 Citlali Ayala
Researcher

Instituto Mora

Mexico

 

 

Artemy Izmestiev
Policy Specialist

UNDP Policy Centre
for Global Development Partnerships

Seoul, South Korea

 

Astrid Manroth
Operations Advisor

Openness and Aid Effectiveness - World Bank

T. A. Choesni

National Development Planning
Agency, Bappenas

Indonesia


Comments

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea Mon, September 23,2013
Dear colleagues, Thank you for an invigorating and content-rich ten days of debate. Our closing count of over 40 comments surpassed our expectations! In addition, we are happy to receive contributions from a really broad range of stakeholders. Thank you to all of you for your thoughtful contributions. Because of the broad nature of the subjects we discussed, we did not aim for a comprehensive coverage. However, your contributions are very revealing of the current thinking. Rest assured that these will feed into the preparations to the upcoming Steering Committee Meeting in mid-October, as well as the Ministerial-level meeting in Mexico in 2014. Below please find an overview of the last week of discussion, in closing. On knowledge sharing, we have heard repeatedly about the importance of sharing locally relevant and decentralized knowledge. One of the tasks now seems to be in supporting the appropriate infrastructure and institutions for sharing this knowledge, including in the promising form of ‘knowledge hubs' as agreed in Bali. The areas of focus of such hubs should be built on clear understanding of their expertise and comparative advantage. It is also important that the knowledge sharing platforms and initiatives support inclusive dialogue. Some participants observed increasing supply of development solutions and pathways. There is a need to better understand how countries identify and articulate effective demand. Both demand and supply of knowledge need to be validated, underscoring the need for transparency and inclusive dialogue. Contributors also pointed to the importance of platforms for international knowledge sharing, such as the Task Team for South-South Cooperation that collected a wealth of information on successful cooperation experiences and served as a convener for a community of practice. It was stressed that ideal knowledge sharing spread knowledge that was practical and actionable, allowing countries to learn from the experiences and mistakes of others. Examples shared with the group included Togo learning about the setting up of new Ministries from the Government of Rwanda as well as knowledge exchange between the governments of El Salvador and the Dominican Republic. Contributors also made the point that the generation of knowledge in the South has to be supported by fostering local research centres and institutes that can produce and disseminate locally relevant knowledge. Knowledge sharing is as relevant for of science and technology as it is for policy. Some contributors called for a clearing house for knowledge sharing, while others highlighted the role of international organizations and various networks. It has been suggested that the role of the Global Partnership might be in brokering promising connections for knowledge sharing, in supporting the infrastructure required as well as methodological guidelines. Global Partnership can also advocate for or support more inclusive partnerships at the country level. On the topic of South-South and triangular cooperation we heard about the importance of its commitment to relationships of mutuality and equality. Triangular cooperation is valuable not only for making a pool of resources available for development and for combining the knowledge of different partners, but also for the horizontal relationship it implies among partners (as we heard from AGCI). We heard that emerging evidence on triangular cooperation suggests that it is an effective way combining the synergies of South-South cooperation with the resources of traditional donors. We heard that one element of thinking about South-South cooperation is to stress that regional integration is an essential strategy for economic growth. One contributor also pointed to the importance of considering migrants and the diaspora in our thinking on South-South, since these not only contribute to the funds available for development through remittances, but also act as an essential link in a chain of knowledge transfer. Contributors pointed to the remaining questions around categorizing South-South contributions, with some pointing to the efforts of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standards as a possible source of categories, while noting that need for their enhancement to capture diverse forms of development assistance and underscored the need for political buy in. With respect to the role of the Global Partnership, it was suggested that it might meaningfully broker South-South connections, and that it could support efforts to categorize and monitor forms of South-South cooperation. Based on existing evidence it can also advocate for scale up of triangular cooperation as a way to increase synergy between traditional donors and South-South cooperation actors. On development cooperation in the context of MICs, we heard that despite the importance of the categorization to the countries’ ability to attract aid, the definition is highly inadequate in many aspects. There is a need to find a way to overcome the rigidity of the current link between the graduation to the MIC status and access to concessional development finance. At the same time we heard about some general characteristics of the MICs. Under combined influence of internal and external factors countries find themselves “trapped”. There are also unique challenges of social inclusion and inequality that usually accompany transition from a low-income to a middle-income country. It was stressed that although attaining MIC status reflects economic growth and development, it often does not reflect requisite improvement in services, especially for the poor, or in overall living standards and equality. Therefore, it was emphasized that development efforts, both international and national, should persist to allow MICs to eventually transition to developed country status. With regards to international development cooperation there were calls not to consider MIC status the end of the road in terms of development work, but rather to proceed flexibly in order to address remaining development challenges. We also heard about the unique position of MICs in tackling their own national development while also becoming development providers, learning that in spite of their heterogeneity this was a unique position that many MICs share in common. The strategic government policies to enhance productive capabilities suggested to the MICs to escape the trap underscore the importance of South-South cooperation and knowledge sharing as a potential tool. I believe that the number of additional questions and requests for clarification proves relevance of the themes and the need for additional dialogue and research. From our side, we will do our best to inform you of the further discussion on these issues by the Global Partnership.
Reinout van Santen from United States
Mon, September 23,2013

We thank all participants and moderators for their contributions. This e-discussion has ended and a summary of the discourse will be available shortly.

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Mon, September 09,2013

Dear colleagues, I am excited to welcome you to this Global Partnership e-discussion on knowledge sharing, South South and triangular cooperation and development cooperation in MICs (9-20 September) – https://www.unteamworks.org/gpedc-discuss1.

Until September 20, I encourage you to seize this unique opportunity to shape the consultations in the preparations for the Fourth Steering Committee Meeting of the Global Partnership and Ministerial-level meeting in 2014. The results of this conversation will directly influence the thematic concept notes to be presented at the Ministerial-level meeting.

As experts, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners in this field, your opinion on these topics are essential. We want to hear your thoughts, want to learn from your experiences and expertise, especially from those contributors based in the Global South. Feel free to share your opinion openly in this discussion, and please encourage your colleagues or contacts from other networks to join. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us moderators at any time.

To post responses, register at https://www.unteamworks.org/gpedc-discuss1. Complete your profile with your information so that we can recognize you for your contributions.

Hurry to make your voice heard - you have until September 20! Please feel free to share any questions you may have in the online discussion and we will respond to them in a timely manner.

We are hoping for a constructive, stimulating and informative discussion - let the debate begin!

Mehmet Arda a Mehmet Arda, Professor from Turkey
Fri, September 20,2013

Sorry about being so late in posting my few brief points but I became aware of this interesting discussion rather late ... and it is still 20 September.

"Knowledge sharing" is much more important in South-South cooperation than in North-South cooperation because hands-on first hand knowledge and experience have a much more prominent place in the former. I believe sharing such knowledge, rather than providing advice, albeit very pertinent, is indicative of a higher level of commitment and ownership by the provider of assistance, which is at least as important as ownership by the recipient. Sharing of knowledge gained through experience, as is the case in much of South-South cooperation, is also much more pertinent and useful than transmitting knowledge of a theoretical nature. This certainly improves effectiveness of development cooperation.

Another very important kind of knowledge sharing is that among providers of asistance. All development agencies, particularly those of developing countries must realize and accept that they have strong points and weak points. They know to do some things well, but not everything. They do not need to do everything, anyway. This has two consequences. The first is that each agency should realistically identify its strong points and make it known to everyone... "We have had good experience in digging wells" or "we have been successful in organizing hospitals" or more generically, "we find ourselves to be good in emergency responses". A systematic clearing house platform, rather than general meetings, would be helpful in enhancing the usefulness of knowledge sharing in this context.

The second consequence of identifying strong and weak points is that it deems possible an effective "value chain" approach to development cooperation in many areas. The effectiveness of this approach (or the cost of ignoring it) has been repeatedly demonstrated. Given the specific expertise and comparative advantage possessed by different agencies, a successful value chain approach can only be built upon good communication and knowledge sharing among them.

Knowledge sharing and cooperation based on competences would be facilitated if the agencies are assured of sharing the credits and glory generated by joint activities.

Making known the strong points also provides transparency to the "supply" of development cooperation and increases efficiency, because sometimes cooperation is "demanded" without much knowledge of the provider's competences. Similarly, the provider, particularly a developing country provider, is sometimes faced with demands, the developmental validity of which may be doubtful. Triangular cooperation and knowledge sharing about a particular country where activities would be undertaken can help avoid inefficient "pet projects". In this context, cooperation with the field offices of UNDP would be very important.

Finally, a few words about poverty in middle- and low-income countries. I am uncomfortable about taking the "country" as the unit of analysis, but that is another matter and we have to live with it. Poverty is poverty, and in both low- and middle-income countries absolute poverty is misery. Relative poverty, however, probably hurts more in middle income countries. In low income countries a structural transformation of the economy is necessary in order to generate even a minimal amount of domestic means for targeting poverty. In middle income countries, this is not a prerequisite and improved efficiency within the given economic structure can also help. But while low hanging fruit can probably be found in the low income countries to start the transformation, in middle income countries it has already been been picked. 

Mehmet Arda

Waleed a Lead, Operations Waleed Addas from Saudi Arabia
Wed, February 19,2014

We need to work together with a clear understanding on a set of common development principles post-2015 agenda (integrative universal values and approaches). Can we have a Global Economic Council with "teeth" similar to the UN politcal security council? I think its about time.

Christophe Bonneau a M.A. Candidate
Sun, September 22,2013

What an impressive series of contributions! 

I would like to share with you the input we received from Iman A. Al-Ayouty, Ph.D.Senior Economist at The Egyptian Center for Economic Studies.

-------------------------------

 

  • Knowledge sharing

Can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience? What are the current challenges? 

Indeed development cooperation has a strong potential for promoting the sharing of knowledge. The following are examples: 1.1) SMEs and the many problems they face (with regard to licensing, taxation, customs procedures, banking procedures and obtaining credit, market exit procedures, transition from the informal to formal sectors, business development services and the institutional framework supporting SMEs, in general). There are many experiences that could be shared in this regard: e.g., the Philippines.  

1.2) Inter-firm research collaboration is imperative for firm competitiveness, whether these firms operate in highly research-intensive activities or less-so (where pharmaceuticals and apparel are respective examples). Firms may collaborate with upstream suppliers or horizontally with their competitors to address particular research problems. They may also establish cost sharing R&D agreements, or form strategic alliances for R&D.

1.3) Firm-university collaboration in research.

1.4) Firm-level exchange of personnel through hosting post-doctoral research fellows, or sending scientists abroad on specific research missions.

With reference to 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, a lot remains to be desired in the case of pharmaceutical industry in Egypt, for example. Development cooperation may provide the means for much collaboration at that level.

Current challenges include:  the role played by multinational organizations – such organizations are yet to strengthen their role in coordinating and connecting the countries that may have made strides in the directions indicated above.

 

  • South South and Triangular Cooperation

Can more be done to scale up south-south cooperation? If so, what?

Indeed, more can be done, but as a prerequisite each country must ensure that its approach to SSC and triangular cooperation is demand-driven, in the sense that it needs to identify and prioritize on its own development needs before it attempts to see who has been approaching any of these problems and how. For instance, Egypt presently faces many development challenges: health; education; infrastructure deficit; macroeconomic imbalances which hinder sound efforts to move forward (e.g., high budget deficit that crowds out private access to credit as a result of financial institutions’ excessive shouldering of the deficit); SMEs; agribusiness development as a means of alleviating rural poverty; green economy and low carbon emissions; clean energy; environmental issues like waste collection and its recycling; cluster development, among others.

