Promoting Effective Development

Cooperation: The role of the ACP

Group in South-South and Triangular

Cooperation

Working Paper

Dr. Carine Nsoudou, International Consultant

Brussels, May 2014

2

Contents

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4

I) Background and Context: Poverty reduction and sustainable development at the core of the

ACP Group ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1) The Georgetown and Cotonou Agreements ................................................................................ 5

2) The European Development Fund and the co-management with the European Union ............... 5

3) The ACP Group’s comparative advantages ................................................................................ 6

II) ACP involvement in the Post-Busan Global Partnership .......................................................... 7

1) The evolution of the aid effectiveness debate ............................................................................. 7

2) A growing ACP commitment to South-South and Triangular Cooperation ................................ 8

III) Perspectives for practical engagement of the ACP in South-South and Triangular

Cooperation ............................................................................................................................................ 9

1) South-South and Triangular Cooperation in the ACP: Cases in point ........................................ 9

2) The ACP as a knowledge repository and facilitator .................................................................. 12

3) Enhanced support to South-South and Triangular Cooperation through EU Development

Cooperation ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................................ 20

References ............................................................................................................................................ 21

3

List of Abbreviations

AAA Accra Agenda for Action

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific

BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa

DAC Development Assistance Committee

EDF European Development Fund

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

IBSA India, Brazil, South Africa

LDC Least DevelopedCountry

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MIC Middle Income Country

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OIF Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie

SSC South-South Cooperation

TrC Triangular Cooperation

TriCo Trilateral Cooperation Fund

TT-SSC Task Team on South-South Cooperation

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

4

Introduction

The world is changing rapidly, so is development cooperation landscape. This dramatic shift

is occurring notably due to the surge of South-South cooperation over the last two decades. If

trade and direct investment are often presented as the main areas of cooperation between

Global South countries, an increase in partnerships is also being witnessed in development

cooperation. The Global South has become a full-fledged actor on the global development

scene and the emergence of new economies has ushered in a promising era in this regard.

Although in the past decades millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in developing

countries, sustainable development and poverty reduction remain ambitious challenges that

can only be overcome by the structural transformation of developing countries. Frustrations

with the mainstream donor-recipient model of development cooperation are related to the

provision of solutions that are not always relevant to beneficiary countries. Economic,

technological and development paths’ similarities between Middle Income Countries (MICs),

notably emerging economies, and less developed countries allow for a greater potential of

adaptation of solutions offered by the more technically advanced group among developing

countries. Geographical proximity, cultural and historical ties also constitute potential

advantages.

The current enthusiasm within the international development community for South-South

Cooperation (SSC) and Triangular Cooperation (TrC), a “partnership between DAC-donors1

and providers of SSC2 to implement development cooperation projects in beneficiary

countries”3, may be an indicator signaling the direction development cooperation is heading: a

more collaborative approach, based on funds, expertise and knowledge sharing. A critical

mass of MICs seems committed to leveraging their expertise, resources and knowledge, and

to sharing them with developing countries through South-South and Triangular arrangements.

SSC and TrC are increasingly seen as relevant and perhaps more effective instruments for

poverty reduction. The African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP Group), because

of its history, the size of and diversity in its membership as well as its vast experience in

development cooperation is willing to become a key player in SSC and TrC. But faced with a

multiplicity of stakeholders, a growing number of platforms dedicated to SSC and TrC, and

the many potential sectors of engagement, how can the ACP Group and its Member States

most actively and effectively engage in these modalities? The purpose of this working paper

is to lay the groundwork for an ACP Position Paper. It argues that the ACP can play a central

role in SSC and TrC by leveraging its comparative advantages and transforming itself into an

indispensable interface; thus making its mark in the development cooperation landscape.

1 Multilateral organisations can also partner with providers of SSC

2 Also called “pivotal countries”

3 Langendorf J., Piefer N., Knodt M., Müller U., Lazaro L. (2012): Triangular Cooperation, A guideline for

working in practice, pp.25-26. This definition is a narrow understanding of the term. A broader understanding

can encompass as diverse activities as regional programmes, dialogue platforms or horizontal learning networks

as indicated in this book.

5

I) Background and Context: Poverty reduction and sustainable development at

the core of the ACP Group

Several factors, including the ACP Group’s objectives, composition and expertise, contribute

to making relevant and even necessary a role of the ACP in SSC and TrC.

1) The Georgetown and Cotonou Agreements

The cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific

Group of States, henceforth the ACP Group, dates back to the mid-1970s. The ACP Group

which was established in 1975 by the Georgetown Agreement signed the same year its first

partnership with the EU, the Lomé Convention. The successive Lomé Conventions and their

successor, the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, or Cotonou Agreement, concluded in 2000

for 20 years constitute the legal bases for this cooperation.

The Cotonou Agreement, which is the largest North-South Partnership as it currently

comprises 78 out of 79 ACP countries4 and 27 EU Member States, rests on three pillars: (i)

development cooperation mainly financed from the European Development Fund (EDF), (ii)

trade and economic cooperation as well as (iii) political dimension characterised by political

dialogue. The partnership through this innovative approach aims at “reducing and eventually

eradicating poverty consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual

integration of the ACP countries into the global economy”, as explicitly stated in the Cotonou

Agreement5.

Both agreements share an unrestricted approach. Indeed, far from being exclusive, the

relations between the EU and the ACP Group have left some room for non-ACP developing

countries. The development of trade, economic and cultural relations amongst ACP States,

and amongst developing countries as a whole, through the development of information

exchanges in the fields of trade, technology, industry and human resources was already

enshrined in the Georgetown Agreement. In the same vein, when addressing regional

cooperation and integration, the Cotonou Agreement stipulates that this cooperation “shall

also support inter-regional and intra-ACP cooperation such as that involving: (c) non-ACP

developing countries”6. Without explicitly mentioning them, these “openings” pave the way

for South-South and Triangular Cooperation.

2) The European Development Fund and the co-management with the European

Union

Based on mutual obligations, rights and shared principles, the ACP-EU Partnership is also

characterised by an ACP-EU joint management of the European funds dedicated to

development cooperation in the ACP. The ACP is involved at all levels of the aid

programming process: ACP States at national level, regional organisations at regional level,

and the ACP Group at Intra-ACP level. The Intra-ACP cooperation7 as it addresses the

common challenges facing ACP States that transcend the concept of geographical location is

of particular importance in the context of SSC and TrC.

