Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States The Power …€¦ · the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States region, the rise of several fast-growing economies has

2 3

South-South and Triangular Cooperation: Towards Sustainable Human Development in ECIS


South-South and Triangular Cooperation:

Towards Sustainable Human Development in Europe and the Commonwealth of

Independent States

The Power of Knowledge-sharing

Regional Report

June 2017

Report Team

CoordinatorEdem Bakhshish

Core teamSayora ArifdjanovaDmitry MariassinMara Niculescu

Lead authorAstrid Schnitzer-Skjønsberg

Survey Michèle Knodt

The analysis and policy recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the

United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) or the United Nations Develop-

ment Programme (UNDP). The report is the result of collaborative efforts of authors coordinated

by a UNOSSC/UNDP core team.

Copyright © United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Office for South-South

Cooperation 2017

4 5



Over a year ago, the United Nations member countries adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, committing the inter-national community to the most ambitious and universal develop-ment agenda to date, breaking down the North-South divide. With its increased depth and global coverage, the 2030 Agenda calls for a rethinking of development funding, putting innovative partnerships at its centre. Consequently, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals is not only a matter of securing sufficient funding. Sharing knowledge and experiences will also be key to advance develop-ment-focused reforms, support regional cooperation, and promote mutual understanding and trust between countries.

Ayşe Cihan Sultanoğlu, Assistant Administrator, Regional Director for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, UNDP

South-South cooperation emphasizes mutual responsibility based on solidarity and the recognition that all countries have something valuable to contribute. This unique form of collaboration enables countries to learn from one another and take leadership of their own development paths.

South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation are recognized as means of implementing the 2030 Agenda, and the development community is now seeing a marked increase in South-South and tri-angular activities and programmes such as knowledge exchanges,

Jorge Chediek, Envoy of the Secretary-General on South-South Cooperation and Director, United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation

Foreword

In this context, UNDP has joined forces with the United Nations Office for South-South Cooper-ation in the preparation of the present report, which makes a strong argument for South-South cooperation in the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region. South-South cooperation is a powerful tool to achieve development results, with priorities and needs of partner countries at its core. In the Europe and the CIS region, the concept of South-South co-operation may be relatively new but the experience of horizontal, peer-to-peer sharing of knowl-edge is not, with a significant tradition and, more recently, a renewed vibrancy.

This report is not meant to provide full and comprehensive analytical research on the status of South-South cooperation in the region but rather to showcase a number of practical examples and useful lessons learned that can be taken on board by policymakers and other national and local development practitioners. There are several interesting findings, for example those on the models of South-South cooperation, which can stimulate thinking, discussion and action and help to make South-South cooperation a more deliberate and strategic tool for achieving devel-opment results.

At UNDP, we are very pleased that this report has already benefited from inputs and reviews from numerous government officials, leaders of non-governmental organizations and United Nations colleagues in the region. We hope that it will make a convincing case for South-South cooper-ation and its merits and provide inspiration and ideas to the governments that we serve and to our development partners while reassuring them of our commitment to support South-South cooperation and their efforts.

technology transfers, financing and peer support, the development of common development agendas and the sharing of collective solutions.

As an advocate, coordinator and facilitator of South-South exchanges, the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) assists Member States, United Nations entities and other stakeholders in exploring synergies and harnessing global opportunities to address their devel-opment challenges. UNOSSC is responsible for monitoring the progress in implementing various resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation. Through its work, the Office seeks to encourage the engagement of various stake-holders to accelerate growth and development towards the achievement of the 2030 Agenda and other internationally agreed development goals.

UNOSSC is seeking through the present report to widen the scope of thinking and facilitate broader knowledge exchanges on Southern development successes and lessons learned. Within the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States region, the rise of several fast-growing economies has driven an increase in South-South cooperation. I am very pleased, therefore, to present this comprehensive report that documents existing practices, initiatives, challenges and driving forces of South-South and triangular cooperation in the region.

The report confirms the great variety and intensity of South-South and triangular exchanges in the region, describes the main modalities for delivering South-South cooperation, and suggests possible models for analysis of this cooperation. It looks at factors that limit the potential of South-South cooperation and offers options and recommendations on how countries can further catalyse South-South cooperation as an instrument to advance development within the region and with other regions.

I wish to acknowledge the hard work and expertise of all those who provided valuable input into this report, which was developed in a participatory, demand-driven way led by our Office and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is a result of broad collaboration and con-sultations with representatives of governments as well as key regional stakeholders. I extend my utmost thanks to all those who contributed.

6 7



Many would agree that the global development cooperation landscape has undergone signifi-

cant transformation in the previous two decades. The era of mono-vector cooperation, whereby

certain countries would qualify only as suppliers of technical assistance, or donors, and other

countries would be considered only as recipients of such technical assistance, or beneficiaries,

has come to its natural end. As more and more countries worldwide engage in collaborative

learning to equitably share innovative and replicable cost-efficient solutions to address their de-

velopment challenges, cooperation has become more inclusive and, importantly, more complex

and multi-vector. In this new development cooperation reality, some countries can simultaneously

assume the roles of both provider and recipient of technical cooperation, finding new and innova-

tive responses to their socioeconomic and environmental challenges, ranging from poverty and

food security to climate change and demographics.

In this context, the shift in the evolution of South-South cooperation is remarkable and is reflected

in massive flows of South-South development cooperation and the rapidly growing volumes of

South-South trade and investment, in the building of new institutional capacities in support of

South-South cooperation, and in a trend towards more concerted action for the effective imple-

mentation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

It should be made clear, however, that people nowadays are attracted to the South-South co-

operation model as a critical transformative factor in the global cooperation landscape not only

because of the growing financial power of the Global South but because, when it is done well,

South-South cooperation can sometimes deliver solutions faster and at a reduced cost so that

one can achieve greater results with less effort and more economically.

The simple secret of its appeal lies in identifying, tapping into and deploying the considerable

potential of shared resources of the Global South. These include the accumulated experience in

various sectors; locally adapted and tested know-how; shared cultural assets such as languages

or social identities; geographic proximity; and common social, economic and political histories.

Our overall purpose with this report has been to analyse examples of relevant efforts undertaken

at the national level in the countries of the region with a view to defining a number of practical

models that could be systematically applied for further regional and global cross-fertilization of

ideas, solutions and capacities towards achieving the 2030 Agenda. In developing this report,

we focused on delivering concrete policy recommendations to different groups of development

cooperation stakeholders.

We wish you pleasant reading and hope that the examples provided and the recommendations

offered will trigger concrete action on your part in advancing your respective country and insti-

tution’s development priorities that could be achieved effectively through South-South cooper-

ation.

The preparation of the present report was only possible with the generous support and valuable

contributions received from governmental representatives, United Nations Resident Coordinators

and their staff, and United Nations country teams in the region.

The authors would like to thank particularly the national focal points for South-South cooperation

– Ms. Alpina Qirjazi (Prime Minister’s Office, Albania), Mr. Admir Softić (Ministry of Foreign Trade

and Economic Relations, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ms. Victoria Baikova (Ministry of Foreign Af-

fairs, Georgia), Mr. Kairat Torebayev and Mr. Rauan Igenbayev (Ministry of National Economy,

Kazakhstan), Mr. Alymbek Orozbekov (Ministry of Economy, Kyrgyzstan), Ms. Cristina Gangan

(State Chancellery, Republic of Moldova), Ms. Hilda Kolevska and Ms. Sanja Zografska-Krsteska

(Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), and Ms. Pelin Musabay

Baki (Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States) – for their active support and contributions

to the survey as well as comments on the draft report. Their inputs provided the invaluable basis

for the report on the development of South-South/East-East cooperation in the countries of the

region and opportunities for its further expansion. A special thank you goes to the participants of

the first Regional Networking Forum for the Arab States, Europe and the Commonwealth of In-

dependent States, which took place in Dubai on 4 November 2016 as the post-event of the Global

South-South Development Expo 2016, for their feedback on the draft report and for sharing more

concrete experiences that have informed this report.

Finally, the team would like to recognize and thank the focal points at the offices of the United Na-

tions Resident Coordinators and at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) offices

in the countries of the region: Ms. Varya Meruzhanyan (Armenia), Ms. Irada Ahmedova (Azer-

baijan), Mr. Aris Seferovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mr. David Mushkudiani (Georgia), Ms. Dina

Khassenova (Kazakhstan), Ms. Janyl Rakhmanova (Kyrgyzstan), Ms. Ana Dautovic and Mr. Milos

Popovic (Montenegro), Mr. Johan Dittrich Hallberg (Republic of Moldova), Mr. Mubin Rustamov

and Ms. Nargis Djuraeva (Tajikistan), Ms. Jasmina Belcovska-Tasevska (the former Yugoslav Re-

public of Macedonia), Mr. Chary Nurmuhammedov and Ms. Jahan Saparmamedova (Turkmeni-

stan) and Ms. Yulia Svavolya (Ukraine) for their support from the very start of the report prepara-

tion and their contributions regarding the evidence of South-South/East-East cooperation efforts

and projects supported by the United Nations agencies in the countries.

AcknowledgementsFrom the Project Coordinator

Edem BakhshishChief, Regional Division for Arab States, Europe and the CIS

United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation

9



TABLE OF CONTENTS4

1.Introduction1.1. South-South cooperation1.2. South-South cooperation in the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS) regioN1.3.This report

ForewordAcknowledgementsAbbreviations and acronymsExecutive summary

14

61012

1618

21

22242631

3437384854

7275

83202946515358171928363940

44566667

43

7881

3740

62646668

2.Context2.1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the new global development framework2.2. The ECIS region2.3. Development priorities in the ECIS region

4.Recommendations: Catalyzing South-South cooperation

5.Concluding remarksReferences

Annex 1. Mapping of South-South cooperation in Europe and the CIS (non-exhaustive)

Annex 2. Checklist for institutional, legal and organizational tools for South-South cooperation

Annex 3. List of useful links

4.1. Institutional foundations for achieving the SDGs through South-South cooperation

4.2. Financing modalities for South-South cooperation: Traditional and new approaches

4.3. Role of the United Nations system in advancing South-South cooperation

3.The South-South cooperation landscape3.1. Overview Thematic priorities and dimensions Modalities Facilitators3.2. Models of South-South cooperation3.3. Challenges to South-South cooperation

10 11



Abbreviations and acronymsODA Official development assistanceOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OFID OPEC Fund for International DevelopmentOIC Organisation of Islamic CooperationOPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting CountriesROAR Results-oriented annual report SAIDC Slovak Agency for International Development CooperationSCO Shanghai Cooperation OrganizationSDGs Sustainable Development GoalsSESRIC Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries

SIFI Social and Industrial Foodservice InstituteSMEs Small- and medium-sized enterprisesTIKA Turkish Cooperation and Coordination AgencyTTFA Transit Transport Framework AgreementUNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSUN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat

UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFPA United Nations Population FundUNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsUNOSSC United Nations Office for South-South CooperationV4 Visegrad Group (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia)WTO World Trade Organization

AIDA Azerbaijan International Development AgencyAIIB Asian Infrastructure Investment BankAsDB Asian Development Bank BRICS Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa BSEC Black Sea Economic Cooperation OrganizationCAREC Central Asia Regional Economic CooperationCAST “City of Almaty Sustainable Transport”CEI Central European InitiativeCIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesDAC Development Assistance Committee (OECD) EAEU Eurasian Economic UnionECFS Eurasian Center for Food SecurityECIS Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent StatesFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsG-77 Group of 77 GDP Gross domestic product GEF Global Environment FacilityGIZ German Agency for International CooperationGSSD Global South-South DevelopmentICT Information and communications technologyIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIMF International Monetary FundIsDB Islamic Development BankJICA Japan International Cooperation AgencyMDGs Millennium Development GoalsNGO Non-governmental organization

12 13



Executive SummaryCountries located in the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS)1 region have been supporting one another’s development for decades. Giv-en that many countries have similar devel-opment priorities and trajectories, the in-centives for cooperation are considerable. The purpose of South-South cooperation in the region – sometimes also referred to as “East-East cooperation” – is to fuel one another’s development, tackle common challenges as peers and increase regional cohesion. In doing so, countries have put a premium on mutual learning and the ex-change of experiences, both of which are shaped by the specificities of the region and subregions.

South-South cooperation has a long-standing tradition in the region; “it is in our DNA”, as one government represen-tative stated.2 Mutual support has intensi-fied over the last 20 years, following the fundamental changes in economic, polit-ical and social structures of the eastern part of the region. In addition to sharing transition experiences, the region is linked

by transboundary issues such as water, energy, transport, environment and cli-mate change as well as similar social chal-lenges such as ensuring gender equality and child protection. Recent conflicts in the region have taken a severe toll on hu-man development but also offer lessons for conflict resolution and underline the critical importance of confidence-build-ing measures across the region. Taken together, the great relevance and prac-tical nature of the knowledge generated by these countries provide the basis for a region-specific approach to South-South cooperation.

The practice of South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation – meaning a Southern-driven initiative where North-ern countries and/or multilateral orga-nizations join the partnership and play a significant role - has brought significant benefits to the region in terms of sustain-able human development. It has led to increased institutional and technical ca-pacities at various levels of government, civil society and the private sector. It has

also enabled countries in the region to join forces on specific themes, produc-ing faster progress (such as in vocational training), higher impact (such as on mine action) and innovative tools (such as the Child Protection Index in Eastern Europe). Often, collaboration focuses on a very specific technical, non-contentious issue, which makes South-South cooperation a very effective channel for increasing coop-eration and for maintaining a constructive dialogue among the countries involved, even in politically sensitive environments. Finally, in times of strained budgets and austerity measures, South-South cooper-ation becomes even more attractive since it presents a valuable, lower-cost modali-ty for achieving development results and fostering regional solidarity.

The present report – the first of its kind for the region – is based on a comprehen-sive desk review, a dedicated survey, and

direct communications with government counterparts and multiple United Nations staff across agencies at the country and regional levels. It describes the main mo-dalities for South-South cooperation used in the Europe and the CIS region, includ-ing innovative approaches. It also sug-gests four possible models for analysis at the national level: the European integra-tion model, the Neighborhood model, the Eurasian model type I and the Eurasian model type II. The aim of the report is not to provide a comprehensive account of South-South cooperation initiatives in the region but rather to offer inspiration and guidance. To do so, the report provides practical options and recommendations on how countries can further catalyse South-South and triangular cooperation as important instruments to advance sus-tainable human development within the region and with other regions.

1 For the purpose of this report, the geographical scope has been limited to a total of 31 countries and territories that are part of the ECIS re-gion: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo (all references to Kosovo in this report should be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council reso-lution 1244 (1999)), Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. 2 The comment was made at the first Regional Networking Forum for the Arab States, Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, which took place in Dubai on 4 November 2016 as the post-event of the Global South-South Development (GSSD) Expo 2016.



Source: UNDP Eurasia

16 17



Over the last few decades, South-South coop-

eration (see box 1) and triangular cooperation

(see box 2) have become important modalities

of international development cooperation.3 In

2013, the value of South-South cooperation was

estimated to have reached $20 billion, up from

between $9.5 billion and $12.1 billion in 2006

(United Nations, 2015a; UN DESA, 2016; Eco-

nomic and Social Council, 2008).4 For com-

parison, in 2013, members of the Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) Development Assistance Committee

(DAC) provided a total of $134.8 billion in net

official development assistance (ODA).5 New

initiatives and financing institutions have been

created, such as the New Development Bank

and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

(AIIB), breaking down the North-South divide.6

A similar trend exists for triangular coopera-

tion, indicating a strong interest in and increas-

ing use of this modality (OECD, 2013, 2015;

OECD/Camões, 2016). As with South-South

cooperation, its financial scope is not clear be-

cause of lack of data and difficulty in express-

ing knowledge exchange in financial terms.7 A

survey by OECD in 2015 indicates an increased

volume compared to a preceding study in 2012

(OECD, 2015).

South-South cooperation and triangular co-

operation were recognized in key internation-

al documents adopted recently, including the

Addis Ababa Action Agenda (2015) and the

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

(2015). South-South cooperation follows the

principles of respect for national sovereignty,

national ownership and independence,

equality, non-conditionality, non-interfer-

ence in domestic affairs and mutual benefit.8

South-South cooperation may take the form

of technical cooperation, including study vis-

its, exchanges of experts and expertise, fund-

ing offered for the cooperation, investment

and trade aimed at spurring development by

Southern partners. While developing countries

initiate and manage South-South cooperation

activities, other entities can promote and ca-

talyse this process. The United Nations devel-

opment system has been repeatedly called

South-South cooperation is...“(…) a process whereby two or more developing countries pursue their in-dividual and/or shared national capacity development objectives through exchanges of knowledge, skills, resources and technical know-how, and through regional and interregional collective actions, including partner-ships involving Governments, regional organizations, civil society, aca-demia and the private sector, for their individual and/or mutual benefit within and across regions. South-South cooperation is not a substitute for, but rather a complement to, North-South cooperation.”

1.1 South-South cooperation

1. Introduction

Source: Note by the Secretary-General on the framework of operational guidelines on United Nations support to South-South and triangular cooperation (SSC/19/3, para. 10).