If so, what? One of the means of strengthening SSC and triangular cooperation is through putting in place a system of monitoring and evidence-based impact assessment of projects, in addition to the possible exchange of such assessment(s). Evaluation will help build knowledge about what works, how it works, and under which specific conditions, and will thus allow for benefiting from possible best practices.     

 

I sincerely hope these ideas are of value, and that we can build towards a fruitful ‘high-level ministerial meeting of the Global Partnership in 2014’.  

Prince Opoku Agyemang a Student, Youth Activist from Ghana
Sat, September 21,2013
Global development has become richer in solutions and models in fighting poverty. Many a time policies and development agendas are blindly adopted from the North's experience, and I believe there is much ado within the South-South cooperation blog. The ‘One Cup Fit All Approach’ to development cooperation needs to be dealt with, even within the global south.
To promote effective programming and implementation arrangements for better knowledge sharing within the Global South, countries within the South-South cooperation need to be aligned with other countries of common interests in a particular sector (Tropical Agriculture, Public finance, Disaster Training Risk Management etc) taking into consideration their socio-economic dynamism. I see a bigger market within the Global South which are unsatisfied, and so, the attention to cooperate with the North notwithstanding all the unfair trade regulations need to be given a second thought. There are other areas that we can cooperate with them, for instance in the area of science and technology
Ferran Perez a Consultant
Fri, September 20,2013

Dear colleagues,

First let me thank the organizers for this interesting e-discussion, it is great to read all the contributions so far. I would like to share the views of UNDP ART Initiative in relation to knowledge sharing and South-South Cooperation.

In the evolving development landscape, the local and global dimensions are increasingly intertwined. Peace, human security, health, employment, poverty, climate change, migration and human rights -to name but a few- are issues of concern to all citizens and their leaders at the local, national and global level in northern and southern countries alike. Even though many of these challenges are dealt by the national and international levels of governance and decision-making, it is fundamental to consider the local perspective in order to effectively tackle them.

In this context, facilitating dialogue and engagement between citizens from the North and the South on common challenges becomes a critical building block towards more cohesive and fairer societies. A structured dialogue between territories links local and regional governments (LRGs) and other territorial actors and allows them to work together to learn from and exchange experiences on issues of common interest and for reciprocal development. This approach enriches the traditional development paradigm and contributes to effective development cooperation as it is carried out by local people, based on their specific knowledge and understanding of their own territories, living conditions and development needs.

Decentralized Cooperation (DC) understood in a broad and inclusive sense, is the international cooperation action undertaken by actors or institutions both public - other than the central government - and part of the civil society. DC establishes horizontal relationships for reciprocal development between partners and promotes peer learning and capacity development instead of the mechanical transmission of models.  DC partnerships represent a concrete potential to support development processes prioritized by partner countries, as the involvement of local actors leads to strengthening decentralization, local governance and local development processes.

In the context of the territorial approach to development and the dialogue between territories, the South South Cooperation logic is particularly pertinent for territorial actors from the South. LRGs and other territorial actors from the South face similar compelling challenges and develop solutions and innovations highly relevant to their Southern counterparts in areas such as local capacity, basic service delivery, urban governance, local economic development or youth employment. Consequently, the wealth of knowledge, experience and innovations embedded in local institutions and actors represents a great potential to be mobilized through SSC at territorial level, developing capacity building and knowledge sharing across local actors.

National governments from the South play a key role in mobilizing the knowledge and excellence of their territories, as the exchange of local-level solutions and innovations can increment the effectiveness and sustainability of local and national processes. The bottom-up approach does not question or negate the center, but complements it by integrating the local level and making its policies flexible and adapted to the diversity of local contexts. At the same time, the linkage of local actors from different countries contributes to enriching both the central and local levels with transnational substance. This reinforcing role is reflected by the increase in national governments funding LRGs cooperation in new middle income countries.

We therefore consider that the inclusion of the local perspective, in a logic of multilevel governance and inclusive partnerships, in the reflections and work of the Global Partnership can positively influence its contribution to a more effective development cooperation.

Let me now share a concrete example of a South-South Cooperation exchange with strong and immediate impact on territorial development dynamics between El Salvador and Dominican Republic on Local Economic Development. In 2011, two areas of intervention of the UNDP ART El Salvador Program, the Departments of Usulután and La Unión, prioritized Local Economic Development (LED) within their territorial development strategies, which were formulated with UNDP ART’s support. At the national level, the Technical Secretariat of the Presidency requested UNDP ART’s support for the development of its strategy for marine and coastal strip, through the establishment of Local Economic Development Agencies (LEDA) in the 5 port areas: La Unión, Usulután, La Paz, La Libertad, and Sonsonate.

The first step of this process was a technical exchange between LED actors of El Salvador and Dominican Republic that took place at the end of 2011, involving politicians and technical personnel from the local and national levels. After this initial exchange, participants created a network for sharing information and best practices and support each other's initiatives within the framework of South-South Cooperation. This cooperation resulted in a strong willingness of Salvadoran participants to adapt the successful Dominican model in El Salvador, and triggered a reflection on the technical, political and administrative steps to do so.

In the context of this South-South Cooperation, the establishment of the LEDAs and of the Intersectorial Committee to Support LED (CIADEL), which brings together different ministries working in LED, was effectively driven by local and national actors in 2012. The pilot LEDA of La Union brings together numerous public and private LED actors, such as municipalities, cooperatives, micro and small enterprises, Universities, Chamber of Commerce, Civil Society , etc. It allows stimulating the local economy through the articulation of LED actors, their capacity building, strategic planning, and technical advice to enterprises management, with emphasis on women and youth.

In 2013, the LEDA of La Unión has been chosen by the Ministry of Finance to locally manage part of its public policies. It also received international support of the Spanish Agency for Development Cooperation (AECID) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for knowledge management. The support of local, national and international actors is expression of the success of the La Unión LEDA experience, which is being scaled up at country level, inspiring the strengthening of the Sonsonate LEDA and the establishment of the LEDAs of La Libertad and La Paz.

Karin Vazquez a Development Cooperation Specialist from United States
Fri, September 20,2013

Dear colleagues, first of all congratulations for the initiative and the debate. I am sorry I could only join at the end, and hope the following contribution provides some useful insights to the Global Partnership.

Pranay Sinha raised a very important point on SSC information system and its reporting, and how better SSC measurement can improve management (e.g. planning, performace measurement, policy coherence, coordination, to name a few examples) and deliver the full potential of such initiatives.

As well noted, IATI not only has the infrastructure in place; the standard itself can be applied to SSC. However, I  fully agree that some of the unique aspects of SSC may not be fully captured by the standard as it is today. And this applies to other types of development cooperation flows too. For instance, I am aware of ongoing efforts to incorporate humanitarian assistance into IATI - in close consultation with countries and organizations (receiving/delivering) HA, and drawing from existing practices and tools.

Also, there has been some very interesting attempts to measure SSC at the country and region levels. For instance, Brazil has developed a methodology to report technical assistance, humanitarian assistance and other forms of development cooperation. (http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/Book_Cooperao_Brasileira.pdf -- the methodology is in the last pages of the report, in Portuguese). Chile and UNDP developed indicators to measure SSC performance (http://www.agci.cl/attachments/article/532/analisis4.pdf) and SEGIB methodology could provide some interesting insights too (http://segib.org/news/files/2011/11/Coop-South-South-2011.pdf)

Why not collectivelly build on the initiatives that already exist? Many countries in the Global Partnership are strong advocates of development cooperation measurement and perhaps could take the debate forward in that forum...

Best,

Karin

Christophe Bonneau a M.A. Candidate
Fri, September 20,2013

Please find also another excellent input that we received from Prof. Eva Paus Mount Holyoke College, USA., on the question “What challenges do you face or are aware of when countries in low-income country status make the transition to middle-income country status?”.

Professor Paus argues that one of the main challenges middle-income countries are facing today is the so-called ‘middle-income trap’. Many middle income countries find themselves unable to compete with low-wage countries in the production of labor-intensive commodities, but they have not developed the capabilities to compete on a broad basis in higher productivity activities.

Middle income countries have always faced the challenge of how to move from commodity production to more knowledge-intensive activities. But it is only in the last few years that the term ‘middle income trap’ has emerged. This is no coincidence. In contrast to authors who call attention to the middle income trap on account of a slowdown in growth and internal factors only, Paus argues that the “trap” captures the realities of internal as well as external factors at this juncture in the globalization process. Global competition has intensified dramatically, the speed of technological change has increased, product cycles have come shorter, and China has become a fierce competitor in low-tech and high-tech goods.

Situating our understanding of the middle income trap in the current globalization context has several implications. First, it suggests that middle income countries have less time for achieving upgrading towards more knowledge-intensive goods and activities on a broad basis. Second, it highlights that the nature of the rise of China has increased the urgency to pursue broad-based upgrading. Third, it calls for a re-assessment of the economic policies and strategies that have led to the current development conundrum for many middle income developing countries.

The driving force behind sustained productivity growth is the accumulation of technological capabilities that allows for broad-based structural change towards higher value added activities. To explain technological capabilities outcomes and their changes over time and to understand which policies to pursue for broad-based upgrading, we need to shift the focus from economic growth to its underlying basis. A useful framework for analysis is the capabilities-based approach which draws on structuralist and evolutionary economic thought and global value chain analysis. It emphasizes learning and analyzes the accumulation and interaction of social and firm level capabilities in the context of specific national and global characteristics. A key policy implication is the importance of strategic productivist government policies to escape from the middle income trap.

For more details and references, please refer to the attached concept note (written by Eva Paus in preparation of an expert meeting on the middle income countries last May in Seoul).

Attachment(s) UNDP Seoul EP Sept 2013.doc
Christophe Bonneau from Republic of Korea
Fri, September 20,2013

Some input that we received from Jacqueline Musugani, Executive Director of  Initiatives of Women in Difficult Situation for Inegrated Development (DR Congo). You can use automatic translation and react in English or French.

----------------------------------

A. Knowledge sharing

  1. How can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience? What are the current challenges?

 

La coopération au développement peu promouvoir un partage efficace des connaissances et de l’expérience  par :

a) La mise en commun des connaissances, l’apprentissage mutuel et le renforcement des capacités  entre les partenaires de coopération pour le Développement

b) L’exploitation des avantages comparatifs et les complémentarités entre les différents acteurs du développement, qu’elle regroupe autour d’un objectif commun de réduction de la pauvreté à l’échelle mondiale et de promotion du développement durable.

c)  le renforcement des capacités des pays en développement sur le long terme afin de créer et de partager des solutions de développement.

d) La coopération triangulaire s’appuie sur les relations bilatérales et leur confère une valeur ajoutée dans la

Christophe Bonneau a M.A. Candidate
Fri, September 20,2013

Also on this topic, some input by Guy Aho Tete Benissan from The West and Central Africa NGO Platform Network.

-------------------

A. Partage des connaissances

1.            Comment la coopération au développement peut-elle  promouvoir un partage efficace des connaissances et de l’expérience ? Quels sont les problèmes rencontrés?

La coopération au développement peut promouvoir un partage efficace et efficient des connaissances et de l’expérience à travers l’appui au projet de renforcement des capacités, la mise en place des plates-formes ou de réseau de partage d’expérience ou encore de mutualisation de bonnes et mauvaises pratiques pour en tirer une meilleure leçon pour le futur.

Les problèmes souvent rencontrés à une volonté politique avérée des pouvoirs publics à accompagner le processus de renforcement des capacités, problèmes liés à l’inadaptation et à la faible capacités des acteurs, manque de moyens humains matériels et financiers car l’accès aux connaissances à un coût.