4 The Cotonou Agreement has not been signed by Cuba.

5 ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 1, 2010

6 ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, Section 3, Article 28, 2010, p.40-41

7 Such cooperation falls into three main areas: global initiatives, “all-ACP” initiatives and pan-African

initiatives.

6

The cooperation at Intra-ACP level which added up to €2.7 billion under the 10th

EDF

(against €2.884 billion under the 9th

EDF) is consistent with EU commitment to ensuring

ownership by associating the ACP Group to the programming process. As a case in point,

under the 10th

EDF the intra-ACP cooperation strategy and multiannual indicative programme

were jointly elaborated by the European Commission and the ACP Secretariat services8.

Annual intra-ACP action programmes were drawn up after the identification and the appraisal

of relevant and mature programmes by the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission.

Besides developing a significant expertise in EU funds management, the ACP gained valuable

experience in negotiation, programming, programme management, and in dealing with a vast

array of partners at national, regional and global levels.

3) The ACP Group’s comparative advantages

The ACP Group presents a set of features that confers value to its engagement in SSC and

TrC.

Firstly, the internal diversity of the ACP Group in terms of economic development level,

population and size of its Member States should not solely be seen as a potential constraint for

the cohesion of the group but also as an undeniable asset for SSC and TrC. This Global

South’s heterogeneous grouping actually provides ACP countries and regions, and the

developing world as a whole, with opportunities to exchange valuable experiences. The

transregional nature of the ACP Group has the potential to allow studying the possibilities for

adoption and adaptation of specific national and regional policies, strategies or simply

programmes in other contexts.

Secondly, from over 30 years of structured engagement with the EU, mainly through planning

and programming of EDF resources, the ACP secretariat has acquired longstanding

negotiating and project formulation capacity. The accumulated experience of the ACP Group

and countries in programming funds allocated by the EU for development cooperation in the

framework of the Cotonou Agreement and in participating in the successive High Level Fora

on Aid Effectiveness has endowed the ACP Group with a comparative advantage for South-

South Cooperation. The Group possesses specialized knowledge and development

management experience on which to draw for the benefit of Member States and developing

countries as a whole. This human and organizational capital should be effectively invested to

improve the effectiveness of traditional donor-recipient approaches.

Moreover, that accrued knowledge and experience was also derived from working with a

wide spectrum of international, regional and private contracting agencies for Intra-ACP

Development Cooperation, in a very large number of sectors, and supporting various

international initiatives. For instance, under the 10th

EDF Intra-ACP cooperation, the ACP

and the EU invested in the health sector through the Global Fund to fight Aids, Turberculosis

and Malaria and GAVI Alliance. They also collaborated with the Commonwealth Secretariat

and the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) on a trade policy-related

programme and supported the IMF regarding a Tax Policy and Administration programme to

name a few.

8 They are afterwards presented to ACP and EU decision-making bodies for adoption and signed by the

Commissioner responsible for Development and the Chair of the Committee of ACP Ambassadors.

7

The ACP Group should therefore capitalize on its specificities and the above-mentioned

comparative advantages to determine its future role and the practical modalities of its

engagement in SSC and TrC. These will also hinge on whether the ACP will keep

contributing to the momentum towards a new development paradigm.

II) ACP involvement in the Post-Busan Global Partnership

1) The evolution of the aid effectiveness debate

Development aid failure to produce expected results and the necessity to increase efforts with

a view to achieving the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) led to the formulation of a set

of principles aimed at stepping up aid effectiveness. Three landmark events constitute

milestones in the journey towards enhancing aid delivery: the High Level Fora on Aid

Effectiveness held in Rome in 2003, in Paris in 2005 and in Accra in 20089. The latest of

these fora took place in Busan (South Korea) in 2011.

The acknowledgement of SSC in the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) provided the

opportunity for assessing the complementarities between SSC and TrC on one side and the

Aid Effectiveness agenda on the other side. South-South Cooperation, a framework for

collaboration and exchanges of knowledge, skills, resources and technologies between

countries of the Global South can prove successful where traditional development cooperation

fails to produce all expected results. The horizontal partnerships forged are based on trust,

equity and mutual learning. In this paradigm, these horizontal partnerships centred on the

ideas of knowledge and best practices sharing impose themselves as a complement to

traditional development cooperation model. These modes of cooperation allow for instance

developing countries to benefit from the experience of countries such as Brazil and Chile

which gained success in the fight against HIV/AIDS or in implementing social protection

programmes. If Global South countries, in particular MICs from Africa, Asia and Latin

America10

, but increasingly Least Developed Countries (LDCs), are taking centre stage in

these partnerships of a new type, traditional donors engaged in TrC or supporting South-South

arrangements are not on the losing end. Their cooperation with thriving new development

partners enables them to improve their own effectiveness, to “maintain influence, increase

visibility, and to overcome the sense of competition”11

.

This recognition triggered a whole process which saw, among others, the birth of the Task-

Team on SSC (TT-SSC) in 2009. The critical need for lessons learned has prompted the

emergence of platforms of exchanges such as the South-South Knowledge Exchange which

has been joined by driven practitioners and researchers. As a follow up to AAA, the Outcome

document of the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness held in Busan in 2011, or

Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, acknowledged SSC as an

important development cooperation modality particularly under the aegis of MICs12

. It

9 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008):

http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf

10 Some countries have emerged as new development partners: Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa in Africa,

China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam in Asia, and Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and

Mexico in Latin America. This list is not exhaustive. 11

Langendorf J., Piefer N., Knodt M., Müller U., Lazaro L. (2012): Triangular Cooperation, A guideline for

working in practice. GIZ publication. 12

10th

Ministerial Meeting of the ACP NAOs and RAOs: April 17-18 2013, South-South and Triangular

cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges

8

pledged to “broaden support for South-South and triangular co-operation, helping to tailor

these horizontal partnerships to a greater diversity of country contexts and needs”13

.

Resulting from this shift in perspective, SSC and TrC became an integral part of the Global

Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.