3 Nairobi outcome document of the High-level United Nations Conference on South-South Cooperation (A/RES/64/222); Outcome document of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development: Addis Ababa Action Agenda (A/Conf.227/L.1, paras. 56 and 57).4 The 2008 Economic and Social Council study estimated contributions from Southern contributors in 2006 at between $9.5 billion and $12.1 billion. This figure does not include contributions from European Union non-DAC members; on the other hand, it does include the contribution of the Republic of Korea, which in the meantime has become a DAC member.5 Given that some ECIS countries have become DAC members (for example, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia), their development cooperation activities meeting the ODA criteria of the OECD DAC are included in this number, leading to double-counting.6 The New Development Bank is an infrastructure investment bank established in 2014 by the BRICS countries (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa); these five countries comprise the membership of the Bank at present. AIIB was established in 2015 and currently has 57 members, including Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan.7 The availability of data has improved over the last couple of years but remains a challenge. The Nairobi outcome document (2009) also encour-ages providers of South-South cooperation to step up efforts for information-sharing.

upon to support South-South cooperation, starting in the mid-1970s. In 1995, United Nations

Member States requested the Secretary-General to report to them every two years on the state

of South-South economic and technical cooperation worldwide and related international sup-

port. Over the years, United Nations Member States have asked the United Nations system to

increase and institutionalize its support for South-South cooperation.

Triangular cooperationTriangular cooperation involves Southern-driven partnerships between two or more

developing countries supported by a developed country(ies)/or multilateral orga-

nization(s) to implement development cooperation programmes and projects. Ev-

idence shows that in many instances, Southern partners in development coopera-

tion require the financial and technical support and expertise of multilateral and/or

developed-country partners in the course of assisting other developing countries…

Northern partners also benefit by being able to take advantage of increased in-

stitutional capacity in the South and to increase the impact of their aid dis-

bursements by leveraging the resources of multiple Southern partners.

Source: Note by the Secretary-General on the framework of operational guidelines on United Nations support to South-South and triangular cooperation (SSC/19/3, para. 11).

South-South cooperation in the Europeand the Commonwealth of IndependentStates (ECIS) region

1.2

The remarkable amount of mutual learning and support among developing and transition coun-

tries in the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS) region often goes un-

noticed. Indeed, the perception and experience of practitioners in the region often contrast with

reports such as the most recent OECD survey on triangular cooperation (OECD, 2016) that sug-

gests a low level of triangular cooperation in the region. The perceived discrepancy and contra-

dicting figures may also be a consequence of a lack of awareness – or even confusion – about the

concepts and terminology of South-South and triangular cooperation as well as the relative scar-

city of monitoring and reporting tools, calling for increased coordination to make sense of facts

and figures. This report aims at filling this gap by mapping the dynamic South-South cooperation

landscape in the region and by providing policy recommendations to national policymakers on

how to advance regional cooperation to support the achievement of development results.

18 19



and by providing policy recommendations

to national policymakers on how to advance

regional cooperation to support the achieve-

ment of development results.

South-South cooperation in the ECIS coun-

tries broadly follows the established principles

of South-South cooperation and, at the same

time, has a strong focus on specific thematic

priorities and common challenges faced in the

region. The term “East-East cooperation” has

also emerged as a useful concept for some

countries, given the specificities of the region,

especially the volatile demarcation line be-

tween providers and recipients (e.g., new Eu-

ropean Union member States becoming DAC

members). For example, knowledge-sharing

programmes and facilities supported by new

European Union member States, now mem-

bers of the DAC,9 are part of the ODA of these

countries when they meet the ODA criteria of

the OECD DAC, but they are not necessari-

ly perceived or formally registered as South-

South cooperation. Both terms may also be

used interchangeably by countries in the re-

gion. For the purposes of this report, South-

South cooperation in the region will refer to

mutual learning, exchange of experiences and

other development support shared by coun-

tries in Europe and the CIS, many of which

have similar development priorities and trajec-

tories. The purpose of South-South coopera-

tion in the ECIS region is to fuel one another’s

development; tackle common challenges as

peers, such as the rule of law, competitiveness

and European integration; and increase region-

al cohesion.

There is a long-standing tradition of coop-

eration among countries of the ECIS region

as well as with other developing countries.

It dates to times when Soviet republics and

countries of the former Eastern Bloc engaged

in technical and scientific cooperation among

themselves and with other like-minded devel-

oping countries, driven mainly by political and

military interests.10 Activities included the pro-

vision of equipment, experts and know-how,

scholarships and tied credits. Among the re-

cipients were Cambodia, Cuba, the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea, the Lao People’s

Democratic Republic, Mongolia and (North-)

Viet Nam, as well as other developing coun-

tries such as Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua and

the former South Yemen (UNOSSC, 2015b).

Following the fall of the Iron Curtain and the

dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia,

transition processes have changed the region

in profound ways. This has left the ECIS region

rich in knowledge of and experience in the

transition to democracy, the rule of law and a

free market economy, which in turn has fueled

a distinct demand for and supply of regional

and subregional learning. Today, cooperation

in the region is fostered by deep historical,

linguistic and cultural commonalities, similar

transformation and transition experiences and

needs, and economic and social commonalities

as well as geo-strategic and security issues.

More recently, the exchanges have become

more diverse with the enlargement of the

European Union as well as the emergence of

new partners in development cooperation and

newly established organizations, such as AIIB

(established in 2015), the Eurasian Economic

Union (EAEU) (established in 2015) and the

Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States

(Turkic Council) (established in 2009).

This past decade has been marked by particu-

larly intense cooperation and exchange across

9 According to the OECD DAC, transfers of resources – either in cash or in the form of commodities or services – are counted as ODA if they fulfil the following criteria: (a) they are of an official nature; (b) they are aimed at promoting economic development and welfare in countries and territories on the DAC List of ODA Recipients; and (c) they are concessional in character.10 For example, Kyrgyzstan started cooperation for development under the guidance of central Soviet authorities as early as the 1930s. Countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia had extensive technical and scientific cooperation foreign policies before 1989 (UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2015a, b).

the ECIS region, leading to increased capacities at institutional and technical levels for many

countries in the region. South-South cooperation has created learning opportunities for the coun-

tries that can help them to achieve sustainable human development at home and in their sub-

regions. Both South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation can effectively complement

national development efforts and help to reach national development priorities based on equal

partnership. A case in point is the active engagement in the region among European Union mem-

ber States and European Union candidate countries as well as the launch of intergovernmental

cooperation processes, such as the Berlin process between selected European Union members

and Western Balkans countries.11 The European Union has also facilitated significant peer-to-peer

dialogue and knowledge exchange through its existing mechanisms of cooperation, such as the

European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership initiative.12

The family outreach worker approach in child protection piloted in Serbia has been replicated in

Montenegro. Source: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Montenegro.

The family outreach worker approach in child protection piloted in Serbia has been replicated in Montenegro. Source: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Montenegro.

South-South cooperation can provide solutions, skills and technologies at a lower cost, stimu-

late powerful learning between countries and subregions, and serve as a valuable foreign policy

tool to build trust and strengthen bilateral relationships by focusing on technical, non-conten-

tious issues. South-South cooperation in the region is characterized by its strong focus on the

needs of the partner countries and provides flexibility in terms of modalities and thematic areas.

With many countries facing constraints on their national budgets and reduced financing options,

cost-effective solutions are urgently needed. Moreover, achieving the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) by 2030 will require enormous financial resources. The United Nations Conference

on Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2014) estimates that developing countries will face an an-

nual funding gap of $2.5 trillion to finance the SDGs (for comparison, $120 billion were required

annually for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)). Engagement in South-South cooper-

ation does not require additional human resources but rather a more strategic use of existing

human resources and openness at the institutional level. Also, through its demand-based ap-

proach, South-South cooperation supports ownership at the national level, increasing the overall

sustainability prospects of development initiatives. Benefits offered by South-South cooperation

are listed in table 1.

20 21



Table 1: Benefits offered by South-South cooperation

This is the first regional report on the use of

South-South cooperation mechanisms in coun-

tries of the Europe and the CIS region. The

goals of the report are to: (a) provide a system-

atic overview of the trends, models, drivers and

challenges of South-South cooperation in the

region; (b) advocate for the benefits of South-

South cooperation both within the region and

beyond; and (c) provide concrete suggestions

to national policymakers and other relevant

stakeholders on how to catalyse South-South

and triangular cooperation to achieve their de-

velopment objectives and the SDGs.

For the purpose of this report, the geographi-

cal scope has been limited to a total of 31 coun-

tries and territories that are part of the ECIS

region.13 The report does not aim to map all

ongoing South-South cooperation initiatives

in the region but rather to present an illus-

trative selection with the support of national

focal points.14 To this end, the report is based

on a comprehensive desk review, a dedicated

survey, and direct communications with gov-

ernment counterparts and multiple United

Nations staff across agencies at the country

and regional levels. A survey designed specif-

ically for this report was conducted in March

2016 and generated information on 34 relevant

projects.15 A questionnaire was shared with 16

United Nations Resident Coordinator Offices,

nine government focal points, and the Tur-

kic Council. In addition, the results of national

stocktaking exercises on trends and opportu-

nities for South-South cooperation and trian-

gular cooperation in Kyrgyzstan (2015),16 Tajik-

istan (2015),17 the Republic of Moldova (2016)18

and Azerbaijan (2016)19 informed the report.

Moreover, the results of UNDP’s internal mon-

itoring of its South-South impact were includ-

ed.20 The draft report was also presented for

consultation at the first Regional Networking

Forum for the Arab States, Europe and the CIS,

which took place in Dubai on 4 November 2016

as the post-event of the Global South-South

Development (GSSD) Expo 2016.

The information in the main body of this re-

port is complemented by a mapping report in

annex 1 that features more than 50 concrete

South-South development solutions from the

region.21 A checklist to support policymakers

in assessing their country’s concrete capaci-

ty assets, challenges and options with regard

to South-South cooperation can be found in

annex 2, while annex 3 contains a list of links

to websites providing information on United

Nations support and analysis and examples of

funding opportunities.

1.3 About this report

13 Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Ka-zakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. 14 While every care has been taken to include illustrative initiatives and ensure the accuracy of the information, this report makes no claim to be exhaustive, given the wealth of South-South cooperation activities; important players, trends and examples may have been omitted or not given the attention that they deserve. It also does not imply, by any means, an endorsement or an assessment of the effectiveness of initiatives presented in this report.15 The survey questionnaire covered project information, objectives, partnership and interaction, and resources as well as information on results, replicability and sustainability. The survey was commissioned by UNOSSC and conducted by Michèle Knodt.16 UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2015a).17 UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2015b).18 UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2016a).19 UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2016b).20 UNDP has integrated South-South cooperation into the results-oriented annual report (ROAR) of its country offices.21 IsDB/UNOSSC (2016). Mapping South-South cooperation solutions in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

in the Berlin process are Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Kosovo, Serbia, Slovenia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the European Union.12 The European Neighbourhood Policy includes 16 neighbouring countries and territories to the South (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, the State of Palestine, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia) and East (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine). Launched in 2009, the Eastern Partnership works towards deepening ties with six countries that have become closer neighbours to the European Union following the successive enlargement rounds of the European Union in 2005 and 2007 (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine).

Challenges faced byECIS countries

Diminishing Financial Resources

Need for experience-based advice

Need for rapid andtimely support

Addressing commonchallenges

Cross-border issues

• Less bureaucratized exchange of experiences and experts• Lower cost

• Development of joint policies and strategies (e.g., on migration)• Implementation of joint projects• Encouraging thinking in terms of systems and regional learning processes

22 23



Source: UNDP in Turkmenistan / Claire Ladavicius

24 25



2.ContextThe concept of South-South cooperation

was conceived as an alternative to traditional

North-South development cooperation. Today,

it is recognized that both streams of devel-

opment cooperation complement each other.

Moreover, as more and former recipients of as-

sistance become donors themselves, the glob-

al development cooperation landscape contin-

ues evolving profoundly. The former divisions

of South versus North, or DAC members ver-

sus non-DAC providers of development coop-

eration,22 are to some extent no longer valid

and have become less pronounced. Among

the countries covered by this report, some

are European Union Member States, some

are DAC members, and some are members of

the Group of 77 (G-77). However, this report

focuses on the substance of the cooperation,

including knowledge and expertise-sharing,

rather than on the formal political or financ-

ing frameworks to which it belongs. For ex-

ample, the report presents several cases of

knowledge-sharing programmes and facilities

supported by new European Union Member

States, now members of the DAC. Such pro-

grammes and facilities are part of the ODA of

these countries but not necessarily perceived

or formally registered as South-South coop-

eration. Nonetheless, they share many of the

characteristics of South-South cooperation,

i.e. they are demand-driven, they are based

on peer-to-peer mutual learning and they are

knowledge-intensive, without significant re-

source transfer.

While membership affiliations and aspirations

may be different, the ECIS countries are bound

together by similar transition experiences and

comparable development challenges. The

countries also share similar socio-cultural, re-

ligious, linguistic, historical and/or political

characteristics that support useful sharing of

investment, resources and expertise (UNOSSC,

2015b). In order to better understand the dy-

namics and the potential of South-South coop-

eration, it is necessary to reflect on the broader

context presented by the new global develop-

ment framework, the uniqueness of the region

and its specific development priorities.

South-South cooperation plays an important

role in the implementation of the 2030 Agen-

da for Sustainable Development. Adopted in

September 2015, the 2030 Agenda represents

the new global development framework.23 Ex-

tensive global and country-level consultations

were organized to identify the elements for

the new goals. In contrast to the MDGs, the

new development agenda is broader and more

comprehensive, including issues such as re-

sponsible consumption, inequality and climate

action. The SDG agenda concerns developing

and developed countries alike, weakening the

separation between the two that has been

prevalent in the development discourse for so

long.

2.1 The Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) as the new global development framework

20 The OECD DAC brings together 29 countries and the European Union. In 2013, four providers of development cooperation from the region joined the DAC (The Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia), and in 2016, Hungary also joined the DAC.21 United Nations, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1).

The Global Goals for Sustainable Development

The 17 SDGs (see figure) have 169 targets and 231 associated indicators. They aim at tackling

key barriers to sustainable development such as inequality, unsustainable consumption and pro-

duction patterns, and lack of decent jobs. The SDGs are universal in nature, which means that all

United Nations Member States have committed to working towards them at home and abroad.

Likewise, all United Nations Member States signatories will be assessed on their progress towards

achieving the SDGs. Regional groupings, such as the European Union or the Group of 20 (G-20),

are in the process of providing further guidance to their members to translate the SDGs into their

specific context and to help to implement them at the national level (e.g., Niestroy, 2016). SDG 17

is dedicated specifically to partnerships for the Goals, underlining that the sustainable develop-

ment agenda can be achieved only through concerted efforts among all stakeholders.

Azerbaijani youth discuss their priorities for the global post-2015 development agenda.

Source: United Nations Department of Public Information, Azerbaijan.

26 27



2.2 The ECIS region The Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS) region is characterized by

complex interconnections and interdependencies. This report covers 31 countries and territories

that are part of the ECIS region.24 The geographical area covered by this report consists of several

subregions that are based on shared history, cultural ties and geography: South-Eastern Europe,25

Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, the Western CIS26 and Central Asia. There are also groups

within subregions, such as the Visegrad Group (V4)27 and the Baltic States.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc have shaped the east-

ern part of the region in fundamental ways. Over the last twenty years, all 31 countries and terri-

tories have undergone political, economic and social transformation processes. Except for Cyprus

and Turkey, this included moving from a planned economy to a free market economy. Today all of

them are in middle-income categories with an average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita

of $8,532 (2015).28 More recently, several countries in the region have been hard hit by the recent

economic crises and by the fall in the price of oil, resulting in decreased earnings for oil-producing

countries and decreased remittance flows for others.

The transition economies of Europe and the CIS have made significant progress in achieving

MDGs in almost every area (UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2015a). According to the Human Develop-

ment Report 2015 (UNDP, 2015), the following 10 countries have “very high human development”:

Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slo-

venia. Fifteen countries have achieved “high human development” (Armenia, Albania, Azerbaijan,

Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Romania, the Rus-

sian Federation, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine), and five

countries are in the “medium human development” category (Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Mol-

24 For a list of the countries and territories, see footnote 13. 25 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.26 The CIS brings together a group of successor countries of the former Soviet Union. It includes all former Soviet republics except for the Baltic States, which are now European Union members, and Georgia. The Western CIS subgroup consists of Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.27 The Visegrad Group comprises The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. 28 Calculations based on 2015 World Bank data.

29 Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey are candidate countries for European Union accession. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine are members of the Eastern Partnership.30 http://www.turkkon.org/Assets/dokuman/INFORMATION_NOTE.pdf.

dova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan),

yet the UNDP Regional Human Development

Report 2016 finds that progress is at risk. While

the middle class has been growing, countries

in the region are facing threats to their human

development gains due to the increasing diffi-

culty in finding good jobs, rising inequality, ex-

clusion, declining natural resources and unre-

solved governance challenges (UNDP, 2016a).

Each subregion has specific and evolving goals

for regional cooperation, which provide strong

incentives for joint action. For example, the

large flows of migrants fleeing from conflicts

and poverty have tested several Balkan coun-

tries and shown the urgent need for regional

policies, joint action and coordination while fo-

cusing on the overall goals of European Union

accession. The Central Asian States, on the

other hand, face particular challenges given

their landlocked geographical position, limiting

mutual trade as well as access to global mar-

kets.

The ECIS countries strongly depend on one

another in a number of key sectors such as wa-

ter management, transport and energy. Some

of the countries are rich in resources such as

hydrocarbons and metals, for example Azer-

baijan, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation,

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Other countries

have considerable potential for renewable en-

ergy, such as Georgia with the world’s sec-

ond-largest hydro resources per capita and Ta-

jikistan, and may become substantial providers

of green electricity for the region.