2.            A contrario, comment le partage des connaissances peut-il aboutir à une coopération au développement plus efficace? Comment le Partenariat mondial peut-il améliorer cette efficacité?

Le partage des connaissances peut être un vecteur qui peut susciter le changement et contribuer à améliorer les pratiques quotidiennes pour l’amélioration des conditions de vie.

Les acteurs de développement peuvent s’en servir pour analyser les défis et opportunités pour leur permettre d’attendre les résultats escomptés. Renforcement des capacités, encouragement de l’utilisation NTIC par exemple. Mise en place d’une base de données soutenue par les partenaires internationaux. La promotion d’un cadre de dialogue structuré à l’échelle internationale peut mettre en confiance plusieurs acteurs de différents pays.

B. Coopération sud-sud et coopération triangulaire 

1.            Doit-on mettre plus de moyens en œuvre pour dynamiser la coopération sud-sud ? Si oui, lesquels ?

Oui, renforcement des cadres existants comme le REPAOC qui constitue un mode d’organisation permettant aux sociétés civiles du SUD de différents pays de prendre part à une plus grande part à la gouvernance mondiale à travers une voix africaine concertée sur les grands enjeux régionaux et internationaux.

Laurent Besancon a South-South and Global Knowledge Exchange at The World Bank Group from United States
Thu, September 19,2013

I have read with great interest entries to date. I would like to contribute to the discussion along 2 lines of thoughts:

1 – Building on Bapak Choesni’s earlier references, articulating the momentum that the Busan Partnership and Bali International Conference on Country-led knowledge hub gave all of us

2 – Providing an update on the development of tools and approaches to strengthen knowledge exchange capacity of country institutions in a more systematic manner.

1 – The Busan Partnership and Bali International Conference on Country-led
knowledge hub have helped moved the discussion from political buy-in (Busan) to
a strong sense and call for action around specific options and challenges of
institutionalizing and operationalizing knowledge exchange (Bali)

As developing countries in all regions have made unprecedented progress
in fighting poverty and boosting prosperity
, global development has become
richer in solutions and models. Today’s menu of development pathways includes experience and expertise generated and validated in the practice of countries and institutions addressing challenges in sectors such as tropical agriculture, public finance, and disaster risk management. And indeed, knowledge sharing is a primary road to take advantage of this immense opportunity to learn from each other and adapt what works to real-life challenges in low and middle income countries. And the good news is that, in line with the Busan Partnership paragraphs 30 and 31, partners around the world are fully aware of the need to scale up knowledge sharing, that is, going beyond one-off activities, and using knowledge sharing in a sustained and programmatic way.

In this inspiring context and as Carola Kenngott already stressed in this e-discussion, countries and sector institutions have become very active in exploring and working on options to create institutional and operational arrangements which enable a broader and more continued knowledge exchange. There is a clear consensus that knowledge exchange should be embedded in strong institutions that harness and package high-quality know-how and solutions, share these with partners, and ensure their effective contributions to development. As a response to this need, the concept of knowledge hubs (or should we say knowledge exchange hubs!) has emerged as a key reference for  governments and institutions desiring to scale-up and sustain knowledge exchange over long periods of time, as also highlighted by Philip Courtnadge and the colleague from Ecuador. Launched 18 months ago as a contribution to the G20 development agenda, the idea of knowledge hubs has quickly evolved into a centerpiece of a global development landscape in full transformation and might also become a reference for the Global Partnership on Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC).

This commitment has been vividly reflected in the First High-Level Meeting (HLM) on Country-Led Knowledge Hubs, held in Bali, Indonesia, on 10-12 July 2012. This HLM gathered more than 300 practitioners from 46 countries who discussed lessons learned and emerging evidence on knowledge hubs. Galvanized in the Bali Communiqué, this event generated a shared understanding of knowledge hubs, as well as a strong sense for action around specific options and challenges of institutionalizing and operationalizing knowledge exchange. Finally, the Bali HLM also gathered key decision-makers around a concrete demand to deepen analysis and enable in-depth exchange on the how-to’s of knowledge hubs.

2 – Update on the development of tools and approaches to strengthen knowledge exchange capacity of country institutions in a more systematic manner

Since Bali, an Indonesia-led Core Group (which also includes the ADB, JICA, UNDP and the World Bank) has been working intensely on implementing the recommendations of the Bali Communiqué to support the emergence and strengthen knowledge hubs around the world. The past 14 months have seen the following advances:

-    In order to “further facilitate a learning process that needs to be sustained over the coming years”, as requested by the Bali Communiqué, a Community of Practice on Knowledge Hubs was launched in January 2013. This CoP hosted at  www.knowledgehubs.org has become a privileged and dedicated web space for already
more than 250 champions desiring to share experiences
with creating and scaling up Knowledge Hubs in a practical way. Key activities include webinars with experts, thematic discussions and specialized blog posts on how to create strong institutional and operational capacities, in particular at the sector level.

-    Practice-based tools for Knowledge Hub development are emerging, for example through self-assessment surveys and adaptable road maps which are currently being
designed by the World Bank Institute as a service to countries and institutions
interested in setting up Knowledge Hubs. Another particularly vital tool is the
Art of Knowledge Exchange launched in 2012, which offers easy-to-understand and yet comprehensive guidance on how to plan, implement and assess knowledge exchange activities on a large scale and with a clear result orientation. For the first time ever, this toolkit explains the nature, advantages and potential downsides of specific modalities.
Informed by actual practice, the document provides a clear understanding of the overall knowledge exchange cycle. The full document available at http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/document/art-knowledge-exchange

-    There are a number of ongoing pilot initiatives to support Knowledge Hubs. As an
example, the World Bank Institute is currently working closely to advise and assist Knowledge Hubs in countries such as Brazil (ABES, the Professional Association
of Water & Sanitation and Environment Engineers), Indonesia (BPNP, the National
Agency for Disaster Risk Management) and Nigeria (LAMATA, Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority). The involved partners now plan to host these pilot engagements in ‘living laboratories’ at the CoP mentioned above. Thereby, lessons will be shared and emerging solutions validated by the broader Community, thereby crowdsourcing the evolving learning around the practical how-to’s of Knowledge Hubs.

And indeed, the strong engagement of practitioners and professionals in different components of the Bali process indicates that knowledge hubs will become a central piece for future global development. It is inspiring to see that there is a particular push from sector
and thematic institutions working on specific development solutions in often very dynamic policy areas, such as social protection or public health, all highly relevant for poverty reduction. And together with its partners of the Bali Core Group, the World Bank Institute stands ready to support these institutions desiring to improve their organizational and operational capacities to share knowledge in a sustained and effective way.

 

CooperaNet
Thu, September 19,2013

A. Knowledge sharing

How can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience? What are the current challenges?

On the other hand, how can knowledge sharing lead to more effective development cooperation? How can the Global Partnership help in increasing its effectiveness?

Cooperation for development can promote and improve the exchange of knowledge and experiences, through the systematization of good practices, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of actions, projects and cooperation programs undertaken.  Allowing the elaboration of a set of tools that account for the various types and correct forms of cooperation applied for each case. 

Likewise it is essential to respect the needs and capacities of recipient countries in order to create a common language for the exchange of knowledge and experiences, which can lead to an effective ownership of these.  Therefore knowledge sharing could lead to more effective cooperation, for the ultimate goal is improved institutional capabilities in the recipient country. Thus by having strong institutions receiving cooperation becomes more transparent and efficient, generating a virtuous circle.

Additionally the current challenge to promote and improve the exchange of knowledge and experiences underlies in incorporating the new actors in international cooperation for development, from civil society, academia and the business sector.

In this sense, the use of grant funds, for example for civil society organizations, promotes an increase in the quality of cooperation projects, while promoting good design and planning of the implementation of the initiatives.

The strength of the Global Partnership is the emphasis it places on all areas related to developing countries, not only cooperation itself. In this regard, it is important to respect the principle of consistency, i.e. cooperation granted by a particular country does not contradict with the implementation of protectionist policies on the economy.

B. South South and Triangular Cooperation:

Should more be done to scale up south-south cooperation? If so, what?

Has there been any joined up strategy to facilitate synergy and complementarity of south-south cooperation and other development cooperation? If so, does the strategy differ from how they manage traditional donors, and how?

By respecting principles of horizontality and focusing on the exchange of experiences and knowledge, South-South Cooperation is very valuable in today's world as it supports countries in the creation of public policies for overcoming hunger, poverty, etc. Similarly, South-South Cooperation involves incorporating development principles and requires national commitment to it, which added to the implementation of good policies (learned and apprehended from the cooperation received) and institutional political stability enables effective development which generates long-term sustainable capacity for economic growth and the effective development of a country allowing them to share their particular experiences with other developing country. In addition to South-South, Triangular Cooperation can expand the size and scope of the projects, while the joint work of the partners promotes the exchange of experiences between the project managers involved.

Also, the financial sustainability of the projects is greatly benefited when resorted to Cooperation Fund that are shared with other countries or international organizations, since it works on the basis of a constant budget, available exclusively for the financing of projects.

Finally, Triangular Cooperation implies a change in the way in which cooperation is conceived by traditional donors since beyond the funding, it also implies a horizontal relationship between the partners.

C. Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries

What are the greatest poverty challenges in middle income countries? How, if at all, do these differ from those challenges in low income countries?

What challenges do you face or are aware when countries in low-income country status make transition to middle-income country status? How has the development cooperation supported or not adequately supported such transition?

The challenges of middle-income countries are generally more complex than those that affect low-income countries. Many times, they face strong lags simultaneously in order to continue on its path to development.

These challenges are related primarily to socioeconomic factors such as coverage and the quality of education and health services, the quality of housing, the geographical segregation, and the provision for old age. Additionally, in lower middle-income countries health aspects such as access to clean water or sewerage services are added.

In this regard, while middle-income countries are largely integrated into the global economy, this makes them more vulnerable to external shocks. As well as having to face high income inequality in its population due to the high growth rates of only some productive sectors (often export commodities, affected by a high variation in prices) and the lack of tax policies or effective redistributive policies.

The difficulties faced by inhabitants of low-income countries are much more urgent than those of middle-income countries, and deal with the hygiene factors rather than socioeconomic status. These shortcomings not only impair the normal development of the individual in society, but also their biological development. These deficiencies are related to life expectancy at birth, deaths "preventable" diseases such as polio or tuberculosis or malnutrition.

For a country, the transition from low income to middle income represents a significant change in social priorities. The countries that escape the low income group, generally, do it quickly (in less than one generation), so the lacks of people pass from hygienic to socioeconomic within a few years. The main challenge for the country is to keep public policy up to date with the needs of the people.

The international cooperation agenda ought to find a place for middle-income countries, by “tutoring” programs, focused on overcoming particular institutional weaknesses of each country, and not a rigid graduation system for cooperation. A system in which for the attainment of a certain level of development indexes, the country becomes eligible for cooperation for development.  Many middle-income countries may see reduced the quality of life of its inhabitants after a great crisis, as large segments of the population remain vulnerable to worsening living conditions. 

Please find attached the original text in Spanish

Attachment(s) Respuesta a OEA de AGCICHILE Alianza Global.docx
Ziad Abdel Samad a Executive Director from Lebanon
Thu, September 19,2013

A. Knowledge sharing

Knowledge was identified as one of the three challenges facing development efforts in the Arab region by the Arab Human Development report of 2002. It is thus imperative to address this gap which I believe is not only related to the Arab region but it is a challenge in other regions of the global south

It is very important to have access to information in order to improve knowledge unfortunately information is still mostly dominated by the states or by the businesses despite the new technology and the wide use of social and mass media.