Along with issues relating to the implementation of Busan commitments, domestic resources

mobilization or Middle Income Countries, SSC, TrC and Knowledge-sharing took centre

stage at the First High Level meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development

Cooperation that was held on 15-16 April 2014 in Mexico and was attended by ACP Group

representatives. Plenary and focus sessions highlighted these modalities’ positive impact and

called for an increase in and a strengthening of SSC and TrC as well as the quality

improvement of activities implemented through these modalites. The important role of

knowledge-sharing was consistently underscored during the meeting and was further stressed

in the High Level Meeting Communiqué which called for the “development of networks for

knowledge exchange, peer learning and coordination among all development partners”14

.

This enabling context provides opportunities for the ACP Group to play a significant role as a

central organisation in the shaping of a new development paradigm endowed with modalities

complementing the North-South cooperation model.

2) A growing ACP commitment to South-South and Triangular Cooperation

A major expression of ACP’s awareness of this rethinking and the importance to be proactive

were expressed by the convening of the ACP-OIF (Organisation Internationale de la

Francophonie) Symposium on South-South Cooperation that was held on 31 January 2011.

The Symposium included participation of Brazil and India’s Development Cooperation

Agencies as well as presentation of case studies by ACP Member States of Cuba, Nigeria and

South Africa demonstrating the longstanding practice and thematic areas successfully

addressed by South-South Cooperation. At the 2011 Symposium interventions made by the

European Commission, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Community of Portuguese

Language Countries also highlighted the scope and interest to collaborate with the ACP on

SSC.

A particularly tangible output of the January 2011 Symposium was the significant step

forward through the subsequent signing of an Memorandum of Understanding between the

ACP Secretariat and Brazil for technical cooperation exchanges and capacity building on food

security policy analysis and monitoring. This is a concrete example of translating South-South

Cooperation into practice. The presence of an ACP Delegation at the UN Conference on

LDCs in Istanbul (Turkey) in April 2011 was further evidence of the intention to broaden the

engagement of ACP on development cooperation affecting all LDCs. The close collaboration

of ACP with the OIF as a member of the TT-SSC was instrumental in having the ACP Group

incorporated as a member of the Building Block on South-South and Triangular Cooperation

13

Busan Partnership Document (2011). Accessible under: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf 14

“Knowledge sharing can involve North-South, South-North, South-South and triangular and regional

approaches including the engagement of public and private stakeholders and the valuable support of multilateral

organizations. We encourage the development of networks for knowledge exchange, peer learning and

coordination among all development partners”. First High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective

Development Co-operation’s Communiqué, Mexico, 16 April 2014, p.5

9

that emerged at the Busan Forum with a mandate to formulate a proposal for a horizontal

partnership for better development outcomes.

As a follow up to the 2011 Symposium, the ACP Group organised a second Symposium on

South-South and Triangular Cooperation on 25 March 2014. This event saw the participation

of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the OIF and the European Commission which expressed

their positions as regards SSC and TrC. The representatives of the ACP Member States of

Benin, Fiji, Mozambique, and Trinidad and Tobago presented flagship SSC and TrC

programmes involving their respective countries. During this Symposium, the importance of

SSC and TrC in development cooperation was reasserted as well as the need for the ACP to

harness the comparative advantages of development cooperation partners increasingly

diverse. The necessity for the ACP to play a role in SSC and TrC, in order, among others, not

to be marginalised in the development cooperation landscape, was further emphasized. Views

were exchanged on a consultant’s proposal to transform the ACP into a SSC and TrC

knowledge repository and facilitator. The FAO further indicated its keen interest in

collaborating with the ACP in SSC.

An evolution similar to the one currently occurring in international debates on development

cooperation is taking place at ACP level and is characterized by attempts to institutionalize

SSC and TrC. The institutionalizing of SSC and TrC within ACP’s organizational structures

and future Intra-ACP Programming has been agreed. The ACP Council of Ministers at its

96th Session held in December 2012 in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, endorsed the participation

of the ACP Group in SSC and TrC as a priority area and the allocation of appropriate

financing for SSC and TrC activities in the programming of intra-ACP Cooperation under the

11th

EDF. Underlining this shift, in his opening address at the 7th

Summit of ACP Heads of

State and Government in December 2012 President Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea

called for the creation of an organisation for South-South cooperation.

III) Perspectives for practical engagement of the ACP in South-South and

Triangular Cooperation

1) South-South and Triangular Cooperation in the ACP: Cases in point

As exemplified by the cases presented below, SSC and TrC are already a reality in the ACP at

country and region level. Current reflections on SSC and TrC are fostered by case stories and

studies produced, among others, by academic institutions and development practitioners and

brought together on the platform of the TT-SSC for instance. Triangular co-operation’s main

areas of intervention include agriculture, education, employment, energy, environment,

fishery, food security, governance, health and water and sanitation. Examples of successful

implementation of TrC and SSC measures can be found in those diverse sectors. The

programmes presented below succinctly show the rationale behind and the diversity of

successful partnerships forged with ACP countries or regions:

10

− The Programme for South-South Cooperation between Benin, Bhutan, Costa

Rica and the Netherlands15

.

This €9.7M ($13.2M) project is a strategic tripartite sustainable development

partnership between Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica funded by The Netherlands. It

concentrates on five thematic areas: sustainable tourism, sustainable production and

consumption chains, biodiversity conservation, access to sustainable energy and

energy efficiency, and gender equity. This initiative has yielded 41 separate

programmes and projects to date and has led to the creation of jobs as well as new

business and products. It won the 2010 UNDPs’ South-South Cooperation Award in

the categories ‘Partnership’ and ‘Climate Change Solutions’.

− Technical Cooperation on HIV/AIDS between CARICOM/PANCAP and the

Government of Brazil16

In April 2006, the Government of Brazil signed a 5-year Technical Cooperation

Agreement with CARICOM/PANCAP (Pan Caribbean Partnership against HIV and

AIDS) to provide technical support in the thematic areas of commodities provision,

institutional strengthening, technical capacity development, youth empowerment and

strengthening civil society organizations. The goal of the Agreement was to reduce the

spread and mitigate the impact of the AIDS epidemic in the Caribbean. The evidence

indicates that tangible gains have accrued to the Caribbean, particularly in the areas of

commodities provision, institutional strengthening and technical capacity

development.

− Trilateral Cooperation (TriCo) Fund with South Africa17

This fund has been set up by Germany and South Africa. Financial resources are used

to fund projects implemented in an African third country. Most activities selected fall

within the following intervention areas: Governance and Administration, Energy and

Climate, and HIV and AIDS Prevention. Four projects are being supported in

Southern Africa: the Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Project in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo; the Fire Management Coordination Project in

Tanzania; the African Ombudsman Research Centre Project in South Africa; and the

Global Economic Governance Project in Africa.