The ECIS region is also characterized by a large

number of regional groupings and organiza-

tions (see box 3), some of which are able to

shape development agendas for entire subre-

gions, such as the European Union with its ac-

cession and neighbourhood policies. Today, 12

out of the 28 European Union Member States

are in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe (Bul-

garia, Croatia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ro-

mania, Slovakia and Slovenia). Several regional

cooperation frameworks, such as the Region-

al Cooperation Council (RCC) and the South-

East European Cooperation Process, support

regional integration, European Union integra-

tion, good governance and economic growth

in the Balkans. Some countries have geared

their foreign and domestic policies towards

European integration.29 Others are considering

Eurasian integration as an alternative, with the

EAEU formally created in 2015 and now bring-

ing together five countries (Armenia, Belarus,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Fed-

eration).

New organizations and groupings have ap-

peared, pointing to new and/or revived alli-

ances in the region. Among the more recently

founded organizations is the Turkic Council.30

Established in 2009, the Turkic Council is an

intergovernmental organization whose over-

arching aim is to promote comprehensive

cooperation among Turkic-speaking States.

Currently, it brings together Azerbaijan, Ka-

zakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey to foster co-

operation based on cultural and language ties.

Some regional groupings have also established

dedicated development banks and funding fa-

cilities for promoting cooperation among the

partner countries (see box 3). In general, re-

gional groupings provide platforms and space

for countries to discuss common challenges

and identify and target common and national

interests; they establish relatively strong coor-

dination mechanisms by areas of cooperation

and are able to pool resources for implement-

ing regional projects (UNOSSC, 2015b).

Mechanisms of South-South and triangular

cooperation have been recognized and high-

lighted under the new development frame-

work. The 2030 Agenda calls for “enhanc[ing]

North-South, South-South and triangular re-

gional and international cooperation on and

access to science, technology and innovation

and enhanc[ing] knowledge sharing on mutu-

ally agreed terms, including through improved

coordination among existing mechanisms,

in particular at the United Nations level, and

through a global technology facilitation mech-

anism” (United Nations, 2015b, para 17.6). It

also promotes strengthened “international

support for implementing effective and tar-

geted capacity-building in developing coun-

tries to support national plans to implement all

the Sustainable Development Goals, including

through North-South, South-South and trian-

gular cooperation” (ibid., para 17.9).

28 29



At the same time, the global development land-

scape is undergoing tectonic shifts due to the

rise of new actors, new approaches and new

development challenges. These fundamental

transformation processes are particularly rele-

vant to the ECIS region. As one consequence,

the donor landscape in the region has changed

substantially. Many traditional donors have left

the region or downsized their engagement, fo-

cusing increasingly on least developed coun-

tries and/or downsizing their partner-country

portfolio as a general policy (see table 2). As a

notable exception, the European Union contin-

ues to provide substantial amounts of financial

and technical support to all the countries in the

region, including European Union accession,

European Union Neighbourhood and Central

Asian countries.31

Table 2: Selected traditional donors and their bilateral engagement in the ECIS region 32

Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC; 1992)

BRICS

Central European Initiative (CEI; 1989)

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS; 1991)

Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA; 1999)

Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States (Turkic Council; 2009)

Council of Europe (COE; 1949)

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE; 1947)

Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO; 1985)

Energy Community (2005)

Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU; 2015)

European Union (1993)

Group of 77 (G-77; 1964)

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM; 1961)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; 1961)

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC; 1969)

Organization for Democracy and Economic Development–GUAM (GUAM; 2001)

Regional Cooperation Council (RCC; 2008, succeeding the Stability Pact for South-Eastern

Europe)

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO; 2001)

South-East European Cooperation Process (SEECP; 1996)

Development banks:

Asian Development Bank (AsDB; 1966)

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB; 2015)

Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB; 1997)

ECO Trade and Development Bank (2005)

Eurasian Development Bank (EDB; 2006)

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD; 1991)

European Investment Bank (EIB; 1958)

Islamic Development Bank (IsDB; 1974)

New Development Bank (NDB; 2015),

Special funds:

CEI Cooperation Fund

Eurasian Fund for Stabilization and Development (2009)

Box 3: Key regional groupings and organizations with ECIS-country members

Key regional groupings and organizations with ECIS-countries members

Regional organizations and groupings with regional relevance:

Country Partner countries(as of 2006)

Partner countriesor territories (as of 2006)

Austria

Germany

Japan

United Kingdom of Great Britainand NorthernIreland

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Kosovo,33 Republic of Moldova

Albania, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Repub-lic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Repub-lic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Uzbekistan

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Sweden

Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine

Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herze-govina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine

Kyrgyzstan, TajikistanAlbania, Armenia, Bosnia, Georgia, Kyrgyz-stan, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan,

Ukraine

31 In 2015, development cooperation flows to the Republic of Moldova fell by 26.7 per cent compared to those in 2014, following the suspen-sion of budget support programmes from the European Union and the World Bank.32 Based on information gathered from official websites (www.entwicklung.at, www.bmz.de, www.jica.go.jp, www.norad.no, www.sida.se and www.gov.uk). The 2006 data were taken from the respective annual reports. Data for JICA are from 2008, and data for Germany were derived from the OECD DAC Peer Review of Germany in 2006. Countries may provide bilateral support through other channels, e.g., the Norwegian Mission of Rule of Law Advisers to Moldova implemented by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.33 As noted earlier, all references to Kosovo in this report should be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council resolu-tion 1244 (1999).

30 31



34 In the period 2002-2014, Tajikistan received 42.4 per cent of its development cooperation from Southern partners. The contribution of China made up 85.2 per cent of this amount, followed by that of Kuwait at 4.6 per cent and that of Saudi Arabia at 4.4 per cent (UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2015b). 35 UNDP has set up trust funds or similar cooperation programmes with some of the (re-)emerging donors in the ECIS region. They are The Czech Republic, Hungary (until 2013), Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Turkey. These funds or programmes are financed mainly by the respective Governments but UNDP is responsible for the management of resources and the implementation of specific projects at the country or regional level.36 Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined the European Union in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania became members in 2007, and Croatia joined in 2013.37 Kazakhstan has adopted its law on ODA in 2014.

Other countries have become funding part-

ners and have started to provide support to

the region, in particular Arab countries, China,

the Russian Federation and Turkey.34 China

and the Republic of Korea have emerged as

key partners in Central Asia, which illustrates

vital interregional aspects of South-South and

triangular cooperation. China, in particular, is

shaping the region through its foreign policy

initiatives, especially the “One Belt, One Road”

initiative of 2013 to revive the ancient Silk

Road, and it has become a major development

actor (e.g., Szczudlik-Tatar, 2013; Zimmermann,

2015). In Tajikistan, for example, China contrib-

uted 85.2 per cent of the total amount for de-

velopment cooperation received by Southern

partners (UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2015b).

Several countries in the region have also (re )

emerged as providers of development coop-

eration. Turkey started to provide systematic

development cooperation in the mid-1980s.

Since then, it has been rapidly expanding its

development cooperation activities through

the creation of the Turkish Cooperation and

Coordination Agency (TIKA; formerly the Turk-

ish Cooperation and Development Agency) in

1992. In 2015, the ODA portfolio of Turkey was

equivalent to $3.919 billion. The Russian Feder-

ation has also emerged as a provider country,

among others within the context of the G-20

(and, until 2014, the Group of Eight), at the re-

gional level through a number of Eurasian in-

stitutions and through significant development

aid (both bilateral and multilateral) to specific

countries of the region.35

As part of their European Union accession,

new European Union member States have con-

solidated or started development cooperation

(Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, The Czech Repub-

lic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,

Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia).36 Some can-

didate countries for European Union accession

have taken steps to develop their ODA policies

(e.g., Montenegro) or have already established

themselves as providers of development coop-

eration (e.g., Turkey). More recently, Azerbaijan

and Kazakhstan37 have established themselves

as providers and funding partners of other de-

veloping and transition economies.

In addition, non-state actors have stepped up

to support countries in the region on their de-

velopment paths. These include vertical funds,

such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tu-

berculosis and Malaria, as well as foundations,

such as the Aga Khan Foundation/Aga Khan

Development Network, the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation and the Open Society Founda-

tions, all active in the region. Non-state actors

often focus on thematic niche areas respond-

ing to particular development needs. The Open

Society Foundations, for example, have estab-

lished a dedicated initiative to promote equal

opportunities for Roma in Europe. The Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation, on the other hand,

focuses its work on public health and advo-

cates for European partners to maintain their

international development support.

38 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine (2015 data; available from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW). According to the World Bank, the combined population growth rate of Europe and Central Asia was 0.2 per cent in 2015. Considerable population growth is projected for Central Asian countries, exacerbating the pressure on local labour markets.39 Community and family structures have also been strained by permanent emigration and seasonal migration.40 Tajikistan is the world’s most remittance-dependent country, with remittances comprising 36.6 per cent and 28.8 per cent of its GDP in 2014 and 2015, respectively (World Bank).

While considerable progress in achieving the

MDGs has been made by countries in Europe

and the CIS, considerable disparities in the re-

gion persist and new development challenges

have arisen. The Regional Human Development

Report 2016 (UNDP, 2016) sees human devel-

opment progress at risk and draws attention

to the persistent lack of good jobs, increasing

social exclusion and substantial governance

issues remaining, among others. This chapter

highlights some of the main trends that have

manifested themselves in the region. As will

become clear in chapter 3, there is a strong

link between the development priorities of

the region and thematic priorities addressed

through South-South cooperation.

Overall, the region is facing demographic pres-

sure. Fifteen out of the 31 ECIS countries and

territories show negative population growth.38

Decreasing fertility rates, emigration and con-

flict are major reasons for this. It is estimated

that almost 20 million people have left Eastern

Europe over the last 25 years in search of better

professional opportunities mainly in Western

Europe (IMF, 2016). While benefiting the indi-

vidual migrant, recent research by the Interna-

tional Monetary Fund (IMF) indicates that emi-

gration flows have slowed economic growth in

the countries of origin despite the positive ef-

fect of remittances on consumption.39 Return

migration has been very limited, and migration

is likely to continue. A recent study found that

45.5 per cent of young people in South-East-

ern Europe are considering emigration (Taleski

and Hoppe, 2015). Similar migration patterns

can be observed in the ECIS region, making la-

bour migration and social protection for labour

migrants key policy priorities.40

2.3 Development priorities in the ECIS region

Source: UNDP Kosovo* / Arben Llapashtica

32 33



The ECIS region must, therefore, boost job

creation and work towards a more attractive

investment environment. This will also help to

attract skilled migrants from other regions or

returnees, who bring technical know-how and

business contacts. Resource-rich countries

need to continue their efforts to diversify their

economies. As the recent drop in petroleum

prices has shown, their economies and citi-

zens have suffered greatly given the large de-

pendence on hydrocarbons. In addition, other

countries in the region have been affected by

spill-over effects, such as a lower level of re-

mittances.

While many countries in the region have seen

an impressive improvement in issues related to

the rule of law, significant challenges remain in

this area. A specific concern is the continued

high degree of corruption in some countries

and subregions. While several countries have

made significant progress in their anti-corrup-

tion efforts (e.g., Transparency International’s

Corruption Perceptions Index, World Bank,

2012), corruption continues to undermine eco-

nomic development and to take a heavy toll

on the life of citizens and the quality of public

services. The issue of high out-of-pocket pay-

ments for health care is also of concern: many

citizens are forced to make informal payments

to access medical assistance.

Energy is another development priority shared

across the region. Some of the countries are

rich in hydrocarbons. Others have substantial

potential with regard to renewable energy. En-

ergy transport networks and energy efficiency

need to be further improved. In Central Asia,

land and water management are closely inter-

connected. Taking into account the increasing

competition for transboundary water resourc-

es, collective action is needed at the region-

al level. Cross-boundary water management

remains a high priority for the countries, and

attention is given particularly to prevention of

conflicts in water distribution.

Some parts of the ECIS region suffer from

transport isolation. Improving road infrastruc-

ture is a specific development priority for the

landlocked Central Asian countries to improve

their linkage to regional and global markets.

For example, the export of agricultural produce

is dependent on well-functioning road and rail

infrastructure. Agriculture is an economic pillar

for many countries in the region and provides

employment to large parts of the population.

For example, agriculture is the second-largest

sector of the economy in Tajikistan. Investment

in transport and agriculture combined can

therefore lead to increased productivity, create

jobs and ensure food security.

Energy is another development priority shared

across the region. Some of the countries are

rich in hydrocarbons. Others have substantial

potential with regard to renewable energy. En-

ergy transport networks and energy efficiency

need to be further improved. In Central Asia,

land and water management are closely inter-

connected. Taking into account the increasing

competition for transboundary water resourc-

es, collective action is needed at the region-

al level. Cross-boundary water management

remains a high priority for the countries, and

attention is given particularly to prevention of

conflicts in water distribution. Some parts of

the ECIS region suffer from transport isolation.

Improving road infrastructure is a specific de-

velopment priority for the landlocked Central

Asian countries to improve their linkage to re-

gional and global markets. For example, the

export of agricultural produce is dependent

on well-functioning road and rail infrastructure.

Moreover, the region is facing serious environ-

mental threats in the form of natural disasters

or as a consequence of human action, includ-

ing climate change. Several ECIS countries

have inherited environmental issues from Sovi-

et times. For example, the Aral Sea, located be-

tween Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, has shrunk

drastically since the 1950s owing to attempts

to increase cotton production and the result-

ing need for more water. This has changed the

climate in the region, drastically reduced biodi-

versity and caused serious health problems for

the population. Other environmental threats

include earthquakes, landslides and flooding.

In Central Asia and the South Caucasus, land

degradation and desertification threaten the

livelihoods of people and animals. Many of

these incidents are cross-boundary in nature,

requiring joint efforts among countries (UN-

OSSC, 2015b; FAO/ECFS, 2016).

Finally, the ECIS region has been negatively im-

pacted by past and ongoing conflicts, which

have created human suffering, uprooted peo-

ple and destroyed valuable development gains.

Supporting conflict-sensitive development as

well as confidence- and peace-building efforts

will remain an important development priority

for many countries in the region and/or subre-

gions affected.

Agriculture is an economic pillar for many countries in the region and provides employment to

large parts of the population. For example, agriculture is the second-largest sector of the econo-

my in Tajikistan. Investment in transport and agriculture combined can therefore lead to increased

productivity, create jobs and ensure food security.

Countries in the region share knowledge to reduce consumption of electrical and thermal energy and associated greenhouse gas emissions in

residential buildings. Source: UNDP Armenia.

Source: UNDP in Turkmenistan / Claire Ladavicius

36 37



3. The South-South and triangular cooperation landscape

South-South cooperation has made a notice-

able contribution to the sustainable human de-

velopment of the region. It has led to increased

institutional and technical capacities at various

levels of government, civil society and the pri-

vate sector. It has also helped countries of the

region to jointly tackle specific thematic prior-

ities, such as child protection (see box 4) or

mine action. Section 3.1 looks at thematic pri-

orities and dimensions of South-South cooper-

ation, including examples of subregional differ-

ences and priorities. It presents an aggregated

picture of South-South cooperation demand

and supply by thematic area and SDG; modal-

ities for knowledge-sharing in the ECIS region;

and facilitators for cooperation. Section 3.2 fo-

cuses on four possible models for analysis of

South-South cooperation in the ECIS region.

The tentative models have been derived from

survey results, national stocktaking exercis-

es, annual reports of United Nations Resident

Coordinators and desktop research to help to

identify specific lessons learned or enabling

factors for South-South cooperation. Challeng-

es to South-South cooperation are the subject

of Section 3.3.

Civil society can make vital contributions to advancing specific development is-

sues at the regional level. A powerful example is ChildPact, a network of nation-

al coalitions that brings together more than 600 child-focused NGOs. Mem-

bers come from 10 different countries and territories from Eastern Europe, the

Balkans and the South Caucasus: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Romania

and Serbia. Together they work with more than 500,000 vulnerable children.

ChildPact promotes regional cooperation through all its projects. To create a common

understanding of current practices and challenges, it has developed the Child Pro-

tection Index together with World Vision International. The Child Protection Index is

a comparative policy tool that measures a country’s current child protection system

against a common set of indicators. It serves as an evidence-based tool for cooper-

ation, creating a regional learning platform. To date, the Child Protection Index has

been piloted in 9 countries through the work of more than 70 experts, the use of more

than 600 indicators and the issuance of more than 100 policy recommendations.

ChildPact: How NGOs use South-South cooperation to create better lives for children

There is a wealth of practices and formats for South-South cooperation and triangular cooper-

ation in the ECIS region. In general, South-South cooperation tends to be more technical and

ad hoc in this region compared to other regions.41 It is characterized by high levels of national

ownership, with many initiatives arising from real-time demand expressed by countries and op-

portunities for matching supply and demand. Knowledge-sharing is at the centre of most of the

South-South cooperation activities in the region, often taking the form of technical cooperation.

Countries may choose to work together on non-sensitive technical issues, which are particularly

well-suited to uniting different actors and to accelerating progress in the implementation phase.

In addition, large joint infrastructure investments are shaping the region (for example, the Trans-

port Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA), the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, and the railway

corridor “Silk Railway”).

According to UNDP analyses, the majority of South-South and triangular cooperation initia-

tives have focused on country-to-country exchanges on specific thematic issues. These coun-

try-to-country exchanges can be divided into three key types (UNOSSC, 2015b, adapted):

- bilateral/government-driven: initiatives where direct contact is established between line minis-

tries or bilateral commissions from two or more countries;

- driven by the partners offering financial support and/or recent transition expertise: initiatives

as part of assistance for the new European Union member States or other forms of regional and

subregional exchange schemes, such as within the various European Union-supported thematic

networks, South-South/triangular initiatives sponsored by bilateral funding partners (e.g., the De-

partment for International Development (DFID), the German Agency for International Develop-

ment (GIZ) and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad)) and foundations

(e.g., the Robert Bosch Foundation); and

- initiatives driven by international organizations: initiatives facilitated by UNDP country offices,

other United Nations agencies, the World Bank and other international organizations. These orga-

nizations may also be part of specific triangular initiatives sponsored by bilateral partners.