Efforts should be focusing on how to build the capacities in order to become producers of knowledge, by enhancing research and analysis programs, empowering independent academia and research institute on one hand, and filling the gap between these institutions and civil society. This last point is important since the interaction between these two components of civil society is beneficial for both of them 

Knowledge should also include science and technology which is prerequisite to empower the competitive productive capacities

There is a need to make sure that property rights will not become a barrier in front accessing to knowledge and information

The right to access information should be respected by all means

 

B. South South and Triangular Cooperation:

Moving from rentier to productive economies was identified of a major task to be fulfilled in order to face the flows and achieving the development goals. This necessitate to build productive capacities with value added in one hand, but also  to satisfy the domestic and regional market to secure market stability and sovereignty (mainly food) on the other hand.

This necessitate strategies and policies for regional integration (cooperation) and cooperation among the regions, namely within the global south.

Many events took place between the Arab region and Latin America (tow summits were held in Doha and Brazil) in order to enhance cooperation, this should be followed up and enlarged to reach other regions, but first serious steps should be taken to secure achieving the integration within the arab region

Which needs to be committed to that and then to diversify national economies, and to develop and implement the regional agreements within the league of arab states

Nowadays, the situation is not adequate; however, this is an additional reason for a regional cooperation

 

C. Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries

The big question always raised is about the real reasons why the goals were not achieved  

The UNSG report mentions inequalities as a major challenge, which cannot be faced unless the human rights based approach will be adopted and implemented

Moreover, important structural reforms and changes should occur in the global financial architecture and trading systems that can enhance and support the developmental efforts (reference can be made to the recently issued UNCTAD report on trade and investment for 2013) 

 

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Thu, September 19,2013

Dear Ziad,

Thank you very much for this contribution. Democratization of knowledge through engagement of non-state actors is very important for knowledge to be balanced and its sharing to be dynamic. Yet, this is very often overlooked in the debate on knowledge sharing. 

Also, thanks for reminding that science and technology should be essential part of knowledge sharing initiatives. We approached some members of scientific community for further comments on that. 

It would be interesting to learn whether regular exchanges between the Arab States and Latin America were translated into concrete cooperation programmes? 

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Thu, September 19,2013

Dear Ziad,

Thank you very much for this contribution. Democratization of knowledge through engagement of non-state actors is very important for knowledge to be balanced and its sharing to be dynamic. Yet, this is very often overlooked in the debate on knowledge sharing. 

Also, thanks for reminding that science and technology should be essential part of knowledge sharing initiatives. We approached some members of scientific community for further comments on that. 

It would be interesting to learn whether regular exchanges between the Arab States and Latin America were translated into concrete cooperation programmes? 

Ziad Abdel Samad a Ziad Abdel Samad from Lebanon
Fri, September 20,2013

the cooperation between the Arab states and the Latin American resulted of few cooperation between some businesses. it enhanced the joined commerce committees, but it was not institutionalised. Maybe because the eruption of the "Arab Spring" is the reason but i believe that this might be an important step for both regions 

Tubagus A. Choesni a Director from Indonesia
Thu, September 19,2013

Following the discussion, I want to highlight several important components of knowledge sharing of GPEDC, which draws from Busan’s mandates which are strengthening knowledge sharing process, and how to bring it to country level.

In line with what we discussed in Bali International Conference on Country led knowledge hub, we want to hear your inputs on technical perspectives to bring knowledge sharing into practice. We see that there are 3 aspects on the knowledge sharing as follows: substantive (thematic), eg. Poverty aleviation, platform, and how to translate it into country level and needs. We think it is important to implement at the country level as lessons learnt are from the country’s development experiences.

There are many existing (international) platforms, but in country knowledge sharing processes are as important. On the other hand, we want to identify what is the best way to capture the demand and how countries can identify and get the demand that their need, whether through the existing platform or traditional approach from bilateral cooperation. Do existing platforms already fulfill the demand. Otherwise, what and how we can improve existing platform to better fulfill demand. As important, how a country (including LDC) can formulate their demands of development knowledge?

Your inputs on how to improve both, supply and demand sides are of our interest.

Thank You

Mami Yamada Sakurai a Assistant Director, Partnerships and Triangular Cooperation, United Nations Office for South-South Cooepration from United States
Thu, September 19,2013

I am excited to read all the posts and comments available in this community. Please find my two cents below:

Synergy between SSC actors and traditional donors/international organizations

SSC has been evolving since its origin in 1960's and many good practices have been documented. You can see some of the examples in the library of UNOSSC's website http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc.html

What we are still missing is the evidence of SSC, supported by traditional donors and multilateral organizations, which is triangular cooperation.

Our office has started in 2009 an evidence-based research on SSC and triangular cooperation. The study analyzes more than 40 cases of South-South and triangular cooperation, and conclusion about triangular cooperation mentions: 1) under triangular arrangement, donor and international organizations have not only provided complementary inputs to projects, but also supported information-sharing and matchmaking, technical and implementation capacity strengthening of pivotal countries, knowledge sharing, and networking. 2) triangular cooperation has also brought benefits to donor and international organizations, such as the use of comparative advantages of pivotal countries as well as the scale-up of past assistance. 3) triangular cooperation entails challenges such as transaction costs and policy coordination.

You can read the entire document in http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/library/publications/books/EnhancingSouth-SouthandTriangularCooperation.html

Since 2012, Japan International Cooperation Agency, JICA and United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, UNOSSC, started to work jointly to further promote triangular cooperation. In 2012 Global South-South Development Expo, JICA launched a publication which analyzes triangular cooperation models and cases supported by JICA (link: http://ssc.undp.org/content/dam/ssc/dgspaces/Japan/files/Scaling%20Up%20South-South%20and%20Triangular%20Cooperation.JICA%20Research%20Institute,%20November%202012)

This year, JICA Research Institute, in collaboration with UNOSSC and UNEP, is preparing another publication which will contain different models of triangular cooperation supported by donor countries and international organizations. The publication will be launched during GSSD Expo to be held in Nairobi, Kenya on 28 October – 1 November.

Today, more donors are looking at triangular cooperation as an effective way to achieve development results, and South-South and triangular cooperation is expected to have an important role in the Post 2015 agenda. Collection of evidence and its dissemination will contribute to increasing the volume as well as the number of partners of triangular cooperation, thus, to scaling up South-South cooperation.

 

 

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Thu, September 19,2013
Dear Mami, Thank you very much for these interesting references. We will be looking forward to the launch of the new report in the end of next month as the new evidence will be critical to broaden support to triangular cooperation.
Valerie Wolff from Austria
Thu, September 19,2013

Thank you for letting us contribute to this discussion in
preparation to the Ministerial-level meeting in 2014. I am writing on behalf of
the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) on the topic
of South-South and Triangular Cooperation.

 

We are about to launch a handbook on “Enhancing
Diaspora Engagement: Operational Guidelines for South-South and Triangular
Cooperation”
that was developed by ICMPD in the framework of
a joint programme between ICMPD and IOM (“Strengthening African and Middle
Eastern Diaspora Policy through South-South Exchange” (AMEDIP). It explores the ways in which diaspora contribute to the countries
of origin, and the ways in which government officials can better harness their
talents and resources for development. We have held many regional workshops
with government officials from the South, listened to the voices of the
diaspora through our roundtables and other initiatives - all of which fed into
the drafting of this handbook.

 

All in all, we have found many good practices in
creating partnership framework in the context of south-south or triangular
cooperation
related to migration that emanated from government’s
initiatives that can and should be considered for upscaling:

 

- Establishment of bilateral or regional
agreements that allow for readmission, free movement of people, portability of
social security schemes, transfer of earnings and savings, avoidance of double
taxation, facilitation of brain circulation or regional vocational
training/higher education schemes, mutual recognition and transfer of diplomas
. The success of such agreements has also given rise to
the development of regional frameworks to leverage the advantages of migration,
e.g. the African Union’s migration policy framework for Africa, the East
African Community Protocol on the Establishment of the EAC Common Market, or
ECOWAS’s Common Approach on Migration that enable free movement of goods,
labour or/and services. 

 

-
There have also been many initiatives to reduce the costs of remittances,
also South to South remittances. It is estimated that, in general, remittances - diaspora contributions to
their home countries – represents four times the level of official development
assistance. An OECD-DAC survey suggests that ODA fell by 3% in 2011 compared to
2010, while remittance flows increased by 8%. So when we talk about
aid/development effectiveness, we need to keep the debate going on the importance
of remittances for poverty reduction (,while bearing in mind that such private
flows should not be considered a substitute for ODA, debt relief or direct
foreign investment). More effective ways should be sought that will benefit the
development back home, e.g by increasing competition among money-transfer
companies and banks to reduce transfer fees and by promoting access to
financial products and services tailored to both clients sending and receiving
the remittances
. This is a crucial point that should also be considered in
the development of the post-2015 framework.

 

-
In the context of facilitating such bilateral or regional agreement,
international organizations can play a crucial role as ‘third party’.
The
African Union, for example, has established an African Institute for
Remittances Project, supported by the World Bank and the European Commission,
and in cooperation with the African Development Bank and the International
Organisation for Migration. It looks, among others, into developing partnerships
between African central banks and remittance service providers to improve
financial access. The United Nations Office for South-South cooperation, the
World Bank’s South-South Experience Exchange Facility or the African Development
Bank’s South-South Cooperation Trust Fund are some more examples that I would
like to mention here. ICMPD, has also actively taken up its role as
facilitator, knowledge broker and provider of technical assistance to
South-South cooperation. The
Mediterranean Transit Migration (MTM) Dialogue, for example, which secretariat
is hosted by ICMPD upon the request of 13 countries in the South, includes a
component for strengthening South-South technical exchange and capacity
building for government officials, which was implemented through the AMEDIP
programme. Besides regional workshops and pilot projects, ten study visits took
place in which countries could learn from each other’s experiences to
successfully engage diaspora.

 

If you are interested in
learning more about the outputs of the AMEDIP programme “Strengthening African
and Middle Eastern Diaspora Policy through South-South Exchange” or in reading our handbook “Enhancing Diaspora Engagement: Operational Guidelines for South-South and
Triangular Cooperation”
(to be released in December 2013), then do not hesitate to contact the MTM
Secretariat at MTM-Dialogue@icmpd.org

 

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Thu, September 19,2013
Dear Valerie, Thanks a lot for introducing this important dimension. Indeed, the relative importance of ODA is going down in most countries and the new realities of development finance should be reflected in the development partnership. Your comment is also related to a parallel discussion launched a few days ago - on development finance.
SAFARI Peter Jerome a Government Official - Ministry of Education from Rwanda
Thu, September 19,2013

 

Knowledge sharing

How can Development Cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience?

Knowledge sharing in developing countries is lacking expertise and experience, one of the best example of knowledge sharing is good governance and good government practiced by the government of Rwanda where different government visit to share experience, the knowledge sharing cannot be achieved without the citizen participation since they are the one to implement the agenda for the better results

As for the government of Rwanda, knowledge sharing is counted as an asset whereby citizens contributes their exercise in community activities like cleaning, building for poor people, road construction (monthly knowledge sharing by community work day)

Development Cooperation can promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience by understand what is the need of that society, provide an assistance of expertise and technological support to the planned activities by (sharing plane activities by the government)

Challenges: Expertise and knowledge is not harmonized even within development cooperation’s

-          Differences between the development cooperation’s and recipient country

-          Delay of fund and

-          Corruption and deviation of fund to unplanned project.

How can knowledge sharing lead to more effective development cooperation?