15

See TT-SSC website http://www.southsouthcases.info/casestudies/cslac14.php 16

See TT-SSC website http://www.southsouthcases.info/casestudies/cslac12.php. The breakdown of this €1.69M

($2.3M) by contributing partners is not available. Expenditure related to the supply of Anti-retroviral therapy by

Brazil was reported at €0.59M ($0.8M). 17

Langendorf J., Piefer N., Knodt M., Müller U., Lazaro L. (2012): Triangular Cooperation, A guideline for

working in practice, GIZ publication, pp.125-128. Germany contributes to this fund to the tune of €5M.

Depending on the project, South Africa (at least 30% of the overall project costs) and beneficiary third countries

can provide in-kind and/or financial contributions.

11

− The ProSavana project18

JICA, the Japanese agency for international cooperation, has been involved in this TrC

project between Mozambique, Brazil, and Japan. The aim of this project is to

accelerate agricultural growth in Mozambique by developing improved seeds of

soybean and rice; improving soil health; and, funding roads and other infrastructure.

This project draws on Brazil experience in the Cerrado development which was made

possible by Brazil-Japan cooperation as it created a new body of knowledge on

tropical agriculture in the savannah which can be applied in Mozambique.

− The Better Hospital Service Program in Africa19

This TrC’s network programme involves fifteen African countries, Sri Lanka as a

pivotal country, and Japan. This project aims at improving hospital care in Africa,

using a knowledge package for management change (“5S-KAIZEN-TQM ») which

had been developed in Japan and successfully replicated in other Asian countries. Its

applicability to African contexts was ascertained in the areas of hospital management

and health care quality.

− The Nigerian Technical Aid Corps (TAC)20

The TAC scheme is an alternative to direct financial aid to ACP countries through

sharing Nigerian know-how and expertise on the basis of their assessed and perceived

needs. TAC scheme was established by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1987 to

assist ACP states in their social-economic development efforts through the

participation of Nigeria experts in various fields

− The Songhaï Center21

The Songhaï Centre is an NGO created in Benin which promotes agricultural

entrepreneurship. This constitutes an innovative integrated system of sustainable

agricultural development which combines a technological and industrial park, an

incubation/training/human resource development centre as well as a service centre for

young entrepreneurs. The Songhai model is being replicated in several African

countries.

18

JICA. (2012): Scaling up South-South and Triangular Cooperation, Tokyo, pp.43-44. ProSavana project

consists of two main phases. The Phase 2 foresees the implementation of strategies and key projects identified

under Phase 1 by mobilizing private capital to finance these activities. Phase 1 has the following three

components: strengthening of domestic technical research (PI), development of an overall strategy for the

Corridor (PD) and an increase in agricultural extension services (PE). The total budget for PI amounts to

€10.79M ($14.68M, 85.9% financed by Brazil and 14.1% by Mozambique). Out of the €5.4M ($7.354M)

allocated to PD, 85% are financed by Japan, 10.9% by Brazil and 4.1% by Mozambique. Little information are

available on PE financing. Figures found in Ekman S-M and Macamo E., New south-south development trends

and African forests Brazilian development cooperation in Mozambique: a scoping study on ProSavana

This project has been acclaimed but has also attracted strong criticisms as one of Prosavana’s components paves

the way for large-scale private capital. The project is thus accused of serving the interests of the ruling party at

the expense of rural communities. 19

JICA (2012): Scaling up South-South and Triangular Cooperation, pp.67-69. The budget for this project has

not been found. 20

See TAC website http://www.tacng.org/. The budget for the TAC programme has not been found.

21 The overall budget has not been found.

12

− The Barefoot College22

This Indian NGO endowed with an annual budget of €1.84M ($2.5M) provides

training to illiterate or semi-literate women originating from developing countries to

become solar engineers, making renewable energy technology and knowledge

accessible and helping to reduce poverty. Between 2004 and 2009, 141 women from

21 African countries received a six month-training. Participants are granted support

from local and international organizations, their own governments as well as Indian

government through Technical and Economic Cooperation grants as part of its SSC

programme.

The challenge for the ACP lies in enabling to unlock its potential and succeed in playing a

major part in SSC and TrC. It is of primary importance to determine in the first place the

scope of the role the ACP could play in SSC and TrC. Indeed, the difference between a

leading and a central role is not simply semantic but has far-reaching implications, notably in

terms of financial and human resources. As a leading entity, the ACP will for instance be

expected to have the capacities to research, analyse and produce independent knowledge from

primary sources, this implying the creation of an ACP Centre of research.

Although it may seem highly desirable to try and turn the ACP into a leading organisation, it

seems however more feasible at this stage to consider transforming it into a central player, an

interface principally. To do so, a multi-level engagement of the ACP through mixed

modalities can realistically be considered. In this prospect, the ACP would function as a hub

and play two main roles: on the one hand a knowledge repository and facilitator, and a full-

fledged development partner of the EU on the other hand.

2) The ACP as a knowledge repository and facilitator

As previously said, the importance of the ACP as a development cooperation player has

formally been re-acknowledged these last years. The ACP does not content itself to being an

umbrella organisation grouping developing countries and regional organisations. As a case in

point, it successfully reinforces current engagements with multilateral organisations such as

the OIF, the Commonwealth Secretariat, UNDP and the FAO. The signing of Memoranda of

Understanding (MoU) with United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO)

and Brazil in 2011 also illustrates this recognition. These agreements make provision for

knowledge exchange of relevant information, the MoU between the ACP and Brazil

stipulating furthermore that ACP Member States will have the possibility to submit activity

proposals to Brazil through the ACP Secretariat.

In view of the above, it is suggested that the ACP sets itself up as a dynamic interface.