Based on the review of the survey undertaken for this report (see p. 17)42 and the national stock-

taking exercises undertaken by UNOSSC in Kyrgyzstan (2015), Tajikistan (2015), the Republic of

Moldova (2016) and Azerbaijan (2016),43 it can be observed that the thematic areas are closely

intertwined with the development trajectories of the subregions. This leads to marked country

and subregional differences in the supply of and demand for knowledge and support. For exam-

ple, countries from Eastern Europe and the Balkans can offer experience-sharing in the following

areas:

3.1 Overview

41 In the ECIS region, both budgets and project durations indicate an overall tendency towards ad hoc activities and more in-kind than financial contributions. Every second project submitted in response to the March 2016 survey had a budget of less than $50,000. The average duration of projects was 25 months. For examples from Latin America and Asia, see Vazquez (2013).42 The written survey was conducted in March 2016 with the support of UNOSSC and UNDP. It produced information on 34 relevant projects for further analysis.43 The objective of these exercises was to identify national best practices and challenges related to South-South cooperation. The resulting re-ports are based on desk reviews, consultative meetings and survey questionnaires

38 39



Public administration reform and strengthen-ing of the rule of law. This dimension is among

the areas where South-South cooperation ex-

changes are most active. Specific areas for

cooperation have included: e-services in gov-

ernment and public service delivery (e.g., Azer-

baijan and Turkmenistan, Georgia and Central

Asian States),44 decentralization (e.g., Bosnia

and Herzegovina and Croatia), the Social Cohe-

sion and Reconciliation Index (e.g., Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Cyprus), public service de-

livery and border control and protection (e.g.,

Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, the Tur-

kic Council organizing expert visits to customs

stations of its member States), peer learning

at the level of constitutional courts (e.g., the

Republic of Moldova with Latvia and Lithuania)

and electoral assistance (e.g., the Republic of

Moldova with Romania; see box 5). A notable

long-term knowledge-sharing initiative in pub-

lic finance management reform is the Public

Finance for Development Programme, funded

by the Slovak Ministry of Finance, implement-

ed by UNDP with the technical engagement of

Slovak public finance experts and benefiting

Montenegro and the Republic of Moldova (see

box 6).

In the Southern Caucasus, the following thematic areas have emerged as areas of successful

learning experiences and are already attracting interest from other countries:

Central Asian countries, in contrast, have gained specific experience in the following areas that

can be and/or are already being shared:

Thematic priorities and dimensions, modalities and facilitators of South-South cooperation will

be described in greater detail in the following pages. The examples presented will also be used

to illustrate subregional differences and priorities. Some countries have successfully established

themselves as leaders in certain thematic areas, e.g., the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

in employment programmes in the Balkans and Turkey subregion.

transition to a market economy and rule of law: political transformation (democratization, civil

society and human rights (e.g., The Czech Republic, Poland, Romania) and economic/admin-

istrative transformation (European Union integration and good governance/capacity-building,

e.g., Bulgaria, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia);

economic domain: agriculture, tourism, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) develop-

ment, and environment, with a focus on water and energy; and

social domain: education (vocational, higher and lifelong) and health (health-care services,

sanitation).

public administration reform and rule of law: e-governance, particularly electronization of pub-

lic service delivery (e.g., ASAN Xidmət in Azerbaijan), anti-corruption (e.g., Georgia) and policy

planning (e.g., Georgia);

economic development: business incubators, organic agriculture, agricultural cooperatives,

sustainable energy and energy efficiency (e.g., Georgia) and disaster risk reduction (e.g., Ar-

menia); and

social domain: labour and social protection (e.g., automated pension system in Azerbaijan) and

mine action.

public administration: e-governance (e.g., e-recruitment in Kazakhstan, online involvement of

citizens in decision-making and monitoring of municipal services in Tajikistan);

economic development: mitigating climate change risks for agriculture, sustainable city trans-

port (e.g., Kazakhstan), green indicators (e.g., Kyrgyzstan) and inclusion of the subnational

level; and

social domain: migration protection, mine action and mine risk education (e.g., Tajikistan).

Thematic priorities and dimensions

44 In October 2015, the Turkic Council and UNDP jointly organized the “International Conference on ICT for Development” to spur discussion between senior representatives from Governments, academia and the private sector and to foster regional cooperation on this topic.

From 2011 to 2012, a comprehensive public service initiative was implement-

ed in the Republic of Moldova in cooperation with Romania. The objective

was to transfer experiences and best practices in administrative management

from Iasi County Council in Romania to Moldovan counterparts. As part of

the project, new standards were introduced; an institutional development

plan for Soroca Rayon Council for the period 2010-2015 was developed; and

three new services in the Soroca Rayon Council were created (internal au-

dit, human resource management and project management). Moreover, of-

ficials benefited from tailored workshops. Today the inhabitants of Soroca,

Floresti and Drochia Rayons are receiving improved public services thanks

to this tailor-made initiative between the Republic of Moldova and Romania.

Republic of Moldova: Making publicservices better at the local level


40 41



ECIS countries also share their experience

with other regions. The most notable example

is the Regional Hub of Civil Service in Asta-

na, a joint initiative of the Government of Ka-

zakhstan and UNDP. The Hub is working as a

knowledge-sharing platform, connecting over

30 countries around the world. Established in

2013, it promotes capacity development and

the dissemination of innovative approaches for

civil services in the ECIS region and beyond.

The Hub offers peer-to-peer learning, research

and state-of-the-art virtual services (e.g.,

e-learning, roster of experts) on topics ranging

from anti-corruption and civil service reform to

diplomacy and public service delivery. Knowl-

edge-sharing beyond the ECIS region has also

increased at the bilateral level. Examples in-

clude the former Yugoslav Republic of Mace-

donia, which has supported Mauritius in build-

ing capacities for developing an electronic

single-window system for licences for import,

export and transit of goods and tariff quotas,

and Slovakia working on public financial man-

agement with Cuba. Georgia has hosted study

visits from Columbia, Jamaica and Suriname to

share its experience in e-governance and po-

lice reform. Tajikistan has helped Afghanistan

to demine its borders with Tajikistan from the

Tajik side (UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2015b).

Turkey has provided knowledge to Viet Nam

on social security administration reform, and

Mexico and Romania have worked together

with Tunisia on issues related to electoral man-

agement.

In 2009, the Slovak Ministry of Finance launched the Public Finance for

Development Programme, responding to requests from its partner coun-

tries. The programme aims at sharing information on the successful pub-

lic finance transformation of Slovakia to build the institutional and human

capacities of public finance bodies in partner countries. Montenegro and

the Republic of Moldova have benefited from the programme, and there

are plans to extend assistance to Serbia and Ukraine in the near future.

To further increase flexibility and responsiveness, the pilot Finance for Devel-

opment (FIN4DEV) was introduced in 2015 as an additional tool for knowl-

edge transfer. It provides a dedicated budget line for knowledge exchange

in public finance management and good governance (up to €150,000 per

year). FIN4DEV facilitates both ad hoc, on-off actions and long-term tech-

nical assistance on topics related to public finance (e.g., fight against tax

evasion and fraud, and information technology systems for state reporting).

Slovakia’s flagship initiative: The Public Finance for Development Programme

An illustrative example of how countries have

come together to tackle common challenges

via a more institutionalized approach is the Al-

maty Process, a regional dialogue between Af-

ghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Tajikistan, Turkey and Turkmenistan, to work on

issues related to migration and refugee pro-tection. Within the framework of the Almaty

Process, the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has or-

ganized meetings for technical experts to de-

velop “regional guidelines on how to identify

and refer refugees and asylum-seekers at the

borders of Central Asia” with the participation

of officials from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ta-

jikistan and Turkmenistan. An expert from the

State Border Committee of the Republic of Be-

larus has supported the drafting process.

Almaty Process, Technical Experts Meeting, Almaty, June 2016.

Source: UNHCR, Kazakhstan.

44 In October 2015, the Turkic Council and UNDP jointly organized the “International Conference on ICT for Development” to spur discussion between senior representatives from Governments, academia and the private sector and to foster regional cooperation on this topic.

45 The candidate countries for European Union accession are currently Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. As a member state of the European Union, Croatia is at present both a recipient and a provider of twinning.46 In the ECIS region, these are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.

Customs authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia share knowledge with their peers from Mauritius.

Source: Customs Administration of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

42 43



New European Union member States offer their transition and pre-accession expertise and pro-

vide some funding for supporting cooperation with Balkan States through bilateral and triangular

agreements. Experiences are shared in areas such as approximation of European Union leg-islation and implementation of European Union regulatory standards, youth, Roma inclusion

and rural development. Support is also provided in the negotiation process and with regard to

programming the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA). In addition, the European Union

has set up an instrument called “twinning” to encourage institutional cooperation between its

member States and partner countries. Eligible beneficiaries are European Union candidate coun-

tries45 and members of the European Neighbourhood Policy.46

Economic development dimension. More quality jobs are urgently needed in the ECIS region

to foster economic growth, counteract emigration and address acute regional disparities. This

is the reason that economic development has emerged as another priority thematic area for

South-South cooperation. Countries have shared their experiences of employment programmes,

business incubators, diaspora engagement for economic development, SME development and

tourism development. Recent examples, supported by UNDP as a facilitator, include cooperation

between Ukraine and Poland to stimulate the creation and growth of SMEs in three rural Ukrainian

territories affected by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and cooperation between Bosnia and Her-

zegovina and Albania to stimulate innovation in business development.

Given the strong agricultural base in many countries of the region, one focus has been mutual

learning with regard to increasing the productivity of the agricultural sector and investments

in the agricultural value chains. The Afghanistan-Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan Tripartite47 Consortium

brings together leaders from the public and private sectors and civil society to support invest-

ment in agro-food industries and foster increased involvement of rural producers in the regional

agro-food value chains in the Consortium countries.

47 Supported by the UNDP Istanbul International Centre for Private Sector in Development (IICPSD) and TIKA

Other examples are Tajikistan sharing its expe-

rience in horticultural practices with Kyrgyz-

stan to bolster its competitiveness on interna-

tional markets and Turkey offering to share its

own experience with Tajikistan on post-World

Trade Organization (WTO) accession program-

ming. At the same time, the Russian Federa-

tion has been providing systematic support to

Armenia and Kyrgyzstan in various areas re-

lated to sanitary, phytosanitary and veterinary

standards as part of the broader roadmap of

the accession of these countries to the EAEU.

The Russian Federation has also been provid-

ing advisory support to Armenia, Kyrgyzstan

and Tajikistan in the field of school feeding and

nutrition more generally as part of its growing

partnership with the World Food Programme.

Environmental dimension. To address envi-

ronmental development priorities, countries

have established regional consultation plat-

forms (e.g., in the Balkans) as well as exchang-

es on sustainable energy solutions (e.g., Cro-

atia and Tajikistan; see boxes 7, 8),48 energy

management information systems (e.g., Cro-

atia and Romania) and disaster risk reduc-

tion (e.g., Armenia and Kyrgyzstan). Other

concrete initiatives include integrated water

resources management (e.g., in the extended

Drin River Basin), energy efficiency in buildings

(e.g., Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and

Uzbekistan), the tackling of climate change

risks to the farming system in Turkmenistan at

the national and local levels (e.g., Kazakhstan

and Turkmenistan) and the sharing of exper-

tise on issues related to climate change (e.g.,

The Czech Republic and Montenegro).

Challenge: Almaty, the former capital of Kazakhstan and the country’s

largest city, is confronted with large amounts of transport-related green-

house gas emissions.

Solution: In 2011, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided funding

for the pilot project “City of Almaty Sustainable Transport” (CAST). The

objective of CAST was to develop a sustainable transport strategy, deliv-

er pilots in public transport and enhance the national partners’ capacity

in urban transport management. Similar transport projects were started

later in Pakistan and the Russian Federation, and a close liaison between

national counterparts has ensued. The CAST team, for example, contrib-

uted to discussions on the capacity development plans in the Russian

Federation.

Sustainable transport for Almaty: A case for replication through South-South cooperation

48 Facilitated by UNDP.

The “Development of ICT for Outdoor Destinations (DIOD)” project supported the establishment of the two tourism

clusters in Croatia and Montenegro.

Source: UNDP Montenegro.

44 45



Challenge: Rural development in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is hampered by

the low level of both production and availability of technology. Air pollution

and power shortages during the winter add to the hardship of villagers.

Solution: Croatia has substantial technical experience in innovative financ-

ing models, renewable energy services, energy cooperatives and leasing

of small-scale renewable energy systems. In 2014, Croatian experts were

invited to Tajikistan to assess the situation. Agreement was reached on

a package of technical assistance activities. This included a do-it-your-

self solar-thermal-system training course and a study visit by Kyrgyz

and Tajik representatives to Croatia. A local pool of NGOs and compa-

nies specialized in renewable energy business and technologies was es-

tablished. Through the introduction of sustainable energy to rural areas

(green villages), villagers have sustained access to energy, better air

quality and greater potential to generate income for local communities.

Green solutions: From Croatia to Kyrgyzstanand Tajikistan Social dimension. The provision of quality ed-

ucation has been recognized as a driver for the

development of the region. Examples include

the “Western Balkan Rural Extension Network

through Curriculum Reform” project, which

brings together 16 partners from four countries

of the Western Balkans; peacebuilding educa-

tion and global citizenship education in Central

Asia; and vocational training courses in tourism

in Turkic-speaking countries. At the university

level, Kyrgyzstan initiated the establishment of

the Organization for Security and Cooperation

in Europe (OSCE) Academy in Bishkek in 2002.

The OSCE Academy promotes regional coop-

eration through master’s degree programmes

in politics and security as well as economic

governance and development, an annual secu-

rity conference and research activities. At the

cross-regional level, Tajikistan and the Teachers

Training Centre in Afghanistan, with the sup-

port of the Aga Khan Development Network,

have exchanged experiences in the education

sector.

To summarize, table 3 provides an overview

of the substantive areas of demand for and

supply of South-South cooperation. The the-

matic areas have been grouped according to

the corresponding SDG in order to reflect their

contribution to reaching the goals of the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Emergency authorities of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan benefited from the knowledge of the establishment and functioning

of the On-site Operations Coordination Centre transferred by their peers from the Russian Federation in the “Enhancing National Emergency

Response Capacities” project.

Source: Regional Office for the Caucasus and Central Asia (ROCCA) of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

(UNOCHA).

In Central Asia, the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) has supported Kazakhstan, Tajikistan

and Uzbekistan in drafting dam safety legislation and the provision of joint training workshops

(UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2015b). Other countries have implemented innovative systems that

can be of interest to peers in the region and beyond, for example the environmental-economic

accounting system of Kyrgyzstan.

Energy dimension. Similar to environmental issues, energy requires well-thought-through

cross-regional approaches. The Energy Community, for example, established in 2006 as an in-

ternational organization linking the European Union, South-Eastern Europe and the Black Sea

region, works towards creating an integrated energy market, security of supply and enhanced

competition. Countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania and Turkey are involved in diversify-

ing the delivery of hydrocarbons from the Caspian Sea and beyond to European markets. Another

practical example is the Central Asia Energy-Water Development Program (CAEWDP), which

focuses on strengthening energy and water security through national projects and regional activ-

ities. In June 2016, CAEWDP funded a presentation of the results of the Central Asia Knowledge

Network and its Communities of Practice for Water-Energy and Climate Change Management.

46 47



Table 3: Demand for and supply of South-South cooperation, by thematic area and SDG49

49 Based on the Belgrade workshop (UNDP, 2014a), the national stocktaking survey reports from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and Azerbai-

jan (listed in chronological order of the surveys undertaken: UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2015a); UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2015b); UNOSSC/Office of UNRC

(2016a); and UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2016b)) as well as results of the March 2016 survey, available case studies, ROARs, and Marusinec and Ghinea (2012).

The Belgrade workshop brought together participants from 15 UNDP offices: Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Kyrgyz-

stan, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

SDG

No Poverty - Social inclusion- Integration of poverty indicators into national and regional development strategies

Zero hunger - Organic agriculture- Animal breeding

- Organic agriculture- Horticultural production- Animal breeding

Good health and well-being

- HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases

- Reproductive health- Maternal and newborn health- Health-care services- Food safety- Sanitary, phytosanitary and veterinary control

- HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases- Reproductive health- Maternal and newborn health- Health-care services- Food safety- Sanitary, phytosanitary and veterinary control

Demand Supply

1

2

3

Gender Equality

- Women in politics- Solutions to gender-based violence

- Institutionalization of gender equality mechanisms/gender mainstreaming- Solutions to gender-based violence- Women in the police and the military

5

Clean Water andSanitation

- Waste management- Sanitation - Sanitation6

- Sustainable energy solutions- Biomass

- Sustainable energy solutions- Water management- Hydropower

7

QualityEducation

- Curriculum development- Peacebuilding education andglobal citizenship education- Vocational education

- Higher education- Vocational education4

Industry innovation and infrastructure

- Sustainable transport- Green villages- Innovation practices

- Sustainable transport- Green villages - Innovation practices

9

Decent work and economic growth

- Business start-ups- Green jobs- Value chains for employment- Regional development - SME development- Youth employment- Ecotourism

- Business start-ups- SME development- Regional development- Value chains for employment- Integrity/corporate social responsibility (CSR)- Anti-corruption- Business incubators- Youth employment- Tourism development

8

Reducedinequality

- Inclusion of minorities (Roma)- People with disabilities

- Inclusion of minorities (Roma)10

Responsible consumptionand production

12

Life BelowWater - Water management - Water management14

SustainableCities and Communities

- Regional development (addressing acute r egional disparities)- Urban governance- Rural development- Biodegradable waste management

- Urban governance- Rural development11

Climateaction

- Energy management information systems in public buildings- Sustainable energy solutions- Climate risk management- Disaster risk reduction

- Climate risk management and disaster reduction- Energy management information systems in public buildings- Sustainable energy solutions- Disaster risk reduction

13

Life OnLand15

17

Justice, peace and stronginstitutions

- Bridge-builder to regional processes in the wider region (e.g., Heart of Asia Process)- Civil society engagement- Regional statistics- Inter-municipal cooperation

16

- Civil society engagement- Regional statistics- Inter-municipal cooperation

Partnerships for the goals

48 49



Educating teens on the environmental issues in the ”Enabling Transboundary Cooperation and Integrated Water Resources Management in the

Extended Drin River Basin” project.