-          By strengthening the security within the region through cross border information sharing supported by UN expertise

-          Support agriculture through product development and irrigation (capacity building and experience sharing to neighboring countries)

-          Awareness through civil society organizations, PPP, government and development organization working together (Joint Mechanism Framework) done at the district level-weekly to discuss the development and the role of each stakeholder.

-          Knowledge sharing on land issues (the most challenging activity in term of development and management)

How can the global partnership help in increasing its effectiveness?

I would recommend Global Partnership to work  close with Private partnership in developing countries, share expertise and knowledge with them, promote industry  through their ownership and monitoring their take off, at the later stage the government will benefit from tax which donor will have no longer donate rather sharing knowledge and expertise as well as R&D.

Should more be done to scale up south-south cooperation?

To identify some case studies which other countries should adopt as learning from sharing and promote technology as well as increase expertise in infrastructure development

Has there been any joined up strategy to facilitate synergy and complementarities of south-south cooperation? If so does the strategy differ from how they manage traditional donors and how?

For the case of Rwanda I would say yes, for an example of improving cooking stove (biogas) whereby 1998 to 2013 up to 3,100 families improving cooking stove have been provided and 68 for institution like secondary schools and jails, while the 2017 expectation is to have 100,000 families with improved biogas cooking stove

This is done through the joined strategy cooperation with expertise and knowledge sharing from partners like JICA, SNV, BTC, UNDP and World Bank

The strategy used is to provide expertise to the field, formulate group for knowledge and teaching methodology (train the trainees TOT) and then formulate groups into cooperatives for entrepreneurship support district wise and to follow up to see if they have implementing and thus they are earning through the project of biogas improving stove making.

For the traditional donor there is no ownership and knowledge sharing at large

 

 

Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries

1.      What are the greatest poverty challenges in Middle Income Countries? (MIC) Poverty challenges

Main challenges

Poor governance / Poor leadership: In most MIC countries /governance took much time in conflicts either internal or external, politics has become a tool of violation and funding instrument from the private to the leadership and payback promises.

The government have no time to implement policies (social and economic) to eradicate poverty; these countries have a well and monitoring mechanism for poverty eradication what is lacking is commitment and time. If democracy and smart government can be achieved in MIC countries, we shall have a positive sign from the recipient country to donor country in few years.

How if at all do these differ from those challenges in low income countries? (LIC)      

MIC challenges does not differ with that of LIC very rare cases we can differentiate however the  big number of poverty people are located in MIC.

-          Suppressed enough MIC has a well organized institution compared to LIC

-          Well Human Capital compared to LIC

-          Well organized Public-Private Partnership / Industry with trade unlikely to LIC

All these could have been an advantage of poverty eradication, a sign of a society that is well organized and policy functioning but due to poor administration and commitment nothing can be achieved.

2.      What challenges do you face or are aware when countries in LIC status make transition to MIC status.

·         Most targets are not reached due to poor plan

·         Lack of funds and thus ignored some of the important development objectives

·         Poor infrastructure

·         Lack of human capital

·         Too much corruption and miss management of donors fund

 

How has the development cooperation supported or not adequately supported such transitions?

Supported by:

·         Giving fund

·         Capacity building to employees

·         Entrepreneurship support (microfinance banks , associations and cooperation’s)

Not adequate supported

·         Failed to integrate donors budget allocation with the national budget which causes poor plan

·         Resource allocation of development agencies, no target set up and poor organization where one project can be located within one area with different organization while the rest of the area remains helpless (no control mechanism)

·         Issue of ownership: citizen participation needs to feel that the project running is for themselves and thus need their involvement from the beginning and the plan to manage the project after period stipulated (own management)

·         Most development organizations gives the investment their home company to purchase logistics (investment return)

·         Most project are less sighted like counting billion of dollar in civil education, human right, police training and conferences while infrastructure like building schools, hospitals water and sanitation etc are left behind or given less concern.

 

SAFARI Peter Jerome

Korea University

MA International Development and Cooperation

2013-09-19

 

Attachment(s) Knowledge Sharing-Peter Korea University.docx
Mohammad Asif-uz-Zaman a Civil Service from Bangladesh
Thu, September 19,2013

 

Knowledge sharing is an essential part of Development cooperation. Be it North-South, South – South or triangular, knowledge sharing creates synergy in the process of development cooperation which, in turn leads to firming up global partnership. Presently, different OECD member countries are promoting knowledge sharing with the partner countries in a limited scale. Bangladesh is also a partner in Korea’s knowledge sharing program and has successfully completed two policy advice schemes in 2012. Based on this experience, I would like to share following issues in this forum for further debate.

Every country in this globe has certain knowledge base, be it a developed or underdeveloped. Even the most backward nation has certain strengths based on its experience and knowledge. Over the ages, this knowledge is perfected by trial and error and in consonance with the local culture and environment. It is most likely that some of the countries may benefit from that specific knowledge having similar socio-economic and environmental conditions. The biggest challenge here is lack of information on the knowledge base, and more so, access to it. i.e knowledge management.

Can we think of such a system where under the UN umbrella, there is a body who will coordinate and facilitate knowledge sharing amongst the partner countries. One nominated and dedicated agency by each partner country will create a data base of knowledge bank having two broad classifications. First one shall be the areas or sectors where that particular country thinks they are strong at. Like for Bangladesh, it can be Micro credit or reduction of child mortality, or increase enrollment in secondary levels. Structured information on these aspects will be stored in a prescribed format of database. The other compartment shall contain queries regarding particular area that country wishes to gather knowledge for development cooperation. This can be administered centrally by the designated UN body that will coordinate the knowledge management and knowledge sharing process. This can be done through a bespoke software, initiated and promoted by the assigned UN body, and shall be used and shared by all partner countries.

The main strength, which I can foresee right away is, relevant knowledge sources are readily available at fingertip. Interested participating countries can have instant access to the knowledge base and share those at any level, from operational to strategic to policy . The sharing countries shall have choice of filtering and modifying the available knowledge attuned to their customary requirements. This eventually will lead to better and improved development cooperation and integrate effective global partnership.

I don't know whether it sounds weird, but will love to receive responses on this issue.

CooperaNet
Wed, September 18,2013

How can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience? What are the current challenges?

Development cooperation can better promote effective sharing of knowledge, (knowledge co-creation) and experiences by allowing countries to learn from each others experiences through the use of regional platforms e.g. expert groups, networks that host and facilitate spaces of interaction and exchange.

On the other hand, how can knowledge sharing lead to more effective development cooperation? How can the Global Partnership help in increasing its effectiveness?

 

Knowledge is absolutely critical for effective institutions, building capacity and creating sustainable solutions for greater growth and equity. Therefore sharing knowledge paves the way for a greater percentage of populations in developing countries to benefit from growth.

The Global Partnership can unite efforts and identify successful methodologies for building capacity as well as solutions and/or experiences that have led to more effective development. 

What challenges do you face or are aware when countries in low-income country status make transition to middle-income country status? How has the development cooperation supported or not adequately supported such transition?

The transition from low-income to middle-income country status lies not only in the name, or title as it is commonly believed. Rather, the transition should be accompanied by a change in the way a country is perceived both internal and externally, and the notions of aid recipient vs. donor. It is important to also take into account that, economically speaking, most countries are not ready to completely stop receiving aid which forces them to seek external funding increasing their debt levels.

Middle-income country status, as its name implies, is based on only income. However, it is important to take into account other social factors such as education, and healthcare among others. Generally countries graduate to middle-income due to a booming economy yet this does not imply that their capacity to respond to social equality is also at its prime.

Therefore many of these social factors of importance are overlooked, but the country is still granted the transition.

Therefore the transition, i.e. graduation from low income to middle income, of a country should encompass an overall change and multi-sectoral. In order to correctly support the change, the country that makes this transition must have the institutional and political capacity to withhold the transition.

When such a transition occurs, we must question if, in fact, that country is ready to completely stop receiving financial aid or if it requires support to accompany the transition. We must keep in mind that development encompasses an inclusive society and an equitable economic growth. If disregarded, these countries will face unequal growth in different sectors which, in the long-run, will cause the less-developed sectors to overshadow the progress made in the growing sectors.

Based on the Americas perspective, development cooperation has not adequately supported the transition since most countries in the region currently labeled as middle-income are the ones with highest levels of inequality.

Development is not to be considered black or white; it must be a spectrum in which effective public policies dissolve the challenges that middle-income countries face.

 

Development cooperation should have a continuous follow-up process to ensure that the development processes are multi-sectoral, inclusive and sustainable. 

Hannah Ryder
Wed, September 18,2013
Thanks for this really interesting response. I am intrigued by the point you make about a transition of support being needed for middle income countries. Could you expand a bit more on what this should look like and be focused on - e.g. Should it still be grant based and/or focused on social sectors or are there other options? Also, how aligned with government budgets should such support be, or does that matter less in a middle income country context? Hannah
CooperaNet
Fri, September 20,2013

The transition to middle income country support should be based on social and economic areas that may need to achieve better outcomes in order to phase in with the middle income status. We shouldn’t label a middle income country while its health and education systems are considerably behind that of other countries, or does not reach all sectors of the population. In this case, one should think of a follow up mecanism that supports these sectors and can be both sharing experience (capacity buidling, knowledge transfer etc.) and may also mean additional funding for these specific sectors. This also needs to be aligned with the country's priorities and budgets and should include phases for monitoring and evaluation in order to report any advances and attainment of results.

Yudho Giri Sucahyo a Senior Lecturer from Indonesia
Wed, September 18,2013
  • How can knowledge sharing improve development results?

Instead of starting from scratch, by using knowledge that are shared by other countries, a country can learn from other mistakes to speed up development in a country. As an example, Andra Pradesh is famous for their initiative in reducing poverty, by using ICT to track which household has never received employment program. Such initiative can be replicated by other country and even the system can also be copied assuming that the system using open source scheme.

Indonesia has a great program in achieving WSIS program that 50% of citizens must have access to information. Indonesia create mobile internet facility by using small trucks, motorcycles, and even boat! The boat passes through Borneo rivers giving access to remote citizen and show them what Internet is. Other countries can learn from us on what are the driving and obstacles factors on having such initiative.

Thanks.

Kazuki Kitaoka a Strategic Planner at UN
Tue, September 17,2013

For knowledge sharing and connectedness in development, visit these two reports:

  1. Networks for Prosperity: Achieving Development Goals through Knowledge Sharing (2011 Report): http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/News/2011/UN%20Report%20LowRes.pdf
  2. Networks for Prosperity: Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015 (2012 Report): http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Networks_for_Prosperity/N4P_connecting_development_knowledge_beyond_2015_Full_Report_NfP_2012.PDF

 

Abstract:

Networks are an important means for developing countries to exchange knowledge and speed their economic development. By working through an integrated and networked approach, multilateral stakeholders, national and local governments as well as private entities are better equipped to approach development processes in a more effective, inclusive and transparent way.

In November 2011 the Networks for Prosperity initiative published its first report, ‘Networks for Prosperity: achieving development goals through knowledge sharing’, which established a Connectedness Index that measures countries’ knowledge networks and links their level of connectedness with economic development indicators. To determine the Connectedness Index, the report took into account international, inter-organizational and intra-organizational networks established by each country.

The second report prepared by the initiative, ‘Networks for Prosperity: connecting development knowledge beyond 2015’, was launched as a side event of the Global South-South Development Expo in November 2012. This report updates the previous year’s information on the Connectedness Index and increases the number of countries analyzed from 75 to 132.  