Global hub

As a transregional organisation that gathers 79 developing countries, has a long-standing

experience in development cooperation and with a large number of key players in this field,

the ACP can logically and legitimately act as an interface shaped as a global hub. As such the

ACP would catalyze new interactions and strengthen existing ones between diverse actors that

22

See Barefoot College website http://www.barefootcollege.org/

13

would be considered as ‘spokes’ and allow for greater harmonization in view of increased

SSC and TrC effectiveness. Knowledge hubs are being developed at national level by

countries such as Brazil, China or Indonesia23

as well as thematic hubs. The logic behind the

creation of an ACP hub would be to have an overarching framework that would enable

rationalizing many existing initiatives and therefore be conducive to a stronger global

cooperation. The dissemination of information between potential recipients and providers that

is inherent to this mechanism will facilitate the cooperation as explained in more details

thereafter. It is nevertheless worth mentioning that whereas strong associations can be forged

between the hub and the various spokes, a hub configuration does not allow for the

development of solid relations between the spokes. In addition, bottlenecks are likely to occur

if the hub capacity is insufficient.

Particular attention should be given to ACP relations with emerging countries’ groupings. The

ACP which is strengthening its connections with emerging countries such as Brazil and India,

may benefit from the dynamism of associations such as BRICS, IBSA (India, Brazil, South

Africa) or CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa) thanks to

South Africa inclusion in them. The Beijing Declaration of July 2011 issued in the context of

the first BRICS Health Ministers’ Meeting highlighted the need for technology and

innovation transfer as a means to empower developing countries and foster intra-BRICS

cooperation in the field of public health. Against this backdrop, the BRICS through South

Africa could become a catalyst for the health sector in the ACP24

. Similarly, cooperation

between IBSA and Guinea Bissau in agriculture development25

is already taking place and

could be expanded to interested ACP countries. Opportunities created by such interactions go

well beyond development cooperation and could enable the ACP to play a critical part in

areas such as trade facilitation.

Knowledge repository and Facilitator

Limited information and knowledge are frequently cited as major problems in the context of

SSC and TrC. These shortcomings hamper the articulation of needs by the beneficiary

countries as well as the identification of opportunities and comparative advantages which

would allow recipient countries to select DAC-donors and SSC providers more appropriately

and easily. Case studies showcased online by the TT-SSC, although they provide invaluable

information on ongoing and completed programmes, do not contrast and therefore allow

comparing the concrete added value of each partner in a systematic manner. Following the

principle of open aid, the ACP could become the repository of SSC and TrC-related

knowledge, thereby ensuring development cooperation’s result-orientation, ownership,

transparency, accountability and visibility which are key principles for the ACP. Beyond

simply compiling quantitative data26

, the objective is be to create a learning tool through the

collection of qualitative feedback, lessons learned on the successive programme phases: from

design through implementation to completion. Such a bank of information would be crucial

for policy formulation and decision-making. The knowledge and information could also be 23

http://wbi.worldbank.org/sske/news/build-knowledge-hub 24

If feasible, it is for instance worth considering the participation of the ACP in intra-BRICS cooperation

meetings. 25

See TT-SSC website http://www.southsouthcases.info/casosafrica/caso_20.php 26

The initiative AidData 3.0 in collaboration with OECD, donor agencies and other stakeholders collects,

analyze and publish online project-level aid information. AidData 3.0 presents for each project the following

information: field description, donor and recipient names, commitment year and amount, title, short and long

description.

14

presented in a yearly report on SSC and TrC activities implemented in and involving ACP

countries.

The repository would be coupled with a directory of development cooperation stakeholders in

general, and suppliers in particular, that will not only aggregate but also provide exposure of

what SSC and TrC providers have to offer, technically and financially speaking, and in which

sectors they are engaged or ready to engage27

. This will for instance allow assessing whether

assistance is mainly channelled to productive or to social sectors in an ACP country. This

directory will be most useful owing to the broad range of stakeholders engaged in SSC and

TrC. According to the United Nations Organisation, roughly two thirds of DAC members are

engaged in triangular co-operation, with Japan at the top of the list, followed by Germany and

Spain28

. These three countries’ international cooperation agencies29

have put in place strong

patterns for TrC implementation such as Partnerships Programmes and thematic networks by

Japan, Trilateral Cooperation Funds by Germany or Capacity development programmes by

Spain. Their experience is worth-sharing as some of them have made progress in addressing

rising transaction costs, which is one of TrC main challenges. Spain has indeed streamlined its

procedures while Japan has standardised procedures, prepared operational guidelines and

increased delegation of authority to country offices30

. Such a directory will also give

visibility to South-South Cooperation’s funding mechanisms put in place by MICs or regional

institutions such as IBSA Facility for the Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger, the Egyptian

Fund for Technical Cooperation and the African Development Bank’s South-South

Cooperation Trust Fund.

More than a mere information “collecting box”, the ACP is to play a bridging role by

becoming a conduit. The ultimate goal of this process is to level the playing field in terms of

information, allowing thus all actors to have access to transparent, relevant and systematised

information and to ensure adaptive replication for instance. As a facilitation agent, the role of

the ACP will ideally be as follows:

− Identifying proactively SSC and TrC opportunities for DAC-donors, pivotal and

beneficiary countries

− Connecting/matching demand and supply through a brokering mechanism

In this respect, strong needs assessments being essential to achieving expected results,

the ACP could play an instrumental role in ensuring the quality of the needs

assessments produced and, at a more general level, that beneficiary countries are

systematically involved in SSC and TrC project phases. Assuring the replicability of

the knowledge and technologies planned to be transferred so that the cooperation

established yields relevant results for the beneficiaries31

could be another key task

carried out by the ACP Secretariat.

27

Although the analysis of the motivations of TrC and SSC providers engaged or willing to engage in SSC and

TrC is not the purpose of this paper, it is worth mentioning that aspects of cooperation with developing countries

such as China and Brazil have sparked criticisms. It is therefore worth identifying the limitations of cooperation

patterns. Understanding the each partner’s motivations for engagement can allow recipient countries determine

how to engage in SSC and TrC arrangements in the most beneficial manner. 28

In OECD (2013), Triangular cooperation: what’s the literature telling us, p.17 29

Respectively JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency), the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit) and AECID (Agencia Española para la Cooperación Internacional y el Desarrollo) 30

In OECD (2013): Triangular cooperation: what’s the literature telling us, p.25 31

The testimony of a Mozambican partner about what he learnt from Chinese in the agriculture sector is in this

respect sobering: “I learned some things but at the end everything goes to the garbage because we don’t have the

15

− Assisting stakeholders in developing triangular strategies

This can be particularly beneficial for ACP MICs which already are pivotal countries

in some TrC arrangements, such as South Africa and Kenya. These countries could

more easily gain access to other SSC providers and DAC donors’ experience in order

to establish themselves or consolidate their position as regional and/or continental

development players32

.