Source: United Nations Development Programme, Albania.

Different modalities to advance South-South

cooperation in the ECIS region have been cre-

ated, particularly since the mid-2000s, with

varying degrees of institutionalization. Since

the exchange of expertise and experiences

is at the heart of South-South cooperation,

this segment will describe the main modali-

ties used for knowledge-sharing in the region,

which include peer-to-peer networks, knowl-

edge platforms, centres of excellence and de-

mand-based facilities. In addition, countries in

the region have shown a growing interest in

triangular cooperation.

Peer-to-peer networks: Regional organiza-

tions and international financial institutions are

proactively supporting their member countries

to take advantage of the great potential of-

fered by available peer learning. Some of them

have set up tailored mechanisms to promote

and support this kind of learning, also with

non-members or aspiring members. The most

prominent examples of peer-to-peer networks

are the European Union twinning concept and

the reverse linkage mechanism designed by

the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB).

Twinning: In 1998, the European Union intro-

duced the concept of “twinning”. Twinning en-

ables candidate and partner countries to build

their public administration capacities through

partnerships with European Union Member

States. Twinning usually involves the benefi-

ciary administration and one or two member

States providing specific public expertise. It

focuses on the joint European Union-benefi-

ciary country agenda and is conducted on the

understanding that it is a peer-to-peer part-

nership. For example, Bulgaria and Germany

shared their expertise with the State Statisti-

cal Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan

to reach European standards in national ac-

counts, non-observed economy, business sta-

tistics and producer price index.

Reverse linkage: In 2010, IsDB launched a co-

operation modality called “reverse linkage”.

This modality promotes the sharing and scal-

ing up of best practices among the member

States of the Bank. For example, upon request,

Turkey shares its own experiences with the

other member countries within the framework

of its cooper ation with the Bank (UNOSSC,

Modalities

2015b). IsDB has also been a driving force be-

hind specialized regional partnerships, such

as the Alliance to Fight Avoidable Blindness

(IsDB/UNDP/UNOSSC, 2014). The partnership

works to reduce blindness in eight sub-Saha-

ran countries and provides an avenue for new

providers of development cooperation among

its member countries to become engaged and

share their know-how. Azerbaijan, for example,

has joined this partnership and shares its ex-

pertise in ophthalmology.

Knowledge platforms: Regional and inter-

national organizations have created several

knowledge platforms in the ECIS region. The

Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), for

example, has established sectoral knowledge

exchange platforms, special funding facilities

(such as the Tourism Promotion Fund in 2009)

and divisions coordinating implementation

and monitoring of projects within its regional

programme (UNOSSC, 2015b). Moreover, ECO

maintains the ECO Directory of Training Insti-

tutions and the Roster of ECO’s Leading Ex-

perts. Another example is the Statistical, Eco-

nomic and Social Research and Training Centre

for Islamic Countries (SESRIC).50 SESRIC con-

ducts research on socioeconomic issues and

promotes training activities on various issues,

for example through the provision of informa-

tion on training programmes scheduled to be

organized by training institutions in OIC Mem-

ber States.

United Nations organizations have also been

contributing to knowledge platforms in the

ECIS region. Hosted by the Food and Agricul-

ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),

the Agricultural Trade Expert Network in Eu-

rope and Central Asia brings together experts

who conduct research, carry out training pro-

grammes and advise governments and the

private sector on issues related to agricultural

trade and trade policy, including regional and

multilateral trade agreements. With support

from IsDB and UNDP, UNOSSC has launched

a specialized platform mapping development

solutions in the ECIS region and the Arab

States (http://southsouthworld.org).

Centres of excellence: Several countries in the

region have established centres of excellence,

often building on their comparative advantag-

es built up during their transition experience.

An example is the Advisory Committee for

Transitional Processes (also referred to as the

Croatian Centre of Excellence), which transfers

knowledge and experience gained through

Croatia’s process of European Union integra-

tion. In 2009, the Government of Croatia also

initiated the South East European Centre for

Entrepreneurial Learning. The Centre was con-

ceived as a direct response to the interest of

countries in the subregion in establishing a

more structured and strategic approach to life-

long entrepreneurial learning. Eight countries

and territories in South-Eastern Europe are

members of the Centre.51

Other centres of excellence focus on very spe-

cific sectoral issues. These include the Center

of Excellence in Finance in Slovenia and the

International Agricultural Research and Train-

ing Center (IARTC) in Turkey. The Center of

Excellence in Finance specializes in capacity

development for officials from South-East-

ern Europe. Its work is supported by regional

coordinators who help the Center to identify

capacity development priorities in their re-

spective countries and in the region. Based in

Izmir, Turkey, IARTC started its operations in

1996 and works towards the sustainable use

of ecological resources and the production of

high-quality agricultural produce at the nation-

50 SESRIC is a subsidiary organ of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It is based in Ankara and started its operations in 1978. The following coun-

tries included in this report are members of the OIC: Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. 51 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

50 51



The Slovak-UNDP Trust Fund supported the knowledge transfer of Slovak best practices in undertaking intermunicipal cooperation to Montenegro.

Source: UNDP Country Office in Montenegro.

On-demand facility Features

The Centre for Experience Transfer in Integration and Reforms(CETIR), Slovakia

Czech Temporary Expert Assignment

- Funding modality implemented since January 2015, addressed to Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Serbia;- Thematic focus: agriculture, ecology, industry, education, health, good governance with a special emphasis on the Czech experience in European Union legislation approximation and implementation of European Union regulatory standards;- Missions: are carried out by Czech experts (receiving the status of consultants) and can last up to 25 working days.

Czech Expert on Demand

Romanian Mobility Fund for Government Experts

Table 4: On-demand facilities with innovative funding mechanisms

al and international levels. An even older centre of excellence is the OECD Ankara Multilateral Tax

Centre, which was established in 1993 based on a memorandum of understanding between the

Government of Turkey – a founding member of OECD – and OECD. The Centre encourages non-

OECD economies to adopt taxation practices that promote economic growth through the devel-

opment of international trade and investment. Experienced experts and high-level officials from

the OECD Secretariat and member countries, including senior officials from the Turkish Revenue

Administration, share their knowledge through the Centre activities.

More recently, the Russian Federation has spearheaded the Eurasian Center for Food Security

(ECFS) and the Social and Industrial Foodservice Institute (SIFI). The former focuses on develop-

ing knowledge-based responses to food security concerns in Eurasia, while the latter works with

partner countries in the region as well as in North Africa to develop school feeding programmes

(Armenia, Jordan, Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Tunisia). In Central Asia, Kazakhstan de-

cided to focus on civil service reform and launched the Regional Hub of Civil Service in Astana

in 2014, which is led by the Government of Kazakhstan with UNDP as its implementing partner.

On-demand facilities: In order to engage in policy dialogue and share technical expertise, coun-

tries need to have clarity regarding their areas of substantive expertise as well as their pool of

eligible experts. Turkey, for example, has set up a Development Assistance Capacity Programme

(KAP) database, which provides an overview of the training programmes and advisory services

offered by public institutions. The UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub is currently developing an online

database to help countries to identify experts in thematic niches (the Expertise Locator). This

database enables individual countries to map and advertise the technical expertise that they

have acquired during their transition period. Today, the database is already in use in The Czech

Republic, Romania and Slovakia and is in the process of being operationalized and populated in

the Russian Federation.

On-demand facilities often come with innovative funding instruments. Several European coun-

tries have devised new funding instruments to facilitate the transfer of their expertise as part

of their ODA, leveraging their expertise and best practices with very limited financial resources.

These implementation tools are aligned to the respective national legislation and development

cooperation priorities and have proven useful to respond to concrete needs of partner countries

in a speedy, cost-effective manner. Features of four on-demand facilities with innovative funding

mechanisms are summarized in table 4..

52 53



Triangular cooperation: Countries in the ECIS

region have also made use of triangular coop-

eration. Slovakia, for example, has engaged in

triangular cooperation with Austria, Canada

and The Czech Republic. In 2014, Slovakia and

The Czech Republic worked jointly with the

Republic of Moldova to provide education on

water and sanitation issues in schools. Turkey is

also actively engaged in triangular cooperation

(Hausmann, 2014; TIKA Headquarters). For

example, TIKA has worked with the Japan In-

ternational Cooperation Agency (JICA) in the

Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and

Africa in the field of geosciences and industrial

automation technologies. It has also partnered

with IsDB in several African and Asian coun-

tries, e.g., with Burkina Faso on irrigation, with

Bangladesh on the development of cotton

varieties, with Gambia on health, with Ugan-

da on vocational training in Uganda and with

Pakistan on seismology (under the reverse

linkage training programme). Moreover, TIKA

works with the Korea International Coopera-

tion Agency (KOICA) to support countries in

combating human trafficking and with the Sin-

gapore Cooperation Programme to strengthen

water resource management and sustainable

food security. The most recent example of tri-

angular cooperation from the ECIS region is

the partnership between Kazakhstan, Japan

and UNDP aimed at expanding the economic

independence and the rights of women in Af-

ghanistan.

Emerging partners offering development co-

operation contribute with their regional knowl-

edge and stand to benefit from the other

partners’ extended experience in the partner

country, learn from their project management

and receive support in monitoring and evalua-

tion. To be successful, triangular projects must

be based on joint designing of the project, suf-

ficient capacity in the field and sufficient flex-

ibility with regard to financing. On the other

hand, triangular cooperation initiatives where

the contribution of an ECIS country is reduced

to its financial contribution or where one of

the involved partners aggressively promotes

its own agenda are not productive (SAIDC,

2010).52

A summary of the main modalities of South-

South cooperation in the ECIS region is pre-

sented in table 5.

52 A discussion of the experiences of Thailand in trilateral cooperation comes to similar conclusions and highlights the role of regular dialogues among partner countries and ensuring that ownership of the initiative lies with the partner country/ies. Moreover, the focus should be moved from transferring knowledge to sharing knowledge (UNDP, 2014b).

Form ofengagement

Facilitator, partnership builder

Requesting countries:

facilitating,

providing information,

communicating results

Knowledgebroker

Participating countries:

sharing information and knowledge,awareness-raising,

funding

Knowledge

broker, facilitator

Participating countries: sharinginformation, andknowledge, awareness-raising,

funding

Knowledge

supplier, funder

Requesting countries: sharing information,

knowledge and human resources

Knowledge

provider, learning partner, co-funder

Requesting countries: sharinginformation,knowledge and human resources

Institutionali-zation

Highlyinstitutionalized

Early

institutionaliza tionFairlyinstitutionalized

Fairlyinstitutionalized

Low

institutionalization

Mainelements

Policy dialogue,technicalcooperation

Knowledge exchange, matchmaking

Knowledge exchange, capacitydevelopment

Technical cooperation,capacity development

Technicalcooperation,capacitydevelopment

Thematicfocus

European Union integration(capacity build-ing,policy and legal reform in line with the European Unionacquis), health, education, infrastructure

Public administration, economic development, sustainable development, agriculture and others

Great variety (including water, irrigation and economic empowerment of women)

Geographicalfocus

Eastern Europe,South-Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, WesternCIS, Central Asia, cross-regional(Africa, Arab States)

Eastern Europe,South-Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, Western CIS, Central Asia

Eastern Europe,South-Eastern Europe, Western CIS, Central Asia, cross-regional (Africa, Arab States)

Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe,South-Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, Western CIS, Central Asia, cross-regional (Africa, Arab States, Asia,

Latin America)

Main fundingsource

European Union, tripartite (supplying partner, requesting partner and IsDB)

Pooled (EuropeanUnion, internationa organizations, national budgets, private sector, etc.)

Pooled (nationalbudgets, international organizations, private sector, etc.)

Nationalbudgets

National budgets, traditional donors,

international organizations

UnitedNations system support

Advocate,

partnership builder,implementing partner

Advocate,partnership builder, knowledge broker

Advocate,partnership builder, implementing partner

Implementing

partners,

partnership builder

Advocate,

partnership builder, implementing partner

Aspect Peer-to-peer

networks Knowledgeplatforms

Centers ofExcellence

On-demandfacilities

Triangularcooperation

Table 5: Main modalities of South-South cooperation in the ECIS region


54 55



International development banks, regional or-

ganizations and the United Nations system can

serve as important facilitators of cooperation,

which may offer funding as triangular part-

ners, pool and manage the dedicated use of

resources of the countries, and provide advi-

sory and advocacy support to the initiatives of

national, regional and global importance.

The World Bank is an active partner in many

South-South cooperation initiatives in the ECIS

region, including the Migration and Remittance

Peer-Assisted Learning (MiRPAL) network, the

Central Asia Energy-Water Development Pro-

gram (CAEDWP), and Central Asia Regional

One Health (CARE/OH). The international de-

velopment banks also are vital facilitators and

conveners when it comes to South-South co-

operation in support of major infrastructure

projects. A central triangular cooperation ini-

tiative in the region is the Central Asia Regional

Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Programme,

established by the Asian Development Bank

(AsDB) in 1997. CAREC brings together 10

countries (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan,

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and

is supported by five other multilateral institu-

tions (EBRD, IMF, IsDB, UNDP and the World

Bank). Another example is regional infrastruc-

ture projects under the ECO Transit Transport

Framework Agreement, including construction

of a railway with standard gauge from China to

Europe through Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghan-

istan and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Knowledge-sharing is an essential part of these

infrastructure initiatives. As part of CAREC,

the CAREC Institute plays an important role

in facilitating the sharing of knowledge and

expertise among the member countries. The

Institute generates knowledge through target-

ed research and provides relevant training to

all CAREC partners in support of effective re-

gional economic cooperation. The ECO Transit

Transport Framework Agreement is also com-

plemented by tailored training courses on rel-

evant technical topics (e.g., goods transport,

insurance).

The significant role played by the European

Union as a facilitator for regular high-level di-

alogue as well as for targeted technical assis-

tance was highlighted in chapter 1. As an ex-

ample of a relatively new regional organization

with a significant focus on South-South coop-

eration, the Turkic Council carries out a number

of initiatives in areas ranging from tourism to

media, customs and education. As an example,

starting in 2013, the Turkic Council has facili-

tated the organization of training programmes

by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the

Republic of Turkey for tourism-sector employ-

ees of other member States. Through these

programmes, Turkey’s rich know-how and

experience in the tourism sector have been

transferred to other member States. These

vocational training programmes for tourism

employees targeted relevant ministries, tour-

ism associations and education institutions of

three countries – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and

Kyrgyzstan – helping to enhance cooperation

and coordination among them. More than 900

tourism professionals, of whom 50 per cent

were women, participated in the training ses-

sions, developing skills for high-quality hospi-

tality services.

The United Nations system has been promot-

ing and facilitating South-South and triangu-

lar cooperation at different levels (see section

4.3). In addition to capacity development and

matchmaking, the United Nations can advise

countries on potential funding sources and

help to secure funding. In 2015, for example,

UNOSSC, under its partnership initiative with

Facilitatorsthe International Fund for Agricultural Devel-

opment (IFAD), mobilized funding of $200,000

from IsDB for Kyrgyzstan, Sudan, Kazakhstan

(inclusion of the country is subject to the de-

cision of the national counterparts) and Tuni-

sia. These funds enabled the participation of

the four countries in the partnership initiative

“South-South and Triangular Cooperation for

Agricultural Development and Enhanced Food

Security” initially covering Algeria, Hungary,

Morocco, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

A related example is the OPEC Fund for Inter-

national Development (OFID)-UNDP cross-re-

gional small grants competition, which enabled

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from

Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and

North Africa to address shared development

challenges such as affordable energy and wa-

ter as well as economic governance and em-

ployment through South-South cooperation.

More generally, UNDP country offices act as

conveners and facilitators of country-to-coun-

try (the earlier example of exchanges between

Croatia and Tajikistan in the area of energy ef-

ficiency) and multi-country (e.g., the Regional

Hub of Civil Service in Astana) South-South

cooperation initiatives.

The previous chapters have illustrated the great diversity of themes and modalities that underpin

South-South cooperation. While the ECIS region is characterized by the specificities of its subre-

gions, common patterns for South-South cooperation can be observed and inform the formation

of models at the national level (i.e., the individual country engaging in South-South cooperation)

with different degrees of regionality. These models will help to structure the practice of South-

South cooperation by providing a framework for analysis.

The following tentative models (without claiming to be an exhaustive classification) have been

derived from the numerous examples and cases examined from the survey results, national stock-

taking exercises, United Nations Resident Coordinator Annual Reports and further desktop re-

search. They are based on and analysed according to the following six dimensions:

3.2 Models of South-South cooperation

Form of engagement: How does the country engage in South-South cooperation: as a partner

offering support, a partner seeking support or both?

Degree of institutionalization: To what extent are management processes in place and the “do-

mestic policy frameworks, institutional arrangements, and operational tools for development co-

operation (e.g., financial, information and knowledge platforms)” (Vazquez, Mao and Yao, 2016)?