Networks for Prosperity has developed a comprehensive view of the relevance of knowledge networks in the context of economic development programmes, and how they can be used as a tool for improving policy effectiveness and economic governance. It has thus facilitated the creation and building of knowledge networks in the field of PSD policy and has opened opportunities for increased PSD knowledge networking among developing countries. The initiative is expected to have a considerable impact on the understanding and use of South-South networks in development strategies and programmes, in particular in the field of economic development.

 

Kazuki Kitaoka a Strategic Planner at UN
Tue, September 17,2013

Some guidance from our Member States on the focus for activities in Middle-Income Countries (MICs) has been provided during the recent High-Level Conference of MICs in San Jose, Costa Rica (June 2013). The final declaration, adopted by some 70 MICs to be found here: http://micconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FINALSANJOSEDECLARATION140613.pdf

A full conference report can be found here: http://www.iisd.ca/sd/unido/mics/

 

Pranay Sinha from United Kingdom
Tue, September 17,2013

Dear Colleagues,

Referring Philip’s contribution and specially his last paragraph i.e. ‘maximise the impact of South-South and triangular support by creating improved knowledge management arrangements to record, disseminate, scale-up and replicate the results of South-South initiatives’, I would like to continue with the issue around South-South Cooperation measurement and capacity development and wish to take forward this discussion here.

Though the issue of finding the right global institution for institutional hand holding is still unsettled, the need for making investment in S-S Cooperation information system and its reporting is well recognised and at the forefront. The challenges ahead are both political and technical. Various analysts have identified that the actors involved in S-S Cooperation don’t have any incentives to report to any global institution; largely due to the fact that there was no formal place in the aid architecture and S-S Cooperation actors were not part of the process while standards were set up, therefore no incentive to report. However, the fact remains; it’s also technical and institutional problems of data definitions and collection and therefore the practical question emerges as how to establish a standardised reporting for actors engaged in S-S Cooperation and what should it capture and could the IATI standards be considered a way forward?

At the University of Birmingham, we have done a research on south-south cooperation data categorization to complement the on-going IATI categorization in 2011 and found that ‘out of 33 IATI categories, 27 categories are fully compatible with the S-S Cooperation definition proposed by UNDCF background study. Only two categories are not compatible and four categories are almost compatible however they need some minor modifications or addenda’. For detailed reports, the link of our research webpage can be accessed here http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/government-society/departments/international-development/research/projects/future-for-aid-data.aspx

Importantly, since none of the S-S Cooperation players were part of the IATI process, except Colombia as an observer, I’m not sure there is a buy in for IATI amongst the southern players to sign up to the IATI. Therefore, I’m interested to learn more from the community members if there are any efforts going on for the measurement of S-S Cooperation at the country level (individual S-S player level) and at the global level (overall S-S Cooperation) and what are the efforts undertaken for the capacity development of the agencies involved in S-S Cooperation at the country level. How it’s being captured, reported and disseminated and is there any agency (UNDP/UNSSC office/ UNDESA or any other agency) partnering with any S-S cooperation players or Global Partnership team works on the same?

Thanks

Pranay Sinha,

University of Birmingham

BEATRICE NABAJJA MUGAMBE a Executive Director from Uganda
Tue, September 17,2013

Thank you for putting in place such a forum and for inviting me to particpate!

On the question of "how can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experiences"; I think there are several ways in whch this can be done, taking into consideration socio-economic and political contexts in both the south and north.

1. Creating/providing learning and sharing platforms like this one, enhances knowledge sharing,

2. Support south and north face-to-face interactions/sharing and learning through creation of spaces at international events, short-term work placements in the south or north, sponsorship to study in selected universities/institutions of technical excellence,

3. Coordination of devlopment cooperation so that they support groups to share knowledge within south-south and south-north contexts. For instance, Irish Aid in Uganda has supported about 20 of us from Uganda to attend post graduate learning within Uganda, East Africa and in Ireland, 6 of us are in Ireland. Just imagine if all development partners in Uganda had a fund to annually support such programmes, knowledge sharing would greatly improve. Some development partners support knowledge developmen, others do not, but also there is no system to track impact of supported knoweldge creation. 

The challenges reated to knowledge and experience sharing are varied, but key among them is lack of a coordinated and long-term approach at government level to specify areas where knowledge and experience is needed, this should be closely linked to our Vision 2040, National Development plans and other guiding sectoral plans. With such an approach, every year, there should be feedback on progress being made, etc.In many instances, there is no budget line for knowledge and experience sharing, in both state and non-state agencies, it happens by default! But in other countries, this item takes a big share of the budget.

On question 2, "How can knowledge sharing lead to more effective development cooperation and How can the Global Partnership help in increasing its effectiveness? Knowledge sharing builds human capital which helps to drive the development cooperation agenda. When humak skills and experience are lacking/inadequate, development cooperation would not lead to the desired goals the partners. Also, knowledge and experience sharing promotes mutuality in the relationship, it ceases to be a donor-recepient one to a genuine development partnership which recognises each others strengths and weaknesses.

The Global Partnership can increase effectiveness continuously identifying the knowledge/experience gaps and linking them to spaces/platforms where they can be addressed. Also, they should influence state and non-state agencies to prioritise knowledge building and sharing, through allocation of resources to this area.Further, there should be a mechanism to track progress in different parts of the world, otherwise people will continue saying there is nothing happening in their own countries, but it is just that no one is documenting.

On scaling up S-S cooperation, it should focus on inter-country or inter-regional  financing; learning about best fit practices of natural resource exploitation and management; having a shared agenda on key areas that would propel them into middle and first income countries and sharing technology innovations.

The greatest poverty challenges in middle income countries is having growth that excludes majority of people, leading to wide gaps in income and neglecting of other social and human development dimensions. In such countries, it becomes a struggle for the fittest, those in extreme and chronic poverty and most vulnerable to becoming poor are not an item for policy consideration.

These challenges differ from those of low income countries in terms of magnitude and policy focus but they are similar to what is happening in low income countries. The exception is that in low income countries, development cooperation tends to force/influence poverty issues to remain on the policy agenda and would go an extra mile to provide specific financial resources to regions of projects that have a poverty eradication goal. Otherwise in the middle income countries, its about the private sector growth, development support would also be reduced or done away with, yet in actual fact, there are pockets of regions/groups of people that would greatly benefit from that kind of support.

Uganda now aims at becoming a middle income country, while this sounds good, there are challenges. 

1. Government has put "off" the poverty eradication policy focus, i.e the remaining poverty will be dealt with along the way! But the statistics do not seem to show a similar picture when you see what is happening in terms of health, education, information provision, public transport, ete, etc. These are public goods whose quality and amount should adequately meet the needs of majority of the people for one to be proud of being in a middle income country. 

2.Related to the above, there comes a dual economy - for the rich few and poor majority, private sector become the controllers of the economy, sometiimes leading to adverse incorporation.

3. in some instances, such countries become dictatorial/authoritarian and citizens' voice/agency becomes less important.

Development cooperation has not adequately supported such transitions, because the partners have their own country agendas, for instance to promote business and political interests, or in other instances, they become less powerful and irrelevant to te ruling regimes. They stop caring about important issues like abuse of human rights, and become pre-occupied with business and political gains. This has to change and the Global Partnership should not look as this is happening otherwise you also become irrelevant.

Hannah Ryder
Wed, September 18,2013
Hi Beatrice - thank you for your very interesting and thought-provoking input to the debate. I was wondering if you have views on how development cooperation can have a real impact in middle income countries on the issues that you raise if, as a financial flows, aid is small in comparison to other flows. For example, is knowledge sharing (as a type of development cooperation) on means to take inequality important to scale up to address this issue for MICs? Can knowledge sharing ever be big enough or influential enough to make a difference? Hannah
Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Tue, September 17,2013
Dear Beatrice, Thank you very much for taking part in this debate and providing very interesting comments. It is particularly good to receive an input from Uganda; its Makerere University has been an important knowledge hub for the region and beyond. The questions you are raising are very relevant for the current discussion in the context of the Global Partnership. Wheras there are many successful examples of knowledge sharing projects, what can be done to scale them up? Special budget lines and tracking systems can certainly be practical ways of sharing knowledge in a more systematic way. Also thanks a lot for your thoughts on the challenges of developmnet cooperation in the middle income countries and I hope we will be getting a lot more inputs on this subject in the remaing days of the e-discussion.
Nils-Sjard Schulz a Good practices of knowledge exchange – A quick overview of key references from United States
Mon, September 16,2013

Countries around the world are investing in their institutional and operational capacities to exchange knowledgeat a larger scale and in a sustainable way. One way of doing this is through Knowledge Hubs, a concept endorsed by more than 400 participants from 46 countries who gathered for the Bali High-Level Meeting on Country-Led Knowledge Hubs in July 2012.

A core function of knowledge hubs is to create a strong and efficient environment to implement knowledge exchange with peers and partners. As we see in this e-discussion, indeed the strengthening of operational capacities is one of the key challenges, for example when it comes to identify and package relevant development solutions, or to create adequate financing solutions.

Luckily, over the past years policy-makers and practitioners have worked intensely not only on the practice of knowledge exchange, but also on how to improve its practice from a pragmatic perspective. In arenas such as the G20, the Task Team on South-South cooperation (TT-SSC) and the World Bank Institute, country experiences have been assessed in collaboration with Southern academia to come up with Good Practices, which are of high relevance for our discussions on Knowledge Hubs as motors of mutual learning around development experience and solutions.

As there is a great wealth of proposals which can become overwhelming, this post would like to provide a quick overview of the manifold references of evidence and good practices of knowledge exchange:

http://www.g20g8.com/images/content-images/g20-logo.jpgThe context of the G20: Since the Korean presidency in 2010, the Development Working Group (DWG) has been actively looking into Knowledge Sharing as a powerful tool for achieving development results. Evidence-based recommendations and good practices were packaged in a G20 Working Paper titled “Scaling up Knowledge Sharing for Development” [pdf] and a G20 Issues Paper on Emerging Lessons in Institutionalizing Country-Led Knowledge Sharing [pdf], which is one of the precursor references for later work on Knowledge Hubs by looking into policy, institutional and operational questions of large-scale knowledge exchange.

http://www.southsouth.org/images/general/lay_home_10.pngThe Task Team on South-South cooperation (TT-SSC): As an alliance of countries and multilateral institutions born out of the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action, the TT-SSC was the first ever effort of Southern governments and academia to systematize lessons of South-South and triangular knowledge exchange. As one of the drivers of the G20 agenda, the TT-SSC consolidated the three years of its vivid existence (2009-2011) in a 2011 Good Practice Paper (Buenas Prácticas en español), which draws on 32 case studies and more than 160 case stories (summary of case stories in English). The GPP is indeed a direct result collective effort of hundreds of Southern academic partners and practitioners, and has itself generated stronger alliances among policy, practice and academia in dozens of developing countries.

http://jmif.net/uploads/partners/wbi_logo.pngThe World Bank Institute (WBI): Among other bilateral and multilateral partners, the WBI has been deeply committed to help generate evidence-based practices and guidance on the how-to’s of knowledge exchange, supporting the G20, TT-SSC and the Bali HLM agendas. Most relevant references produced by the WBI can be found in the 2012 Art of Knowledge, a straightforward guide to different modalities for mutual learning, and the case studies on Knowledge Hubs (see here for a summary circulated at the Bali HLM). The WBI has also worked on an Options Paper which draws on the experiences of 12 Knowledge Hubs in Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Singapore and South Africa (see also an initial overview in this blog post).

For further information and ongoing discussion on knowledge exchange at southsouth.info, a Community of 2,000 practitioners from around the world.