Although the ACP has the requisite experience in international cooperation and in dealing

with a large number of actors to be an effective facilitator for SSC and TrC, several issues are

critical to setting up a successful ACP knowledge hub and facilitation mechanism:

− Human and Financial resources

In 2013 an independent evaluation of Intra-ACP Cooperation under the 9th

and 10th

EDF33

indicated that the ACP Secretariat faced challenges in mobilising its staff and dealing with the

workload linked to the implementation of the Intra-ACP cooperation activities. This results

from the ACP Secretariat’s increased involvement in programme and financial management.

Establishing the ACP Secretariat as a knowledge hub and a facilitator in addition to its current

role and responsibilities34

would therefore imply the strengthening of ACP Secretariat

capacity and functionality, and the allocation of sufficient financial resources to do so.

− Pragmatism and Effectiveness

The number and type of actors involved in SSC and TrC is significant as the international

development community comprises, among others, development agencies, international

cooperation or foreign affairs ministries, multilateral organisations, NGOs and foundations.

The multiplicity of stakeholders entails the tailoring of a structured, systematic and cost-

effective information collection and sharing mechanism as opposed to an informal and loose

network, as well as key coordination arrangements that will for instance enable an ACP

database to be linked to existing databases. Albeit challenging, setting up an institutional and

operational matchmaking and dissemination mechanism constitutes one of the surest ways to

scale up SSC and TrC.

Additionally, this mechanism will have to take account of managing for result considerations.

Designing robust methodology and tools to capture knowledge, setting objectives and

indicators as well as drawing up a monitoring and evaluation system will be instrumental in

instilling a culture of knowledge and information sharing and management within the ACP.

means to implement what we learned”. Chichava, S et alii (2013): Brazil and China in Mozambican Agriculture:

emerging insights from the field”, IDS Bulletin 44.4, p.11 32 South African and German governments established a Trilateral Cooperation Fund to assist South Africa in

carrying out coordinated activities contributing to regional and continental development and thereby

strengthening South Africa as a provider of development cooperation. 33

Evaluation of the EDF support through the Intra-ACP Cooperation, Final report, 31 May 2013. 34

As indicated on the ACP Group website, the ACP Secretariat is responsible for: carrying out the tasks assigned

to it by the Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government, Council of Ministers, Committee of Ambassadors

and the ACP Parliamentary Assembly; contributing to the implementation of the decisions of these organs;

monitoring the implementation of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement; assisting the ACP organs and joint

institutions created in the framework of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreements. acting on proposals from the

Committee of Ambassadors, the Council of Ministers determines the structure of the ACP Secretariat and lays

down its Staff Regulations. http://www.acp.int/content/secretariat-acp

16

− Convergence

To allow the ACP facilitator status to be unquestioned and ACP facilitation operations to be

feasible, they will have to be widely accepted as a key contribution to making SSC and TrC

more effective. ACP commitment to these will have to remain firm as well. Ideally,

knowledge sharing will have to be embedded in ACP policies. An increasing number of

mechanisms, platforms and networks on SSC and TrC function in parallel and are not

necessarily coordinated. Indeed, under the umbrella of the United Nations Office for SSC, the

Global South-South Academy, the Global South-South Development Expo and the South-

South Global Assets and Technology Exchange (GATE) service the development community

engaged in SSC and TrC by showcasing and facilitating the transfer of solutions. The Task-

Team on South-South Cooperation (hosted at the OECD-DAC Working Party on Aid

Effectiveness), whose objective is to examine the synergies between SSC and the aid

effectiveness agenda, brings together a network of practitioners on South-South knowledge

exchange and presents case studies on SSC and TrC. The World Bank also supports South-

South knowledge exchange arrangements through a South-South Knowledge Exchange

Facility35

. Some UN agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme have also

set up exchange mechanisms.

In order to avoid overlapping, confusion and to foster cooperation and coordination instead of

competition between the various partners, the boundaries of the ACP role and prerogatives

will have to be agreed upon at ACP level and with external stakeholders. For instance, as a

facilitator, the ACP may have to remain a neutral player with no decision-making authority

− Areas of intervention

The stature of the ACP as a facilitator will also be linked to its areas of intervention. Is the

ACP willing to conduct facilitation operations in all sectors? Will sectors in which SSC and

TrC are developing and which are currently favoured by the ACP be prioritized? These are

questions that will have to be adequately thought through by the ACP. Instead of dispersing

its efforts in diversification, a concentration of ACP facilitation and knowledge-related

activities on a limited number of areas seems a priori more appropriate. Distinctiveness,

credibility and identification of areas of expertise should guide the ACP in the selection of

their future areas of intervention.

The establishment of an ACP facilitation mechanism and knowledge repository requires to be

further conceptualized. By contrast, SSC and TrC have already been financed under the 10th

EDF and a stronger and unambiguous support to TrC arrangements needs to be provided

under the 11th

EDF and through EU Development Cooperation generally speaking.

3) Enhanced support to South-South and Triangular Cooperation through EU

Development Cooperation

Seizing the opportunities for synergy

Over the years, the EU initiated a series of moves towards TrC. The 2008 EU Communication

titled “The EU, Africa and China: Towards trilateral dialogue and cooperation”36

attests to EU

35

http://wbi.worldbank.org/sske/funding 36

COM(2008)654 final, Commission Communication, 17 October 2008

17

manifest interest in this modality. Likewise, in the context of the EU-Brazil Summit of 4

October 2011, both parties agreed on a strategic partnership in which TrC arrangements with

developing countries were to be explored in health sector, agriculture and food security,

human rights among others. The importance of this cooperation mode is clearly asserted in

this strategic partnership’s Joint Action Plan: “The EU and Brazil attach high importance to

the role of triangular cooperation that should be one of the major areas for the Strategic

Partnership [...] Triangular Cooperation between EU and Brazil in partnership with

developing countries should be promoted as a modality to complement the existing bilateral

cooperation initiatives, as well as leverage knowledge, coherence and additional financial

resources for the benefit of developing countries”37

.

Owing to Global South countries’ increasing engagement in SSC and TrC, and to EU interest

in providing support to them, it is crucial and timely to examine and capitalize on the

possibilities offered by EU financial instruments for external action, the Partnership

Instrument for instance, to catalyze the implementation of TrC arrangements. It is to be noted

that this modality is far from being utterly new for the EU as activities that could be labelled

as TrC programmes were already financed under the 10th

EDF.