Main modalities: How are South-South cooperation activities delivered (i.e. peer-to-peer net-

works, knowledge platforms, centers of excellence, on-demand facilities, triangular cooperation,

see 3.1.)?

Main elements: What is the content of the cooperation (e.g., technical expertise, policy dialogue)?

Thematic focus: On which thematic areas do South-South cooperation activities concentrate?

Main funding source: Where do the funds come from that make the South-South cooperation

activities possible, e.g., the national budgets, regional organizations or international organizations

and foundations?

United Nations system support: What support has been requested from and provided by the

United Nations system for the cooperation activities, e.g., facilitation, match-making, capacity

development or implementing partner?

56 57



Based on these dimensions, four models can

be identified: (a) the European integration

model; (b) the neighbourhood model; (c) the

Eurasian model type I; and (d) the Eurasian

model type II. The models are not meant as

strict classifications but have been developed

to help to identify specific lessons learned or

enabling factors for South-South cooperation.

Moreover, while reflecting the prevailing polit-

ical and regional cooperation drivers that vary

across different parts of the region, the mod-

els are not meant to indicate the affiliation of

the countries and organizations mentioned to

illustrate them. Neither is the choice of names

for the models in any way a reflection of the

views of UNOSSC or UNDP with regard to any

regional organization, union or grouping.

It should also be noted that there is a certain de-

gree of fluidity among the models, in particular

with regard to the neighbourhood model, the

Eurasian model type I and the Eurasian model

type II. For example, with respect to Kazakh-

stan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbeki-

stan, all three models can be applied depend-

ing on the type of engagement. Depending

on the initiative, they may lean more towards

one model or the other or have characteristics

of different models either on the thematic or

geographical level. An example of the latter

is the Almaty Process, a regional dialogue on

migration and refugee protection between Af-

ghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Tajikistan, Turkey and Turkmenistan. It is based

on cooperation with countries in the immedi-

ate neighbourhood (neighbourhood model)

and simultaneously builds on strong economic

and security interests (Eurasian model type I).

European integration model: The European Union and its enlargement process have set in mo-

tion profound change and reform processes in countries aspiring to European integration. Euro-

pean Union member States offer their pre-accession knowledge to interested countries in the re-

gion and support them on topics as diverse as decentralization, legal approximation and minority

inclusion. As peers, they engage in mutual learning and experience-sharing for mutual benefit. In

addition, the European Union offers specific support to candidate countries and members of the

European Neighbourhood Policy, for example through the twinning instrument.

Neighbourhood model: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey are the prime examples of this model

given the composition of their development cooperation portfolios and choice of partner coun-

tries in the immediate neighbourhood. While the linguistic ties may not be the decisive factor for

cooperation, there are similarities that can be observed with regard to the South-South cooper-

ation engagement of countries falling under this model. These include a strong focus on social

Georgia is among the countries along the historical Silk Road. On 15-16 October 2015,

Georgia hosted the Tbilisi Silk Road Forum, initiated by the Prime Minister of Georgia

and jointly organized by the Governments of Georgia and China. Almost 1,000 rep-

resentatives from more than 30 countries participated in the Forum. It was the first

event in the Belt and Road Initiative held outside China, with co-financing from the

Government of China. The Forum aimed at deepening the cooperation among his-

torical Silk Road route countries in the fields of trade, energy, transport and tourism.

Reviving the Silk Road route

sectors (health and education), humanitarian

assistance and culture.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union,

Turkey established an ambitious development

cooperation portfolio and started to cooperate

intensively with countries in Central Asia, the

Southern Caucasus and the Balkans. The first

programme coordination offices of TIKA were

established in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz-

stan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. In general,

the work of TIKA focuses on education, health,

water supply and sanitation, agriculture and

forestry, urban safety, good governance, pri-

vate-sector development and infrastructure.

Occasionally, TIKA also offers humanitarian

assistance to the partner countries.53 Both

Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan started their de-

velopment cooperation efforts more recent-

ly. Azerbaijan set up the Azerbaijan Interna-

tional Development Agency (AIDA) in 2011.

South-South cooperation is offered mainly in

the fields of health, education and humanitar-

ian affairs. Kazakhstan, which has become the

first country in the CIS region to pass a law on

development cooperation (2014), is in the pro-

cess of setting up its structures for the deliv-

ery of development cooperation. Kazakhstan

aims at working primarily with its Central Asian

neighbours and Afghanistan, where it has re-

cently entered into a triangular cooperation

initiative on women’s economic empowerment

together with JICA and UNDP.

Two distinct models of South-South coopera-

tion can be observed in the Western CIS, the

Southern Caucasus and Central Asia.

Eurasian model type I: The Eurasian model

type I is characterized by its strong economic,

political and security linkages to neighbouring

regions, notably East Asia (China and the Re-

public of Korea) and South Asia (Afghanistan

and Pakistan). Regional organizations based in

neighbouring regions play an important role in

this model, facilitating and promoting cross-re-

gional integration. An illustrative example is

the establishment of the University of Shang-

hai Cooperation Organization (USCO) in 2009

to operate as a network of existing universities

in member States of the Shanghai Cooperation

Organization: China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbeki-

stan) and observer countries (India, the Islamic

Republic of Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan). Ed-

ucation at USCO is based on academic ex-

changes on priority areas of cultural, scientific,

educational and economic cooperation among

member States of the organization, including

regional studies, ecology, energy, information

technology and nanotechnology.

Eurasian model type II: This model is charac-

terized by the presence and profound influ-

ence of intraregional organizations, such as the

EAEU and the Turkic Council, and interregional

organizations, such as BSEC and ECO. These

regional groupings have well-established and

coordinated structures and funding mech-

anisms in place through which they enable

South-South cooperation. Economic develop-

ment, trade and investment promotion are pri-

ority areas for these organizations, which have

become powerful regional players. In addition,

member States of the particular groupings co-

operate on many different issues, ranging from

agriculture and banking to combating crime

and statistics.

Table 6 provides an overview of the main as-

pects of the four models of South-South co-

operation.

53 In the meantime, TIKA has expanded its activities considerably and now has a total of 56 cooperation offices in 54 countries across Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central and South Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and the Pacific.

58 59



Table 6: Main models of South-South cooperation54

54 The analytical approach has been aligned to the one used in the regional report for the Arab States (South-South Cooperation: Towards Sustainable Human Development in the Arab States).

As mentioned earlier, the models are based on

common patterns that were identified through

the mapping process. Although they are not

meant as strict and set classifications, these

models have been designed to stimulate re-

flection and discussion on possible drivers and

opportunities for South-South cooperation.

Countries may also consider transferring suc-

cessful practices from one model to another.

This could be a particular modality, such as

demand-based facilities or engagement with

partners outside the ECIS region.

What makes each model work effectively?

The European integration model is fueled by

the strong pull of European integration and

the presence of well-defined instruments,

such as twinning. The neighbourhood mod-

el, on the other hand, draws its power from a

strong commitment to the immediate neigh-

bourhood, a country’s clear ambition to es-

tablish itself as an active partner in the region,

and the availability of sufficient human and fi-

nancial resources. The Eurasian model type I

builds on the realization that development in

Eurasia hinges on close links with neighbour-

ing regions, notably East Asia and South Asia,

and the existence of engaged partners in these

regions. In contrast, the Eurasian model type

II is driven by the goals set by member States

for regional organizations, underpinned by es-

tablished structures and funding mechanisms.

It is also useful to reflect on the different inputs

required by the four models. In the European

integration model, countries will provide their

own experiences, accumulated during their

political and economic transitions and/or on

their way to seeking increased engagement

with the European Union. This includes public

administration reform and the strengthening of

the rule of law as well as alignment with vari-

ous European Union policies and engagement

in structured negotiation channels. The neigh-

bourhood model requires strong political com-

mitment of national governments to establish

themselves as vital partners in their subregions.

This includes the provision of sufficient human

and financial resources to establish the neces-

sary structures. Countries engaging in the Eur-

asian model type I need to engage proactively

with countries outside the ECIS region and be

open to cross-regional cooperation. For coun-

tries to fully avail themselves of the Eurasian

model type II, active participation in regional

organizations is a prerequisite.

Finally, in terms of benefits, countries contrib-

uting to the European integration model can

expect support in the form of tailor-made tech-

nical cooperation and exchange of experienc-

es, including advice on negotiations with the

European Union. Ultimately, this will foster the

European integration of participating countries

and deepen mutual trust. The neighbourhood

model, on the other hand, provides countries

with increased visibility and engagement at

the regional and global levels. Countries par-

ticipating in the Eurasian model type I benefit

in terms of increased cross-regional coopera-

tion and access to knowledge and resources

outside of the ECIS region. In contrast, the Eur-

asian model type II provides countries with tai-

lor-made technical and financial support that is

particularly relevant for the economic develop-

ment of countries in the subregion.

3.3 Challenges to South-South cooperationSeveral factors undermine the potential of South-South cooperation. Some of them are specific

to the tools used while others are of a more general nature. For example, experience indicates

that countries with an existing policy, a coordination mechanism and resources (including pack-

aged knowledge and expertise, clearly identified needs and some funding to support exchange

with other countries) have proven to be more successful in South-South cooperation than coun-

tries that cooperate on an ad hoc basis (UNOSSC, 2015b).

Form ofengagement

Institutionalization Fairlyinstitutionalized

Fairlyinstitutionalized

Lowinstitutionalization

Highlyinstitutionalized

Main modalities

Peer-to-peer network, knowledge platforms, centres of excellence, on-demand facilities

Peer-to-peer network, centres of excellence, on-demand facilities

Peer-to-peer network

Peer-to-peer network, centres of excellence, knowledge platforms

Main elements Policy dialogue, technical expertise

Technical expertise, infrastructure

Policy dialogue,technical expertise, infrastructure

Policy dialogue, technical expertise

Thematic focus

Rule of law, economic development,political and economic transformation

Health, education, humanitarian assistance, culture, economic development

Economic development, education, environment, transport

Wide variety of technical areas, economic and political cooperation, trade

Geographicalfocus

East Europe, South-Eastern Europe. More recently, also with other ECIS subregions and cross-regional

Central Asia,South Caucasus

Western CIS, Central Asia, South Caucasus, South Asia, East Asia

Western CIS, Central Asia, South Caucasus, South Asia

Main funding source

National budgets, multilateral organizations, bilateral partners

Regional organizations, national budgets, multilateral organizations

United Nationssystem support

Convener, capacity development for emerging providers of development cooperation, capacity development for Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC),funding party

Convener, capacity development for emerging providers of development cooperation, capacity development for EEC, funding party

Convener, capacity development for emerging providers of development cooperation, capacity development for EEC, funding party

Implementingpartner,fundingpartner intriangularinitiatives

Aspect EuropeanIntegrationModel

NeighborhoodModel

EurasianModel Type I

EurasianModel Type II

60 61



Financial resources. Lack of financial resources is often perceived as a major impediment to

fostering South-South cooperation. Indeed, participants in the national stocktaking exercises

conducted in Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan consider the availability and

commitment of financial resources to be the main challenge to South-South cooperation in the

region.36 The donor landscape in the ECIS region has changed considerably over the last decade,

with many traditional donors leaving the region.This, along with efforts to ensure an effective al-

location of domestic resources, has forced many ECIS countries to search for low-cost solutions

and alternative funding sources, whereby resources of emerging funding partners and non-tradi-

tional providers play an increasingly important role.

Strategy and institutional arrangements. National and regional development strategies rarely

include or emphasize South-South cooperation as a tool and approach for achieving develop-

ment priorities. Given the lack of attention to South-South cooperation in such key documents,

the respective policy frameworks and coordination mechanisms do not exist in most countries.

The countries also tend to provide fragmented information on their contributions to South-South

cooperation, making it difficult to compute aggregated statistical information on South-South

cooperation. Under-reporting also happens because there are a lack of clarity regarding the ter-

minology used and a lack of awareness concerning the concept of South-South cooperation.

Building on the existing body of evidence available for this report, the following challenges can be

identified: (a) financial resources; (b) institutional arrangements; (c) strategic vision; (d) human

resources; (e) monitoring and evaluation; (f) awareness and access to information; (g) participa-

tion in global forums; (h) fragmentation; and (i) language barriers. The graph below provides an

overview of the results of two national stocktaking exercises in Central Asia in 2015, which indi-

cate the perceived weight of these challenges in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Sources: UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2015a); UNOSSC/Office of UNRC (2015b).55

55 The stocktaking exercises in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan took place in the fall of 2015. The respective reports are based on the results of the questionnaires as well as consultative meetings.

56 Two out of three respondents in the Republic of Moldova think that the Government commitment through financial or in-kind contributions is a challenge and that this commitment is a prerequisite for engagement in South-South and triangular cooperation (UNOSSC/Office of UNRC, 2016a).

Human resources. The challenges regarding human resources are twofold. On the one hand, it

can be an issue of capacities and knowledge about South-South cooperation. On the other hand,

high levels of fluctuation in personnel in public institutions can hamper follow-up work and the

building of strong institutional links.

Monitoring and evaluation. Given the ad hoc nature of many South-South cooperation activities,

monitoring and evaluation are usually not considered in the planning and implementation phases.

Moreover, countries have found it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and sustain-

ability of expert exchanges and study visits. The lack of solid monitoring frameworks and tailored

monitoring tools makes it difficult to keep track of the achievements of expert missions and to

conduct evaluations later. Measuring, reporting and consolidating information on South-South

cooperation initiatives remain valid challenges for most countries.

Awareness and access to information. A low level of awareness can undermine the reach of

South-South cooperation and related tools. If knowledge about institutional arrangements and

funding modalities for South-South cooperation is limited, the use of these instruments will re-

main at a low level. This points to the need to increase and deepen communication efforts of both

the partner offering support and the partner seeking support, going beyond focal points and

specialized agencies/ministries.

Participation in global forums and mechanisms. To date, the ECIS region often has not been

mentioned or featured when South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation are discussed

at the global level. There is ample room for ECIS countries to share their engagement more prom-

inently. At the same time, international organizations should proactively promote the inclusion

of countries offering and countries interested in South-South cooperation in such forums. This

would also enable countries engaged in South-South cooperation to be able to learn from the

experience and mechanisms used by ECIS countries and vice versa.

Fragmentation. Countries of the region participate concurrently in various regional groupings

that sometimes have similar or overlapping objectives and areas of cooperation. More effective

interaction and allocation of funds could be achieved through avoiding duplication of efforts,

introducing mechanisms for synergy among regional organizations and strengthening the ca-

pacities of regional networks. At the country level, initiatives are often implemented by different

ministries and agencies, with the engagement of other development stakeholders, making infor-

mation collection and coordination difficult in the absence of effective coordination mechanisms.

Civil society organizations are important actors in South-South cooperation; some of the most

successful examples of South-South cooperation were driven by civil society, for example the

Child Protection Index. Therefore, Governments and regional organizations should include civil

society organizations more actively in South-South cooperation and learn from their approaches.

Language barriers. The survey results for Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan in-

dicate that language barriers can impede South-South cooperation. Language appears to be less

of an issue in other subregions and can even be a comparative advantage. For example, cooper-

ation between countries of the Western Balkans as well as between Turkic-speaking countries is

fostered by their linguistic proximity.



Source: UNDP Eurasia / Ljubomir Stefanov

64 65



4. Recommendations: Catalysing South-South cooperationThis chapter offers a set of recommendations for national policymakers on how they can further

scale up their engagement in South-South cooperation by pursuing a more systematic approach

as well as by strengthening coordination and allocation of funds. It presents a menu of options

from which national policymakers can identify what best suits their needs.

The key questions guiding the preparation of this chapter are: what can countries do to acceler-

ate their South-South cooperation so as to pursue their own national development priorities as

well as the regional cooperation, and how can they best prepare their institutions to avail them-

selves of the emerging opportunities? In this context, the increasing regional integration and

emergence of new organizations will greatly affect the modalities for cooperation, resources and

partnerships available for individual Governments. This includes significant potential for mobiliz-

ing financial resources from specialized trust funds and emerging development partners.

Countries in Europe and the CIS have a highly successful track record of mutual knowledge-shar-

ing and cooperation among one another. To take South-South cooperation to a new level in order

to accelerate efforts towards achieving the SDGs, national policymakers may want to consider

the following recommendations to strengthen their institutional foundations for achieving sus-

tainable development.

4.1 Institutional foundations for achieving the SDGs through South-South cooperation

At the national level:

Develop a strategic framework:

- Incorporate South-South cooperation as a tool into the national SDG action plan;

- Develop a position on South-South cooperation and include it in relevant documents, such as a

national development strategy, sectoral strategies and the national SDG action plan;

- Identify and document the country’s specific assets with regard to knowledge and experiences;

and57

- Identify common challenges that may be addressed through South-South cooperation in a thor-

ough manner using solid data.

Build national capacities for South-South cooperation:

- Establish a coordination mechanism based on existing institutional structures, such as a nation-

al South-South coordination authority involving an interministerial working group or an experts

group for thematic priority areas;

- Appoint or strengthen the capacities of a national focal point for South-South cooperation com-

plemented by focal points in sectoral ministries;

57 Indonesia can be considered a noteworthy example in this regard. Technical cooperation is at the heart of its South-South and triangular co-operation. Accordingly, the country has invested significant resources in identifying and codifying the valuable development experiences that it has accumulated over the last few decades. At the same time, Indonesia engages in its development cooperation almost without a regional or specific-country focus (Hosono, 2016).