Hannah Ryder
Wed, September 18,2013
Nils - this is all very interesting and it is great to be brought up to speed with these initiatives. The question in my mind is what can the Global Partnership add to these initiatives, if anything? Are any of them having trouble getting off the ground and if so, why? Can the Partnership help or should it come up with new ideas? Hannah
Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Sat, September 14,2013

Dear All,

Thank you for a great first week of discussion - we've heard a diverse array of voices and opinions and look forward to deepening the discussion even further!

 

Below please find my synthesis of our first week of discussion. I've also identified some gaps in our debate, and I have some follow-up questions that we would love to hear your thoughts on. Do contribute! You have until September 20 to have your voice and opinion heard at the 2014 Ministerial-level meeting of the Global Partnership!

 

On Knowledge Sharing, the theme that seems to be emerging is that it ought to be highly pragmatic and practical among practitioners. We heard from our fellow moderator from the World Bank that knowledge sharing should be seen as a direct exchange between practitioners. Over the next week we hope to get more reactions to the relevant questions that she posed. Our colleague from Ecuador described that knowledge sharing is a process that requires the setting up of long-term, apprentice-like relationships among peers who are able to share practical knowledge. Furthermore, to our colleague from Ecuador knowledge sharing is about pursuing development, not only development cooperation.  A number of colleagues reminded us that “small is beautiful” – local actors are the ones that are close to the development solutions and need to be engaged in knowledge sharing. From our fellow moderator from the Instituto Mora we heard that there is a requirement for certain prerequisites for effective knowledge sharing, especially well-developed local knowledge.

To follow up:

**How can we establish these relationships among practitioners that are needed for knowledge sharing that advances development? How can Global Partnership foster better enabling environment for knowledge sharing?

**What should be done to promote greater role of local actors in knowledge sharing?

 

With regards to South-South and triangular cooperation, we had a number of important contributions. While Professor Singh argued that South-South cooperation must always be seen in the context of North-South economic relations, which are especially important for the transfer of technology and innovation, Professor Ghosh insisted that effective South -outh cooperation, especially on technology and industrial innovation, can be a way of fostering the independence and economic strength of the Global South. 

We heard from our colleague Philip in Cambodia that we must take our commitment to SSC from generalities to specifics. Our colleague Baly Ouattara in Togo gave us several examples of these specifics, such as Togo learning from Rwanda in its ministerial strategies and the set-up of the Revenue Office. Or it is Burkina Faso learning from Mozambique and Mali in the setting up of a troika arrangement for donor coordination. The latter is an example of how SSC might affect existing North-South relations. 

To follow up:

**To bring us back to the question above: what connections can be made between South-South cooperation and other forms of cooperation to glean the most development benefits? 

**In bringing us from generalities to specifics, what other examples can we share of effective South South or triangular cooperation?

 

On Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries we haven't heard as much as on the other topics. We heard about four unique challenges: (1) from Carola Kenngott at UNDP we heard about the unique challenges that MICs face, despite being a heterogeneous group, in managing their own development while becoming development partners and providers themselves. (2) From Professor Singh we heard about the challenge that MICs face in maintaining competitiveness as they transition, having to choose between keeping wages low or finding ways to increase productivity. Our colleague from Ecuador pointed to the challenges of (3) rapid urbanization and (4) growing inequality that can accompany the rapid economic growth of MICs.

To follow up:

**To bring us back to the question above: What is the role of development cooperation in MICs, considering some of these unique challenges?"

 

Looking forward for your inputs over next week!

Nestor VEGA a Project officer from Ecuador
Fri, September 13,2013

What are the critical factors for a knowledge exchange to have impact?

Because capacity-building/Knowledge-sharing  is a difficult task, Development Cooperation goes by the rule: “when in doubt, build a road”.  This unfortunately is true because capacity building is not understood!  Knowledge sharing is about explaining how to do things.  Hence the trick is to know what people should be doing and how it is done. For this, the model is an apprentice in an artisan workshop. The apprentice learns the simplest tasks; the tasks get more complicated; the apprentice goes through the whole process; after that, he tries a few crafts solo and after years he can become a teacher.   Unfortunately, in the model of Cooperation Projects with deadlines and predefined budgets this is not a possibility. Knowledge sharing is not a onetime training event, or a well written manual.  It is a long term relation where the knowledge can be developed. Thus, Development Cooperation must foster long term partner relations between practitioners, users groups, networks of people with similar functions.

Knowledge sharing is not about putting books on line, it is about accompanying a person in this path. It is about finding peers willing to join the path.   True peers, not consultants,  that are actually doing the tasks elsewhere.  Decentralized south-south cooperation must be supported. 

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Tue, September 17,2013
Thank you very much for this contribution! Finding a true peer can indeed be such a powerful way to support development, that in the recent years we could witness many initiatives dedicated to such "development match-making" using online platforms, communities of practice and so on. There are some interesting proposals of how this can be facilitated. One of the questions that is often being discussed here in the Republic of Korea (where I currently work) is whether private sector can become an actor in such peer networks and whether companies can support each other across borders and share practices and knowledge without sacrificing their business interests. That being said, I wanted to draw your attention to the online discussion on the engagement of private sector has been launched and can be accessed trhough: https://www.unteamworks.org/gpedc-discuss
Carola Dorothea Kenngott a Practitioner - effective development cooperation, focal point for SSC/TC from United States
Thu, September 12,2013

It is great to read through the diverse and rich contributions which have been shared on this topic so far!

One of the contributions yesterday on challenges in middle income countries caught my attention: "Local Authorities must be engaged in the solution of these challenges and Development Cooperation must work with them." An key aspect to consider when we speak about sustainable development in the changing development architecture and one that certainly relates to the inclusive, multi-stakeholder spirit of Global Partnership to help nations, business and organizations work better together to end poverty.

This years‘ Human Development Report (HDR) „the Rise of the South“ http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2013/ speaks to the changes in the global aid architecture, and showcases how the rise of the Global South is related to investments in human development.

One of the key findings of the report relates to the decline of people living in a state of extreme poverty from 43 percent to 22 percent between 1990 and 2008. In China alone, over 500 million people have jumped the poverty line. This is a considerable achievement in terms of MDG 1, to halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day.

In response to the question of challenges in middle income countries, I think it is important to recall that the term “middle income countries” refers to a highly heterogeneous group of countries, which can hardly be classified as one, uniform group or country status. Despite being heterogeneous, middle income countries in the international development architecture are unique in the sense that they are now taking stronger roles to provide aid to other countries, while still engaging in their own development.

Starting with a look at the biggest ones, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, these countries alone are a highly heterogeneous group of countries, differing significantly in terms of size, population and weight in the world economy. They are also at different stages of development, with the variation among their GDP per capita levels being similar to that among the OECD countries overall, also have different long-term growth prospects (OECD, 2010a). Beyond that, the notion of heterogeneity among middle income countries is taking to a whole new dimension with a look at the huge group of middle income countries – especially the low middle income countries - beyond the BRICs. They are very different in terms of poverty rates, social inclusion, and production, institutional and financial capacity. When drawing our attention to the aspect of effective development cooperation and differences in challenges that MICs are dealing with, it is exactly those individual, heterogeneous economic, social, political and cultural structures into challenges of MICs are embedded.

However, as widely as they appear to differ from one another appear, there are also some
joint challenges, e.g. wide differences in income and high levels of inequality among population groups. High levels of inequality in many MICs (including many MICs with large populations) mean that, despite higher average incomes, these countries also contain a significant proportion of the world’s absolute poor. Their need to stay competitive with producers in low wage countries in the export of standardized products, and at the same time developing the capabilities to compete, on a broad basis, in the exports of skill and knowledge-intensive goods and services, is another common challenge.

Again, with a look at the altering role of MICs in the changing development cooperation
architecture, development practitioners from middle income countires might be surprised to find themselves dealing with similar challenges (despite in very different country and institutional contexts): Countries as different from one another such as Kazakhstan, Turkey, Russia, China, Mexico and Peru are taking on stronger roles as providers of development cooperation. While they are each doing this with very different institutional frameworks, policies, outreach strategies, and aspirations for their programme approach, a couple of themes seem to be shared as they establish, implement and/or increase their development cooperation programmes – ranging from the set-up of their legal and institutional frameworks, to programming, monitoring evaluation or communication.

Last but not least, the MICs’ role in effective development cooperation has also moved beyond the traditional world order of being a “recipient” or “provider” of aid. Much more, MICs are faced with a multi-faceted role of dealing with development aid - as overcoming poverty is both a reason and an effect of development efforts. They are faced with a process that not only involves improving living standards but also requires attention to a great variety of structural gaps that can limit or retard inclusive growth of the kind that can addresses poverty and inequality issues in their own countries.

To sum up, in order to inform effective development cooperation in the middle-income countries, we are well advised to make an effort to understand better how countries are taking on their multifaceted role in the changing development architecture as middle-income countries – and to learn this first hand from MIC voices themselves in this discussion.

In light of these heterogeneities within and similarities among MICs in the changing development architecture, I would be interested to hear from practitioners from MICs themselves:

- What are your experiences with the unique position of MICs in effective development cooperation?

- Which are the topics where MICs can learn from each other – despite their widely differing country contexts?

 

Astrid Manroth from United States
Thu, September 12,2013

Dear participants of this ediscussion,

a warm welcome also from the World Bank to this important e-discussion and thank you for
your valuable contributions so far.  We agree with the comments made that the debate on knowledge sharing needs to move from the principles of South-South and global knowledge exchange to the practitioner level.  At the World Bank, we have facilitated many of such practical exchanges between countries, for example through our South-South Knowledge Exchange Facility.

At the World Bank, we believe that direct South-South and global knowledge exchange
between practitioners can provide faster access to tested solutions to address critical gaps or development challenges, help learn from what has worked and what has failed in other countries, inform new directions and approaches, build understanding and know-how on delivery systems and help to overcome implementation bottlenecks. It can also help countries avoid making the wrong policy or technical choices. In facilitating these outcomes, knowledge exchange can strengthen the impact of other financing and technical assistance instruments for better results.

To continue the debate, we would be interested in your views on the following additional questions:

  • How can knowledge sharing improve development results?
  • What are the critical factors for a knowledge exchange to have impact?
  • What kind of demand for knowledge sharing do you have?
  • From your experience in financing or participating in South-South knowledge
    exchanges, can you share experiences where knowledge exchange has helped
    countries solve development challenges faster or helped avoid making the wrong
    policy choices?
  • Which knowledge sharing platforms have you used to date?
  • What role can the Global Partnership play in facilitating knowledge sharing at the
    global and country level?

We look forward to continuing the debate.

 

 

Citlali a researcher from Mexico
Fri, September 13,2013

I would like to add that there should exist certain fostering elements to support knowledge sharing, such as focal points, internal coordination, specific tools and specific (enven though, local) knowledge, which will lead efforts towards particular results and products. Actually, I think that local knowledge is one of the most important aspects in knowledge sharing, since it is already tested and is closer to development issues; it helps building good practices from the South.

In regard to financing S-S knowledge exchange, perhaps it is the common issue for MIC, thus the practice of building Public-Private Partnerships is not very well developed, for example, in Latin America. This situation represents an opportunity for triangular cooperation supporting knowledge sharign, as it can be seen in ELLA Project (http://ella.practicalaction.org/). I find this particular platform a very interesting example for this, since they have the financial support of UKAID with the coordination of some Latin American countries.

So I would finish this comment saying that MIC governments might foster more PPP dialogue, include different actors such as CSO, private sector, think tanks and local governments.

Adamu Abdullahi a Monitoring and Evaluation Expert from Nigeria
Thu, September 12,2013

The GPEDC should assist us to embark upon a pro-active advocacy to enable Nigeria to opt-in into the Global partnership for Social Accountability,GPSA,www.worldbank.org/gpsa.The GPSA will contribute meaningfully to the realization of the core objectives of GPEDC because it emphasises on transparency and accountability in governance especially in south-south.