Precedents under the 10th

European Development Fund

The Annex IV to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement which relates specifically to

implementation and management procedures indicates that “regional cooperation shall cover

operations benefiting and involving [...] two or more or all ACP States as well as any non-

ACP developing countries participating in these operations”. In the same vein, supra-regional

cooperation funded under the EDF and also called “Intra-ACP cooperation” is described as

aiming to addressing the “shared challenges facing ACP States through operations that

transcend the concept of geographic location and benefit many or all ACP States”. This

relative openness to developing countries in general within the EDF must be seen as a

window of opportunity for TrC and by consequence SSC.

As the European Commission put it in 2011, “the implementation of programmes at intra-

ACP level encourages regional cross-fertilisation and creates incentives to develop

benchmarking and common approaches to similar situations among ACP countries. Greater

consideration could be given to disseminating good practices that should be replicated where

appropriate. Intra-ACP cooperation acts as a catalyst by launching activities and spearheading

regional dialogue on new development themes or on innovative approaches (e.g. climate

change, commodities, innovative insurance schemes, phytosanitary standards and the EU-

Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund)”38

.

In practice, several programmes fulfilling the conditions for TrC, in particular knowledge

exchange and capacity building activities, have been financed under the 10th

EDF Intra-ACP

cooperation and are being currently implemented. The following examples39

illustrate this

reality.

37 European Union –Brazil Summit, Joint Statement_European Union-Brazil Strategic Partnership, October

2011, p.15 38

SEC(2011) 1055 final, Commission Staff Working Paper, 10th

EDF Performance review, 8 September 2011,

p.36 39

The information relative to Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme, Science and Technology programme and

Hubs and Spokes programme are drawn from respective Financing agreements between the European

Commission and the ACP States

18

− The Intra-ACP Mobility Scheme

The programme provides funds (€30M for the African component and €10M for a

Caribbean and Pacific component) to finance scholarships for students wishing to take

Master and PhD courses in other African/Caribbean and Pacific Universities,

Scholarships for academic and administrative staff to participate in cross country inter-

university exchanges/mobility (these may include teaching, research, training etc) as

well as support to Universities that will be hosting students and

academic/administrative staff. This programme is a shining example of knowledge

exchange between developing countries supported by developed countries.

− The Science and Technology programme

The €40M programme contained two main components: capacity building in the field

of Science and Technology and research actions. Many projects focused on setting up

or strengthening agricultural Science, Technology and Innovation networks, between

research centres and farmers in ACP countries to improve the productivity of local

crops for consumption or export.

− The Hubs and Spokes programme

The €12M Hub and Spokes Programme aims to promote the effective participation of

ACP countries in international trade negotiations and to strengthen their capacities to

formulate, negotiate and implement trade policies. The Commonwealth Secretariat has

mobilised 7 Regional Trade Policy Advisers – commonly known as Hubs – located in

the Regional Economic Communities and 16 Trade Policy Advisers– known as

Spokes – in several ACP countries. The OIF has mobilised 4 Conseillers Régionaux

(Hubs) and 16 Conseillers Nationaux (Spokes). Their mandate is essentially to

strengthen the institutional capacity for implementation of trade policies and

international trade agreements and related activities. This project provides an excellent

example of North-South, South-South and Triangular cooperation.

The independent evaluation on Intra-ACP Cooperation under the 9th

and 10th

EDF concluded

that the programmes providing for the creation of networks and exchanges of experiences

such as those mentioned above had been particularly successful. The support provided has for

instance allowed increasing South-South networks among universities. Institutional capacities

have also been strengthened in the field of science and technology. This constitutes a strong

argument for allocating further funding to SSC and TrC programmes under the 11th

EDF with

a programmatic and systematic approach and not in an ad hoc manner.

Prospects for the 11th

EDF

The three clusters of activities40

that were agreed in the 10th

EDF Intra-ACP strategy, that is

“Global initiatives”, “All-ACP initiatives”, “Pan-African initiatives” are bound to be

overhauled in the upcoming 11th

EDF Intra-ACP strategy. This is due, among other reasons,

to the setting up of a €1 billion Pan African Programme under the European Union budget to

finance the Joint Africa EU strategy-related activities which were previously partially covered

by the Intra-ACP’s Pan-African initiatives cluster. The programming of the 11th

EDF Intra-

ACP can therefore be an opportunity for the European Union and the ACP Group to support

40

In addition, institutional and support expenditure cover the funding of the joint institutions and partial funding

of the ACP Secretariat as well as a Technical Cooperation Facility.

19

different development cooperation approaches and thus show stronger support for the Global

Partnership for development. In view of the above, the ACP Group proposes that SSC and

TrC modalities be given due consideration in the 11th

EDF through funding from Intra-ACP

resources.

The programming and implementation of the above-mentioned programmes proves that TrC

arrangements can effectively and appropriately be included into the Intra-ACP configuration.

In line with the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly resolution on South-South and

Triangular cooperation and in order to best leverage the changing development cooperation

architecture, the ACP Group proposes that a robust TrC policy be incorporated into EU

development cooperation framework and that TrC be deliberately integrated into the 11th

EDF

Intra-ACP strategy. The Intra-ACP cooperation would then be an umbrella under which

South-South cooperation could consistently be accommodated as in the examples presented

above. Reflections regarding the identification of sectors of intervention in the 11th

EDF Intra-

ACP cooperation will also have to be undertaken. It will for instance be key to determine to

what extent areas in which emerging countries such as Brazil have an undeniable added value

(e.g. social protection) can be integrated into the Intra-ACP Strategy and covered by SSC and

TrC programmes.

The rapid evolution of South-South cooperation over the past years has opened a window of

opportunities for developing countries that can now turn to such a cooperation modality, in

addition to traditional North-South cooperation, as a means towards achieving internationally

agreed development goals, including the MDGs and fulfilling the post-2015 agenda41

.

Securing financing of TrC programmes under the 11th

EDF Intra-ACP cooperation and

through EU development cooperation in general would contribute to bridging the divide

between North-South and South-South cooperation and therefore allow the 79 ACP Member

States to fully enjoy the opportunities offered by all approaches.