- Raise awareness of what South-South cooperation is and what it means for the ECIS region

(including the long-standing tradition of South-South cooperation and innovative examples of

South-South cooperation in the ECIS region at present);

- Collect evidence to document why South-South cooperation is a good idea, i.e., document re-

sults and make them available in attractive and engaging formats;

- Ensure that staff members of relevant government institutions have sufficient knowledge and

know-how regarding the available processes and mechanisms related to South-South coopera-

tion and triangular cooperation (e.g., familiarity with the concepts, knowledge of ongoing activi-

ties and information about possible funding mechanisms for South-South cooperation); and

- Take advantage of traditional gatherings (e.g., the annual ambassadors’ conference) to discuss

South-South cooperation, brief diplomats and learn from their feedback.

Build partnerships and become involved:

- Advocate the benefits of and opportunities for South-South cooperation in discussions with

bilateral funding partners and multilateral development banks;

- Be on the look-out for international facilitators who may help to create synergies and leverage

the initiative (e.g., multilateral organizations, bilateral funding partners, funds, private sector);

- Exchange experiences with other countries in the region on established platforms for advancing

South-South cooperation at the national level;

- Participate in regional and global events on South-South cooperation and knowledge-sharing,

showcasing successful South-South cooperation projects and articulating your specific niche;

- Share information on successfully completed, ongoing or planned initiatives on knowledge-shar-

ing and partnership-building platforms;

- Support civil society organizations in institutionalizing their international cooperation; and

- Explore and tap into the potential of cross-regional cooperation (see box 10). 58, 59

At the regional level:

- Advocate for increased coordination of efforts among regional organizations engaged in South-

South cooperation;

- Address and support capacity development needs of regional networks; and

- Seek or intensify collaboration with countries in other regions that share specific challenges or

characteristics, for example exchanges of Central Asian countries with other landlocked develop-

ing countries regarding knowledge, technology transfer, capacity development and peer-to-peer

learning within the framework of the Vienna Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing

Countries.60

58 The examples were drawn from the present report (more examples are listed under “Thematic priorities and dimensions” in section 3.1) and the regional report for the Arab States.59 At the Special Session on Cross-Regional South-South and Triangular Cooperation in the Arab States, Europe and the CIS at the GSSD Expo 2016 in Dubai, several countries expressed their interest in the creation of a cross-regional network involving governments and other stake-holders to share best practices in anti-corruption and integrity issues.60 Lacking access to the sea and often suffering from poor transport infrastructure, landlocked developing countries face severe challenges in developing their economies. The first United Nations conference to discuss these challenges was held in Kazakhstan in 2003. The second United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries took place in Vienna in 2014, resulting in the Vienna Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries.

66 67



As mentioned earlier, South-South cooperation in the ECIS region is characterized by a strong

focus on technical cooperation and knowledge-sharing. Nevertheless, financial resources are

needed to make cooperation happen. The following recommendations can be made to national

policymakers:

Traditional approaches:

- Make use of opportunities provided by existing funding mechanisms, including existing subre-

gional funds such as the International Visegrad Fund (see box 11), dedicated funds at the global

level such as the India, Brazil and South Africa Facility for Poverty and Hunger Alleviation (IBSA

Fund), the Pérez-Guerrero Trust Fund,61 and funds from other regions, such as OFID;

- Capitalize on the funding opportunities arising from the emerging providers of development

cooperation and partnerships in the region and beyond, such as the FAO-China Trust Fund, the

Russian Federation-UNDP Trust Fund for Development, and national development cooperation

agencies from Azerbaijan (AIDA), Kazakhstan (KazAID) and the Russian Federation (Rossotrud-

nichestvo);

4.2 Financing modalities forSouth-South cooperation:Traditional and new approaches

- Mexico and Romania have worked with Tunisia on electoral-body man-

agement.

- SIFI supports partner countries in the region as well as North Africa to

develop school feeding programmes.

- Albania and Tunisia have cooperated on territorial youth employment

pacts.

- The OFID-UNDP cross-regional small grants competition enables NGOs

to address shared development challenges.

- Mahallae, a digital neighbourhood for civic engagement developed by

Cypriot civil society and innovators from the Euro-Mediterranean region,

addresses sexual and gender-based violence.

Cross-regional cooperation: Examples from a promising but largely untapped field

61 This trust fund is open to members of the G-77. In Europe and the CIS, three countries are members of the G-77: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

- Engage with bilateral actors supporting South-South cooperation; and

- Engage with bilateral actors supporting triangular cooperation. A traditional donor may provide

further financial contributions and expertise for a given initiative. A good way to obtain an initial

overview of potential partners is by reviewing documents or websites of the beneficiary country’s

aid coordination mechanism (donor coordination council or similar entity). International organi-

zations can also help to identify relevant bilateral partners in their lines of work. In this context, it

is also useful to know that the European Commission is promoting joint programming among its

member States.

New approaches:

- Allocate some funding to support South-South cooperation, for example in the form of a stand-

alone trust fund or funding mechanism. The fast-response, low-cost mobility funds established by

new European Union member States can serve as useful examples;

- Blend South-South cooperation activities with traditional means of development cooperation,

which presents a promising way to address some of the previously mentioned challenges (e.g.,

financing, fragmentation and awareness);

- Raise awareness and build capacities for South-South cooperation at the level of government,

civil society, academia and the private sector (e.g., share succinct stories about ongoing initia-

tives, and invite officials engaged in such initiatives to share their experiences at relevant events)

to generate interest and potentially attract funding for joint South-South cooperation activities;

- Consider joining regional and global partnerships to advance South-South cooperation;

- Leverage benefits from national funds allocated for South-South cooperation through pooling

resources and coordinated management, such as through the establishment of the ECIS Regional

Funding Facility managed by UNOSSC; and

- Include the private sector more systematically in South-South cooperation based on united

engagement towards the achievement of the SDGs and leverage funding from the private sector

(e.g., matchmaking events).

The purpose of the Fund is to facilitate and promote the devel-opment of closer cooperation among citizens and institutions in the region as well as between the V4 and other countries, especially those of the Western Balkans and Eastern Partnership subregions. The Fund operates several grant programmes and awards scholarships, fellowships and artist residencies. It was founded by the Governments of the V4 countries – The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia – in 2000.

The International Visegrad Fund

68 69



Since the mid-1970s, United Nations Member

States have repeatedly called on the United

Nations system to support and promote South-

South cooperation. The United Nations acts as

a convener/advocate, a knowledge broker, a

partnership builder, an analyst and a progress

monitor regarding global, regional and coun-

try performance in South-South and triangular

cooperation. At the High-level United Nations

Conference on South-South Cooperation in

Nairobi in 2009, the heads of delegations and

high representatives of Governments request-

ed the United Nations to support national and

regional development efforts; strengthen insti-

tutional and technical capacities; improve the

exchange of experience and know-how among

developing countries; respond to the specific

development challenges of developing coun-

tries; and increase the impact of international

cooperation.62

UNOSSC is at the forefront of United Nations

efforts to advance South-South cooperation.

The Office evolved out of a special unit that

was established in 1974 in response to a re-

quest by Member States to promote techni-

cal cooperation among developing countries.

Today UNOSSC acts as a global and United

Nations system-wide South-South advocate,

coordinator and facilitator based on its man-

date and functions as given by the High-lev-

el Committee on South-South Cooperation of

the General Assembly. UNOSSC provides ad-

visory services and supports Governments in

establishing national-level coordination bodies

on South-South and triangular cooperation.

The online South-South Cooperation Portal

(www.SouthSouthWorld.org) developed and

operationalized by UNOSSC with support from

IsDB provides real-time access to development

solutions in the ECIS and Arab States regions

UNOSSC supports capacity development for practitioners of South-South and triangular cooperation through co-organizing peer-learning

training sessions.

Source: UNOSSC.

4.3 Role of the United Nations system in advancing South-South cooperation

62 See Nairobi outcome document of the High-level United Nations Conference on South-South Cooperation (A/RES/64/222). Available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/475/15/pdf/N0947515.pdf?OpenElement. The High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation, a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, is the primary policymaking entity on South-South cooperation in the United Nations system.

With regard to South-South cooperation, United Nations agencies have focused specifically on

the following activities (UNOSSC, 2015b):

- Strengthening the management, institutional, financial and human capacities of emerging pro-

viders of development cooperation to deliver their expertise/resources to their partners within

the framework of South-South cooperation (UNDP);

- Strengthening the capacities of United Nations agencies at the national and regional levels in

the areas related to South-South cooperation (e.g., providing recommendations coming out of

national stocktaking exercises, engaging United Nations country teams in ongoing South-South

cooperation activities and providing support to incorporate South-South cooperation compo-

nents into new projects);

- Facilitating the replication of successful solutions at the community level and supporting joint

research and academic exchanges in specific thematic areas (FAO, IFAD);

- Organizing knowledge-exchange and capacity-building events for government officials, local

communities and academia in various areas of development; and

- Supporting triangularization of cooperation initiatives and playing the role of a funding partner

in triangular cooperation.

The United Nations can also provide funding for South-South cooperation, for example through

the United Nations Fund for South-South Cooperation and the Pérez-Guerrero Trust Fund for

South-South Cooperation as well as the upcoming ECIS Regional Funding Facility (see box 12).

This report offers the following recommendations to the United Nations system with regard to

advancing South-South cooperation:

for advancing South-South cooperation. Other

United Nations bodies provide programmatic,

thematic and/or sectoral support to South-

South cooperation in their respective areas

of competence, coordinated by UNOSSC. For

example, UNDP draws on its global network

of country offices, its convening power and

its technical expertise to support countries in

engaging in peer learning and building nation-

al capacities for increased South-South and

triangular cooperation. With its country and

programmatic reach and resources, UNDP has

become the global operational arm for South-

South and triangular cooperation in the United

Nations development system (United Nations,

2013). Other agencies lead the support of the

United Nations system in promoting South-

South cooperation in their respective sectors,

such as FAO on food security and sustainable

agricultural development, UNCTAD on South-

South trade and investment as well as the pro-

vision of statistics on South-South flows and

cooperation, the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) on environmental issues,

and the United Nations Population Fund (UN-

FPA) on maternal health and youth.

70 71



Capacity development for South-South cooperation:

- Offer targeted support to further strengthen national capacities for South-South cooperation.

This may include support in designing strategies, institutional frameworks, operational proce-

dures, and monitoring and evaluation;

- Support countries in measuring South-South cooperation activities; and

- Build on the solid experiences of ECIS countries in South-South cooperation.

Communication and information:

- Review the current United Nations platforms and information channels with regard to the value

that they create for participating countries, their use and user-friendliness, and consolidate them

accordingly;

- Avoid a proliferation of platforms and invest in a state-of-the-art long-term platform for knowl-

edge exchange that can help to foster knowledge exchange between countries on an ad hoc and

a longer-term basis and link them to relevant social media channels;

- Raise awareness of what South-South cooperation is and what its potential benefits are in dis-

cussions with national partners more broadly (i.e., beyond South-South cooperation focal points

and government institutions working on development cooperation or aid management);

- Intensify efforts to provide support to partner Governments in showcasing good initiatives and

facilitating their participation at global events;

- Generate practical knowledge products beyond specific peer-to-peer exchanges; and

- If requested by Member States, host a regional South-South Development Expo tailored to the

needs of the region, or similar events, to foster informal dialogue.

Resource mobilization:

- Advise countries on funding opportunities from traditional donors, new bilateral sources of de-

velopment cooperation and other multilateral organizations; and

- Scale up efforts to help partner Governments to mobilize third-party resources from traditional

and new sources of development cooperation that support South-South and triangular cooper-

ation.

Reaching out to stakeholders and including the local level:

- Building on the wide United Nations network of partners, help to include NGOs, municipalities

and academia in South-South cooperation, and share innovative practices through them.

Analysis:

- Continue to strengthen the analytical base of South-South cooperation;

- Support national stocktaking exercises for interested countries, such as the ones completed in

Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan; and

- Offer support to follow up on the identified assets and challenges in the particular country

context.

Internal:

- Promote and exemplify a culture shift within United Nations organizations, with United Nations

staff being on the look-out for expertise in other countries in the region and beyond;

- Ensure that United Nations country teams are aware of the mandates given to the United Na-

tions by its Member States requesting United Nations support for South-South and triangular

cooperation;

- Share best practices internally across the United Nations system at the country, regional and

global levels;

- Mainstream South-South cooperation into country office programming as well as regional and

subregional projects and initiatives in a systematic manner, linked to what Governments may be

doing bilaterally; and

- Building on the guidance coming from the South-South and Triangular Cooperation Task Team

of the United Nations Development Group, harmonize and synergize the variety of initiatives

supported by United Nations agencies at the country level by drafting an inclusive inter-agency

strategy at the country level, and provide support in establishing and operating national bodies

in charge of South-South cooperation.

Experts from the Ministry of Agriculture and United Nations agencies in Armenia learn about agricultural cooperative frameworks in Georgia through the European Neighbourhood Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (ENPARD) during their visit in 2015. Source: UNDP Armenia.



Source: UNDP Eurasia / Vladimir Kanve

74 75



Countries in the ECIS region have engaged in-

tensively in South-South cooperation at multiple

levels and on diverse subjects. The cooperation

has focused primarily on mutual learning and the

exchange of experiences among countries that

have similar development priorities and trajecto-

ries. While it shares many principles of traditional

South-South cooperation, it has region-specific

characteristics and is shaped by the uniqueness

of the region. Common challenges, similar experi-

ences and transboundary issues, such as climate

change, energy and environmental issues, have

created great incentives and opportunities for

mutual learning and experience-sharing.

This regional report – the first of its kind – has pre-

sented an analysis of trends in South-South coop-

eration, such as themes and modalities used by

countries in the region. According to the mapping

done as part of the report preparation, South-

South cooperation is delivered mainly through

the following four modalities: (a) peer-to-peer

networks; (b) knowledge platforms; (c) centres

of excellence; and (d) on-demand facilities. More-

over, countries have shown increasing interest in

triangular cooperation, welcoming the significant

engagement of Northern countries and/or mul-

tilateral organizations in Southern-driven initia-

tives. The report has also identified four models of

South-South cooperation based on common pat-

terns and with varying degrees of regionality: (a)

the European integration model; (b) the neigh-

bourhood model; (c) the Eurasian model type I,

reflecting the close ties of the subregion with East

Asia and South Asia; and (d) the Eurasian model

type II, anchored in the strong presence of re-

gional organizations. These models are not meant

as strict classifications but rather as entry points

for a constructive discussion on tangible ways to

further advance South-South cooperation in the

region. Moreover, the impact on Europe and the

CIS stemming from the fundamental shifts in the

global development landscape, particularly the

role of non-state actors, requires further research.

The 2030 Agenda provides a new impetus for

ECIS countries to unite and support one anoth-

er. In this respect, South-South cooperation holds

great potential for jointly advancing the SDGs in

the region at the national and subregional levels.

It is clear that shared development priorities in the

different subregions will continue to shape the

demand for and supply of expertise and experi-

ences across the region. Moreover, in the current

environment of reduced budgets and austerity

measures, countries put a premium on valuable,

low-cost modalities for achieving development

results. This is exactly where South-South and

triangular cooperation comes in. It enables coun-

tries to share proven solutions and experiences at

a reduced cost, fostering regional solidarity and

trust at the same time. Countries in the region

can, therefore, only be encouraged to further ca-

talyse cooperation mechanisms for sustained hu-

man development among themselves and with

countries outside the region.

In order to fully harness the potential of South-

South and triangular cooperation, however, coun-

tries need to tackle a number of challenges at the

policy, institutional and operational levels. These

include issues pertaining to financial resources,

institutional arrangements, strategic vision, hu-

man resources, monitoring and evaluation, aware-

ness and access to information, participation in

global forums, fragmentation and language barri-

ers. Some countries in the region have already de-

veloped innovative solutions that tackle some of

these impediments and lead the way. New fund-

ing opportunities have also arisen with the (re-)

emergence of development cooperation partners

in the region itself. Based on the demand of coun-

tries in the region, the United Nations can be a

vital partner in South-South cooperation and tri-

angular cooperation and provide tailored support

with regard to capacity development, knowledge

brokering and facilitation.

5. Concluding RemarksAtoyen, Ruben et al. (2016). Emigration and its economic impact on Eastern Europe. IMF Staff Discussion Note No. 16/7. Available from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42896.0.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS) (2016). Land Resources and Food Security of Central Asia and Southern Caucasus. Available from http://ecfs.msu.ru/sites/default/files/node/publication/16/07/lrfs_ru_web.pdf.

Hausmann, J. (2014). Turkey as a donor country and potential partner in triangular cooperation. German Development Institute, Discussion Paper 14/2014. Available from http://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_14.2014.pdf.

Hosono, A. (2016). Potential and challenges for emerging development partners: The case of Indonesia. JICA Research Institute, Working Paper, No. 126. Available from https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/publication/working-paper/jrft3q00000027pc-att/JICA-RI_WP_No.126.pdf.

Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) and United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) (2016). Mapping South-South Cooperation Solutions in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Avail-able from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/images/National%20Reports/Mapping_Portal.pdf.

Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) (2014). Mapping South-South Cooperation Mechanisms and Solutions in the Arab States, 1st edition, Global South-South Development Academy Series. Available from http://arab.southsouthworld.org/images/pdf/Arab%20States%20South-South%20Cooperation%20Map-ping%20Tool%20-%20En%20Booklet_Low.pdf.

Marusinec, J. and C. Ghinea (2012). Sharing knowledge and transition experience for development: Mapping of (selected) new European donors. Presentation, Prague, November 2012.

Niestroy, I. (2016). How are we getting ready? The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in the EU and its member States: Analysis and action so far. German Development Institute, Discussion Paper 9/2016. Avail-able from http://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_9.2016.pdf.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013). Triangular co-operation: What’s the literature telling us? Literature review prepared by the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate. Available from https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/OECD%20Triangluar%20Co-operation%20Literature%20Review%20June%202013.pdf.

_______ (2015). Triangular co-operation: Findings from a 2015 survey. Available from http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/Updated%20Triangular%20co-operation%20fact%20sheet.pdf.

_______ (2016). Dispelling the myths of triangular co-operation: Evidence from the 2015 OECD survey on triangular cooperation. September 2016. Available from https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/OECD_Triangular_co-operation_survey_report_2016.pdf.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Camões – Institute for Co-opera-tion and Language (2016). Triangular co-operation: Promoting partnerships to implement the Sustainable Development Goals. International meeting on triangular co-operation, Lisbon, 19 May 2016. Summary of dis-cussions. Available from http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/Summary_of_Discussion_Triangu-lar_Co-operation.pdf.

References

76 77



Slovak Agency for International Development Cooperation (SAIDC) (2010). Trilateral Cooperation in Slovakia (Emerging Donor Experience). Presentation by Kamil Smetana, Development Assistance Specialist, SAIDC, at “The European Union’s triangular cooperation in the context of aid effectiveness” workshop, Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), Madrid, 8 March 2010.

Szczudlik-Tatar, J. (2013). China’s New Silk Road Diplomacy. Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), Policy Paper, No. 34 (82). Available from https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/174833/PISM%20Policy%20Paper%20no%2034%20(82).pdf.

Taleski, D. and B. Hoppe (2015). Youth in South East Europe: Lost in transition. Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung. Avail-able from http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/11504.pdf.

United Nations (2015a). Millennium Development Goal 8: Taking stock of the Global Partnership for De-velopment. MDG Gap Task Force Report. Available from https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_Gap_2015_E_web.pdf.

_______ (2015b). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). Available from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.

_______ (2016). Note by the Secretary-General on the framework of operational guidelines on United Nations support to South-South and triangular cooperation (SSC/19/3). Available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/081/68/pdf/N1608168.pdf?OpenElement.

_______, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2016). Report of the Secretary-General to the 2016 Development Cooperation Forum: Trends and progress in international development cooperation (E/2016/65). Available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/132/05/pdf/N1613205.pdf?OpenElement.

_______, Economic and Social Council (2008). Background study for the Development Cooperation Forum: Trends in South-South cooperation and trilateral cooperation. Available from http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/pdfs/south-south_cooperation.pdf.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2014). World Investment Report 2014; In-vesting in the SDGs – An Action Plan. United Nations publication. Available from http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=937.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013). UNDP Strategic Plan, 2014-2017: Changing with the World (DP/2013/40). Available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/417/92/pdf/N1341792.pdf?OpenElement.

_______ (2014a). Towards an East-East cooperation toolkit in RBEC. Based on the outcomes of the Regional Workshop on Advancing East-East Cooperation, Belgrade, April 2014. E-mail to the author.

_______ (2014b). Middle-income countries’ South-South development cooperation. UNDP China South-South Discussion Paper, No. 1. Available from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/china/docs/UNDP-CH-SSC%20Discussion%20Paper%20Middle-Income%20Countries%20SSC.pdf.

_______ (2015). Human Development Report 2015: Work for Human Development. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/2015-report.

_______ (2016a). Regional Human Development Report 2016; Progress at Risk – Inequalities and Human De-velopment in Eastern Europe, Turkey, and Central Asia. Available from http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/presscenter/events/2016/regional-human-development-report.html.

_______ (2016b). Internal evaluation report: Mobility Fund for Governmental Experts. Prepared by Mara Niculescu for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania.

United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) (2015a). 2015 Annual Report of the UNOSSC Division for Arab States, Europe and the CIS. Available from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/images/publica-tions/2015%20Annual%20Report%20UNOSSC%20Div%20Arab%20States%20and%20Europe%20&%20CIS.pdf.

_______ (2015b). South-South/East-East and triangular cooperation: Towards sustainable human develop-ment in Europe and the CIS. Inception report. Available upon request from the UNOSSC Division for Arab States, Europe and the CIS via e-mail ([email protected]).

United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) and Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator (Office of UNRC), Bishkek (2015a). Trends and opportunities in advancing South-South and trian-gular cooperation in Kyrgyzstan. Available from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/images/National%20Reports/Kyrgyzstan.pdf.

_______, Dushanbe (2015b). Trends and opportunities in advancing South-South and triangular cooperation in Tajikistan. Available from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/images/National%20Reports/Tajikistan.pdf.

_______, Chisinau (2016a). Trends and opportunities in advancing South-South and triangular cooperation in Moldova. Available from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/images/National%20Reports/Moldova.pdf.

_______, Baku (2016b). Trends and opportunities in advancing South-South and triangular cooperation in Azerbaijan. Available from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/images/National%20Reports/Azerbaijan.pdf.

Vazquez, K. (2013). Enhancing management practices in South-South and triangular cooperation: Study on country-led practices. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation and Japan International Coop-eration Agency. Available from http://tcdc2.undp.org/GSSDAcademy/ResourceCentre/docs/SSC_Case_De-signed_Web.pdf.

Vazquez, K. C., X. Mao and S. Yao (2016). Mix and Match? How Countries Deliver Development Cooperation and Lessons for China. UNDP and the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation (CAITEC). Available from http://www.cn.undp.org/content/china/en/home/library/south-south-cooperation/mix-and-match--how-countries-deliver-development-cooperation-and.html.

World Bank (2012). Fighting Corruption in Public Services: Chronicling Georgia’s Reform. Avail-able from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/518301468256183463/pdf/664490PUB0EP-I0065774B09780821394755.pdf.

Zimmerman, T. (2015). The New Silk Roads: China, the U.S., and the future of Central Asia. Center on Interna-tional Cooperation, New York University, October 2015. Available from http://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/zimmerman_new_silk_road_final_2.pdf.

78 79



Annex 1. Mapping of South-Southcooperation in Europe and the CIS (non-exhaustive)

Name of initiative Thematic focus SDG Partners

Enabling transboundary cooperation and integrated water resources management in the extended Drin River Basin

Water management 14 Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, the for-mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ECE, UNDP; Global Water Partnership (GWP)

Enhancing national emergency response capacities

Emergency response 16 Emergency authorities of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Fed-eration, Tajikistan; UNOCHA

Technical assistance programme for HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases prevention, control and surveillance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Health 3 Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation (initiator, funder), Kyr-gyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan; Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

Experience-sharing within thematic events of similar UNDP-GEF projects

Energy efficiency in buildings

12 Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Uz-bekistan; UNDP

Experience-sharing visit to Georgia to study the local case of developing agricultural coop-eratives within the ENPARD programme

Value chain develop-ment

2, 8 Armenia, Georgia; UNDP

Regional Community of Practice of the Clima East Pilot Projects

Forest and pasture rehabilitation

15 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova (included study visit to learn from the Moldovan expe-rience), Russian Federation, Ukraine; UNDP

Experience-sharing with UNDP Moldova MiLab on micro-referendum tool (SMS-polling)

Women in local de-mocracy

5, 16 Armenia, Republic of Moldova; UNDP

Collaborative platform to support research and technology transfer – NEXT

Jobs and growth 8, 9 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia (including universities and chambers of commerce); Regional Economic Development Agency for Herzegovina (REDAH)

P.In – AL.BO: Innovating point in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina

Jobs and growth 8, 9 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Re-gional Economic Development Agency for Herzegovina (REDAH)

Western Balkan Extension Network through curriculum reform

Education/SME devel-opment

4, 8 Regional Economic Development Agency for Herzegovina (REDAH); Regional Rural Development Standard Working Group (SWG); 12 universities and 8 non-academic institutions; 16 partners from four countries of the Western Balkans

Regional dialogue Almaty Process (currently under Kazakh chairmanship)

Migration and refugee protection

10, 16

Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey; International Organization for Migration (IOM), UNHCR

Capacity development workshops on peace-building education and global citizenship education

Peace 16 Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan; Asia-Pacific Centre of Edu-cation for International Understanding under the auspices of UNESCO (AP-CEIU), UNESCO

Improving the climate resiliency of Kazakhstan wheat and Central Asian food security

Energy and environ-ment

13, 15

Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan (planned), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (planned); Adaptation Fund United States Agency for International Development (USAID), World Bank, Ka-zakhstan Association of Organic Farm-ing, various private-sector companies

South-South cooperation in China and Central Asia: Investing in a green Silk Road

Environment/Green economy

8, 15 Central Asian States; UNEP


YouthMobile Central Asia Small business development, youth employment

8, 9 Central Asian States; United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI, UNESCO; Kloop Media Foundation (Kyr-gyzstan), IT University (Almaty)

Introducing corporate social responsibility in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Competitiveness 8 The former Yugoslav Republic of Mace-donia; UNDP

Building capacities for developing an elec-tronic single window system for licences for import, export and transit of goods and tariff quotas (EXIM)

Tax administration 8, 16 The former Yugoslav Republic of Mace-donia, Mauritius

Supporting reform of municipal financing in Montenegro through experience exchange

Decentralization, public finance

11, 16 Montenegro, Slovakia

Enhancing capacities of local self-govern-ment units in providing business enabling environment for the micro, small and medium enterprises and clusters

Competitiveness and SMEs

8, 9, 16

The Czech Republic, Montenegro

Piloting of family outreach worker Child protection 3 Montenegro, Serbia; UNICEF

Development of ICT for outdoor destinations (DIOD)

Local economic development

8 Croatia, Montenegro; Croatian Mountain Rescue Service, Mountain Rescue Service of Montenegro, tourism agencies of Mon-tenegro and Croatia; UNDP

Transfer of Czech experience and knowledge in developing/upgrading the national system for radon protection in Montenegro

Environment 15 The Czech Republic, Montenegro; Inter-national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Czech expertise in climate change-related issues, i.e., development of the First Biennial Update Report for Montenegro

Climate change 13 The Czech Republic, Montenegro

Improving the quality of Moldovan democracy through parliamentary and electoral support (Parliament component)

Parliament 16 Croatia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova, Romania; UNDP

Improving the quality of Moldovan democracy through parliamentary and electoral support (Electoral support)

Elections 16 Armenia, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova; Tallin University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Estonia

Strengthening rule of law and human rights protection in the Republic of Moldova (ex-change at the level of Constitutional Courts)

Governance 16 Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova; UNDP

Addressing climate change risks to farming system in Turkmenistan at the national and local levels

Climate change, wa-ter management

2, 13, 15

Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan; UNDP

Energy efficiency and renewable energy for sustainable water management in Turkmen-istan

Water management 7, 9 Turkey, Turkmenistan; UNDP

E-services in the public sector Governance 16 Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; UNDP

Government financing of joint UNDP projects Partnerships 17 Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan; UNDP

Strengthening the system to protect repro-ductive rights and gender equality

Gender equality 3, 5 Armenia, Turkmenistan; UNFPA

Improvement of quality of maternal and new-born health services

Health 3 Republic of Moldova, Turkmenistan; UNFPA

Gender equality within the HIV and AIDS response

Gender equality 3, 5 Kazakhstan, Tajikistan; NGOs: Central Asian Association of People Living with HIV (CAAPLHIV), AIDS Foundation East-West (AFEW), Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), Positive Women (Ukraine); UNAIDS, UN-Women

80 81




Enhancing regional cooperation for the processing of war crimes and the search for missing persons

Peace 16 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia; International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP); UNDP

Green technologies and solutions from Croatia to green villages in Central Asia

Environment, energy, local development

7, 8, 9 Croatia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan; UNDP, GEF, Project for Livelihood Improve-ment in Tajik-Afghan Cross-border Areas (LITACA)

Green Bridge Partnership Programme Green economic growth

7, 8 Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Russian Federation, Sweden; NGOs from Estonia, Finland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkey

City of Almaty sustainable transport (CAST) Transport/Cities 9, 11 Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation; UNDP

Albanian support to establish the Climate Change Committee in Kosovo

Climate change 13 Ministry of Environment of Albania, Min-istry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP) of Kosovo, Environmental Protec-tion Department of Kosovo; UNDP

Performance management and administrative efficiency

Public service 16 Republic of Moldova, Romania, Ukraine; the joint Operational Programme was financed by the European Union and co-financed by the partner countries.

Promotion of international trade, issues of WTO post-accession and free economic zones in Tajikistan using Turkish experience

Jobs and growth 8, 9 UNDP Tajikistan “Aid for trade” project funded by Finland, Tajikistan and Turkey

Turkic Council vocational training programmes in tourism cooperation

Jobs and growth 4, 8 Turkic Council member States: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey

Sub-national cooperation between Georgia and Ukraine on business development in conflict-af-fected context

Jobs and growth, peace

8, 16 Georgia, Ukraine; UNDP

Study tour to Kyrgyz Republic to enhancing the capacity of government specialists in develop-ing and introducing the concepts, knowledge, methodologies and tools of green indicators, and the economic valuation of ecosystem services to support the poverty-environment (P-E) mainstreaming process, as well as green economy principles in formulation of the coun-try strategic framework

Environment 7, 8, 14, 15

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan; UNDP

This checklist brings together important aspects that enable effective engagement in South-

South cooperation. It is intended to provide you with a first overview of your country’s capacity

assets and challenges regarding South-South cooperation. It is a tool for analysis and can also be

used as a discussion guideline in meetings related to South-South cooperation.

Once the critical areas and limiting factors have been identified, you can develop tailor-made

measures or follow up with a more in-depth capacity assessment, building on the results of this

checklist. The United Nations system, in particular UNOSSC and UNDP, stands ready to support

you in this process to strengthen your national systems and capacities to take South-South co-

operation to the next level.

Annex 2. Checklist for institutional, legal and organizational tools for South-South cooperation

AREA TOPIC Yes No Comments

Mission and strategy-setting

Does the Government have a clear mission for its engage-ment in South-South cooperation?

Has the mission been codified (e.g., through a separate strategy, a white paper, inclusion in the national development strategy)?

Are the thematic priorities for South-South cooperation clear-ly defined and based on comparative advantages?

Legal framework

Is there a functioning legal framework enabling engagement in South-South cooperation?

Are the policy and legal frameworks communicated clearly across the Government?

Are there legal templates that can be used as a basis for joint agreements (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding, technical implementation agreements)?

Institutional framework

Does the current institutional set-up enable effective engage-ment in South-South cooperation (e.g., MFA, line ministries, implementing agencies)?

Is coordination among the national actors involved effective?

Funding mechanisms

Does the Government have or need specific budget lines for South-South cooperation or funding mechanisms?

Are the current funding mechanisms sufficient and fast enough?

Does the Government have sufficient knowledge about addi-tional financial resources that can be accessed (e.g., regional funds, private sector, international organizations)?

Implementation of South-South Cooperation

Does the Government have sufficient human capacities for effective engagement in South-South cooperation?

Is the Government able to build effective partnerships with national counterparts (including civil society, academia and the private sector)?

Is the Government aware of global developments in South-South cooperation and able to contribute to discussions and processes if so decided?

Project cycle management

Is the Government able to design projects in a collaborative manner?

Do staff members have solid guidance on how to develop projects and build partnerships?

82 83



AREA TOPIC Yes No Comments

Performance management

Does the Government have an effective monitoring and evalu-ation (M&E) system with appropriate measuring tools?

Is the Government able to easily assess its overall perfor-mance at any point in time?

Does the Government have a performance management system (or equivalent) in place that includes markers for South-South cooperation?

Knowledge management

Does the Government collect evidence and capture and codi-fy lessons learned?

Does the Government share information with internal as well as external partners in a regular, responsive and concise manner?

Advocacy and public commu-nications

Does the Government raise awareness of South-South coop-eration internally and externally?

Does the Government maintain a regularly updated website to enhance its advocacy?

Does the Government showcase its engagement at relevant regional and global forums on South-South cooperation?

Cooperation with regional organizations

Does the Government have a good understanding of ongoing and planned South-South cooperation activities by regional organizations?

Does the Government leverage its role in these organizations to call for increased coordination among regional organiza-tions involved in South-South cooperation?

Annex 3. List of useful linksUnited Nations support and analysis

Mapping tool for South-South cooperation mechanisms and solutions in the Europe and the CIS

(ECIS) region. Available from http://ecis.southsouthworld.org/.

United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, Division for Arab States, Europe and the CIS.

Available from http://arab-ecis.ssc.undp.org/.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (UN DESA): Pub-

lishes two global reports with relevance for South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation

(Report of the Secretary-General on trends and progress in global development cooperation, and

International Development Cooperation Report).

Available from https://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/development-cooperation-forum.

SSMart for SDGs: A global demand-supply matching system enables partners to post demands,

search for solutions, share solutions and collaborate.

Available from http://global-ssmart.org/.

Examples of funding opportunities

European Union twinning

Available from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/twinning/index_en.htm.

IsDB reverse linkage financing

Available from www.isdb.org. See in particular “Topics” drop-down list.

International Visegrad Fund

Available from http://visegradfund.org/about/.

Pérez-Guerrero Trust Fund for South-South Cooperation

Available from www.g77.org/pgtf/.

OFID-UNDP Cross-regional Grants Competition (for NGOs)

Available from http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/about_us/partners/cross_

regional-grants-competition.html.

ODA funding instruments available in Europe and Central Asia

Providers of development cooperation covered: The Czech Republic, Romania, the Russian Fed-

eration, Slovakia and Turkey

Available from http://fundingdevelopment.org/.

South-South Experience Exchange Facility (SEETF): The World Bank has established a multi-do-

nor trust fund to offer a flexible, demand-driven funding mechanism for exchanges of South-

South development knowledge and experience.

Available from http://knowledgesharingfordev.org/.

Documents

Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States The Power …€¦ · the Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States region, the rise of several fast-growing economies has