Incidentally,The Minister of Finance of Nigeria,Dr Ngozi Okonjo Iweala,is a member of steering committee of GPEDC and she should support us to ensure that Nigeria is included in the GPSA.

Artemiy IZMESTYEV from Republic of Korea
Wed, September 11,2013

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for interesting contributions! We received an inputs from Prof. Ajit Singh from the University of Cambridge (as14@cam.ac.uk) by email that I post below for your attention and comments:  

"A little while ago when the South was doing very well, much better than the North, many economists thought that the South-South trade and investment could compensate for the North's weakness.  This so-called decoupling of the North and South thesis has not survived the passage of time.  Events have shown that the South's prosperity depends on a prosperous North and vice versa.  If the North isn't doing well, as it has been the case until recently, South-South trade and other flows cannot compensate for the North's deficiency.  South-South trade and flows do have a limited capacity to foster the South's growth but ultimately even China depends on the North's prosperity to be able to have a high growth rate.  This is a general macro economic argument for North-South cooperation not to be supplanted by South-South cooperation.  This is not to deny in any way the important contributions of South-South cooperation in recent years when the South was doing very well and the North wasn't. 

Then there are very important micro economic factors in favour of developing countries to expand cooperation with the North while also maintaining South-South cooperation.  This is for the simple reason that despite the South's progress during the last 50 years, the home of science and technology is still the North.  Major innovations in the South are required and the best way, if not the only way, is through cooperation with the North.  The South needs the US and other Northern universities, technical organisations and firms to remain open to Southern students and businesses.  Notwithstanding India's success in information technology, there are vast areas, including climate change, environmental degradation and energy supplies where only the North can initiate and strengthen the necessary changes.

Turning to one of the questions, the greatest challenges facing middle income countries are how to upgrade their technology to be able to maintain their competitiveness.  There are clearly two routes to follow here, one is to maintain competitiveness through lowering wages and the other is the high road to increase the growth of productivity which can lead to higher wages without sacrificing competitiveness.  This is the route followed by South Korea and the world should learn from this most successful case of industrialisation and growth in the history of mankind.

I hope that this brief note will help the global e-consultation".  



Baly OUATTARA
Thu, September 12,2013

Bonjour Tous,

Il y a des préoccupations profondes que soulèves les questions sur la coopération Sud-Sud. A mon avis, dans le cadre actuelle de la globalisation les choses ne seront pas blanches ou noires même si nous savons maintenant que dans le noir il y a du blanc. Juste donc pour dire qu'il ne faut  pas analyser certaine évolution comme des alternatives. Raisonnons en termes de nouvelles fenêtres d'opportunités pour poursuivre l'atteinte des objectifs de développement que se fixent les pays en développement. La crise actuelle dans les pays du nord fait remonter à la surface plusieurs enseignements à savoir que rien sur terre n'est définitivement acquis. Les nations riches ne sont riches pour rester définitivement riche et les nations pauvres, pauvres pour rester définitivement pauvres. Par ailleurs, cela accélère la maturation de certains pays qui à force d'assistance ont abandonné toute idée de compter sur leurs propres forces d'abords. L'intérêt de la coopération Sud-Sud est qu'il met en avant un échange basé sur l'acquisition de capacités diverses sans pour autant qu'il y a des sommes énormes qui soient mis en circulation. Peut être que cela est une bonne chose que l'aide bilatérale nord-sud soit en régression. Face à l'impatience des populations les décideurs des pays en développement sont obligés ne serait ce que de répliquer ce qui, dans d'autres pays à peu près similaire, a donné des résultats. C'est me semble t-il ce qui fait la dynamique de la coopération Sud-Sud. Ce phénomène est renforcé par les regroupements régionaux qui servent de pôles de convergences des stratégies et des actions qui sont mises en œuvre. Aujourd'hui, par exemple au Burkina Faso il a été mis en place un cadre de coordination des donateurs la Troïka basé sur l'échange  qui avait eu lieu avec le Mozambique. Par ailleurs, on a aussi cité l'exemple du secrétariat de la Troïka du Mali qui a été mis en place à partir des échange avec le Burkina Faso à travers le Secrétariat Technique pour l'Efficacité de l'Aide (STELA) qui avait était mis en place par les donateurs. Au niveau des infrastructures ici au Togo le gouvernement a eu recours à une société Burkina pour butimer certaines route autre fois c'était systématiquement des entreprise du nord qui exécutaient ces marchés. De même ici au Togo les gouvernements vient d'élaborer de notes de stratégie sectorielle pour tous les départements ministériels, afin d’assurer l’articulation entre le budget et le programme d’action prioritaires, sur la base d'une expérience similaire mis en œuvre au Rwanda. Il en de même pour la mise en place de l'Office Togolais de Recettes qui est cours d'opérationnalisation. La coopération Sud-Sud peut être un puissant vecteur de rattrapage dans des domaines aussi variés que l'agriculture, l'eau et l'assainissement,  la gouvernance, l'environnement. Ce processus pourrait être accompagné par les donateurs en renforçant les mécanismes de mise en œuvre à travers les organisations sous régionales et un appui aux organisations de la société civile et au secteur privé.

Baly Ouattara

Christophe Bonneau a M.A. Candidate from Republic of Korea
Fri, September 13,2013

Thank you so much Baly for this contribution! Let me put the translation in English for those who don't understand French.

----

There are profound preoccupations related to south-south cooperation. In my opinion, when it the current trends of globalization, things are not totally white or black, we know they are somewhat in the grey area. Just to say that one should not analyze some evolutions are a choice between two alternatives. Let us think in terms of new windows of opportunities that help us reach development goals set by developing countries. The current crisis in the North bring some lessons-learned like the fact that nothing on Earth is permanently acquired. Rich nations are not meant to remain rich, and poor nations are not meant to remain poor. This helps nations move away from the trend of some countries which, because of lasting assistance, abandoned the idea of relying primarily on their own strengths. The interest of south-south cooperation is that it promotes a wide range of capacity enhancement tools without involving huge amounts of money. It may be a good thing that north-south cooperation is going down. In the face of people eagerness of their populations, decision-makers are forced to at least replicate what has led to positive results in more or less similar countries. It is to me at the basis of south-south cooperation. This phenomenon is reinforced by regional groupings which serve as convergence poles for strategies and implementations.  Today, for example in Burkina Faso, a Troika coordination framework was set up for donors’ coordination, based on exchanges with Mozambique. Reference was also made to the Troika secretariat in Mali, set up, which bases on exchanges with Burkina Faso through the Technical Secretariat for Aid Effectiveness (Secrétariat Technique pour l'Efficacité de l'Aide (STELA)) established by donor countries. In terms of infrastructures, governments here in Togo rely on a Burkina company to asphalt some roads, while this used to be exclusively done by companies from the north. Likewise, the Togolese government has come up with sectorial strategic notes for all ministerial departments, based on similar experience in Rwanda. Same goes for the Togolese Revenue Office which is being operationalized. South-south cooperation can be substantively help countries in catching up in a variety of sectors like agriculture, water supply and purification, governance or education. This process can be accompanied by donors, by reinforcing mechanisms that are implemented in sub-regional organization, civil society or the private sector.

Nestor VEGA a Project officer from Ecuador
Wed, September 11,2013

A. Knowledge sharing

1.    How can development cooperation better promote effective sharing of knowledge and experience? What are the current challenges?

The main challenge in knowledge sharing is always for it to be brought into real situations; therefore knowledge sharing must be based on practice. Peer to peer experiences must be promoted.  Decentralized cooperation between local government practitioners north-south, south-south and even south-north (like participatory budgeting) must be stimulated. Read: Platforma (2013) Development Effectiveness at the Local and Regional Level http://issuu.com/uclgcglu/docs/platforma_development?e=5168798/2638826

2.    On the other hand, how can knowledge sharing lead to more effective development cooperation? How can the Global Partnership help in increasing its effectiveness? 

It is not about effective development cooperation.  It is about effective development. Recent events show that there is a need for a multilevel institutional system. Top down, centralized, un-democratic systems fail. Development needs muti-level and multi-actor governance. Read: Roger B. Myerson (2013) Democratic Decentralization and Economic Development http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/decent.pdf    

B. South-South and Triangular Cooperation:

1.    Should more be done to scale up south-south cooperation? If so, what?

South-South cooperation must be linked with national associative movements that have the will and the responsibility to strengthen their members and can replicate and share the new experiences.  Local Government Associations are needed key participants.    Read: European Commission (2013) Empowering Local Authorities in partner countries for enhanced governance and more effective development outcomes http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0280:FIN:EN:PDF

C. Development Cooperation in Middle Income Countries

1.    What are the greatest poverty challenges in middle income countries? How, if at all, do these differ from those challenges in low income countries?

Middle income countries are facing rapid urbanization and must deal with all the problems related to this, among which are: growth of urban poverty, slums, lack of sanitation, exclusion, etc.. Therefore, Local Authorities must be engaged in the solution of these challenges and Development Cooperation must work with them.

 2.    What challenges do you face or are aware when countries in low-income country status make transition to middle-income country status? How has the development cooperation supported or not adequately supported such transition?

Seemingly miraculous growth from low-income countries to middle income countries in non-democratic systems has meant that new growth has not been adequately distributed.  Development cooperation has failed to promote transparent, open, accountable governance.   This is a task that now must be assumed.

Philip COURTNADGE from Cambodia
Wed, September 11,2013

In Cambodia, South-South (& triangular) modes of cooperation have been identified as highly relevant. The main challenge – as per the global discussion – has been in going from the general to the specific, i.e. moving beyond aspirational principles and towards understanding how to make this modality less ad hoc, more integrated with and complementary to other development activity, and more sustainable (in terms of applying lessons and scaling-up impact). Currently the focus has been limited to discussing general principles as opposed to exposing the modality to rigorous examination. As a consequence, South-South Cooperation remains significantly under-utilised with its impact understood more at the rhetorical level rather than having been demonstrated on any significant scale.

As a response, the Government’s forthcoming Development Cooperation & Partnerships Strategy included a detailed consideration of how greater use and impact could be attained. A very useful analytical paper was prepared by the Government and shared/discussed with stakeholders as an input to the Strategy.

http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/strategy/docs/maximizing_potential_ssc.pdf

The most important issues to be addressed in the future are as follows:

Ensure ownership and alignment by using existing policy, planning and review processes, including current partnering mechanisms, to identify the potential use of South-South and Triangular arrangements.

  • Promote effectiveness and impact by ensuring effective programming and implementation arrangements, including, where possible, by linking to a sector results and monitoring framework.
  • South-South and triangular initiatives should be subject to the same principles and practices that promote alignment and results: they should be included in policy and planning dialogue with partners as part of a sector programme.
  • Maximise the impact of South-South and triangular support by creating improved knowledge management arrangements to record, disseminate, scale-up and replicate the results of South-South initiatives.
Baly OUATTARA from Togo
Tue, September 10,2013

Hi All moderators

I'm working as UNPD adviser on effective development in Togo. I come from Burkina Faso.

 Just to let you know my great interest for this e-1. I will come soon. Hi to Artemy.

Baly Ouattara UNDP/Planning ministery Togo

Type forum
Date Created Tue, September 03,2013
Created By Romolo Tassone
Original Space Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
Cross posted in Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
South-South and Triangular Cooperation for Sustainable Human Development
UNDP Development Impact Group (DIG)
# of Teamworks Views 5891
# of Teamworks Recommendations 0
Visibility Public
Domain of origin Teamworks