41

In the ACP Declaration on the Post-2015 Development Agenda (28 November 2013), SSC and TrC are

presented as “a catalyst for diversifying and transforming the economies of ACP countries and therefore

contribute to the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda”. The Co-Chairs of the Open Working

Group on Sustainable Development Goals mentioned the importance of SSC and TrC in its 6th

session held on 13

December 2013. The Open Working Group of the United Nations’ Assembly General is tasked with preparing a

proposal on the Sustainable Development Goals.

20

Concluding remarks

The end of the 20th

century and the beginning of the 21st century have been marked by

dramatic economic and geopolitical changes. Open knowledge adds up to those and is one of

the key shifts transforming development cooperation. This is now allowing developing

countries to not simply accept solutions handed down to them by developed countries. They

now also get inspiration and technical knowledge from successful emerging economies in the

South while remaining open to the practical know-how from the North. SSC as a whole

constitutes a driving force for growth. This should however not lead to the downgrading of

the relationship between developing countries and DAC donors which has been nurtured for

decades. SSC and TrC contain a creative force that requires being unleashed and a potential

that needs to be unlocked. International support can help ACP Member States and developing

countries as a whole to fully enjoy the opportunities that both modalities offer. The ACP

Group proactivity in advancing SSC and TrC agenda proves its willingness and legitimacy to

harness the current formidable energy towards these modalities.

The ACP is also keen to become instrumental in SSC and TrC in a practical way. As a

knowledge repository and a facilitator, the ACP will contribute to expanding knowledge

sources on development and thus to optimising the actions currently carried out by the

stakeholders involved in SSC and TrC activities. Moreover, the programming of EU funds for

the period 2014-2020 is an opportunity to promote and financially support SSC and TrC that

must be seized. Indeed “given past experience, EU institutional actors and member states now

have the opportunity to apply lessons learned and prepare European development policy for

the political-economic and social realities of least developed countries, more developed

countries, transition and conflict affected countries and regions of the 21st century”42

. In this

sense, TrC can allow Intra-ACP cooperation in the true sense of the word to reach its full

potential.

The development community is on the learning curve as regards SSC and TrC. To ensure that

an adequately structured and long-lasting model comes into being, the development

community must join forces to build a strong coalition for success. Concerted actions are

needed to assure that SSC and TrC will not be considered in the future as outdated buzz words

but as sustainable, result-oriented and effective models of collaborative development

cooperation.

42

Görtz, S. and Keijzer N. (2012): Reprogramming EU development cooperation for 2014-2020 - Key moments

for partner countries, EU Delegations, member states and headquarters in 2012. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 129)

– p.11

21

References

10

th Ministerial Meeting of the ACP NAOs and RAOs, South-South and Triangular

cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges, April 17-18 2013 (ACP Group internal

document).

ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution on South-South cooperation and

triangular cooperation: Opportunities and challenges for the ACP countries, ACP-

EU/101.516/13/fin, 27 November 2013. Accessible under:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/2013_addis/pdf/101.516_en.pdf

ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (2010). Accessible under:

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/overview/documents/devco-cotonou-consol-europe-

aid-2012_en.pdf

AECID (2009): AECID’s Approach and experience in Triangular cooperation in Latin

America and the Caribbean, Policy Dialogue on Development Cooperation, Mexico City, 28-

29 September 2009. Accessible under: http://www.oecd.org/dac/43878483.pdf

AECID (2010): Triangular Co-operation in the Context of Aid Effectiveness – Experiences

and Views of EU Donors, Concept note of Workshop organised by AECID, Madrid, 8-10

March. Accessible under:

http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/files/europa_only/featured_triangular_co-

operation_concept_note_20100309.pdf

BMZ (2013e): Triangular Cooperation in German Development Cooperation, BMZ Strategy

Paper.

Busan Partnership Document (2011). Accessible under:

http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf

Chichava, S., Duran, J., Cabral, L., Shankland, A., Buckley, L., Lixia, T., Yue, Z. (2013):

Brazil and China in Mozambican Agriculture: emerging insights from the field, IDS Bulletin

44.4

Council of the European Union, SEC(2011) 1055 final, Commission Staff Working Paper,

10th

EDF Performance review, 8 September 2011, Brussels.

Council of the European Union, European Union –Brazil Summit, Joint Statement_European

Union-Brazil Strategic Partnership, October 2011. Accessible under:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/124878.pdf

ECDPM (February 2011): ACP Group considers role in South-South and Triangular

cooperation, ECDPM talking points. Accessible under: http://www.ecdpm-

talkingpoints.org/acp-group-considers-role-in-south-south-and-triangular-

cooperation/#sthash.bZHmrK0F.dpuf

European Commission, Evaluation of the EDF support through the Intra-ACP Cooperation,

Final report, 31 May 2013. Evaluation carried out by Safege-Cowi.

22

First High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-

operation’s Communiqué, Mexico, 16 April 2014. Accessible under:

http://effectivecooperation.org/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2014/04/ENG_FinalConsensusMexicoHLMCommunique.pdf

Fordelone, T.Y. (2009): Triangular Cooperation and Aid Effectiveness. Can Triangular Co-

operation Make Aid More Effective?, Policy Dialogue on Development Co-operation’s

Working Paper, Mexico 28-29 September 2009.

Fordelone, T.Y. (2013): Triangular cooperation: what’s the literature telling us, OECD

publication.

Görtz, S. and Keijzer, N. (2012): Reprogramming EU development cooperation for 2014-

2020 - Key moments for partner countries, EU Delegations, member states and headquarters

in 2012. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 129).

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2012): Scaling up South-South and

Triangular Cooperation, Conference volume.

Langendorf J., Piefer N., Knodt M., Müller U., Lazaro L. (2012): Triangular Cooperation, A

guideline for working in practice. GIZ publication.

Dr Müller, U. (2010): Triangular Cooperation in Practice, GTZ experience. Accessible under:

http://api.ning.com/files/eXUcGJnS-

REJLoWY2kC9lgFu*5riNm7VyFDdyQ3STEa1knItj*1JFpV0ucWYaWizvg3ZOaglearVVSU

SbdupbBuSYhNZHZFI/GTZ_TriCoopinPractice.pdf

Schulz, N.-S. (2010): Boosting South-South cooperation in the context of Aid effectiveness.

Telling the story of partners in 110 cases of South-South and Triangular cooperation, OECD

publication. Accessible under:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/63/46080462.pdf.

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008).

Accessible under http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf.