Maximizing the impact of South-South and Triangular Cooperation in a changing aid architecture through evaluation.

Kicking Off the Discussion: Evaluating South-South and Triangular Cooperation in a Changing World 

As the global development architecture continues to evolve, South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) has become increasingly central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. These partnerships, rooted in mutual respect, solidarity, and shared learning among countries of the Global South—often supported by a third partner—are not just complementary to traditional aid, but a powerful mechanism for locally driven change. Yet, how do we evaluate these complex, dynamic initiatives in ways that are context-sensitive, politically aware, and methodologically sound?

 To kick off this dialogue, we're inviting evaluators and development practitioners to reflect on their experiences with SSTC. Let’s explore together:

🔹 What evaluation approaches or tools have you found effective in assessing SSTC initiatives?
🔹 What challenges have you faced—methodologically, politically, or operationally?
🔹 How can we, as evaluators, enhance the visibility, learning, and impact of SSTC in this shifting aid architecture?

Let’s reimagine evaluation as a driver of meaningful cooperation and mutual benefit. 

 📢 Join the conversation: Share your stories, tools, challenges, or simply your curiosity. Your insights will help shape more impactful and context-aware evaluation practices for SSTC.

Carlos Tarazona, Senior Evaluation Officer at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

I would like to share the UNICEF evaluation report on the Brazil-UNICEF Trilateral South-South Cooperation Programme (P04_Final_report_UNICEF_Jan29). The evaluation aimed to generate knowledge of successful strategies for promoting South-South Cooperation (SSC), particularly in the application of SSC principles. It also documented results at both output and outcome levels, with a focus on human rights, gender, and vulnerable populations. 

In my opinion, we risk missing the real impact if we overlook three elements in evaluating SSTC: the crucial role of grassroots actors, better ways to measure intangible outcomes, and smarter methods to address attribution. 

I will share one case study on localization, and suggest two methodological approaches from interdisciplinary perspectives—behavioral science and econometrics—drawing from my field experience and research to illustrate my points.

1. Local actors often make the difference
In a UNDP-supported microfinance project I studied, village leaders sought to bring back lessons from Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank model. At first, it didn’t work — the idea of microfinance didn’t translate well, and bad debts piled up. But thanks to the persistence of grassroots organizations and local leaders, they adapted the model to fit their own reality. Over time, it grew into a strong, lasting farmers’ association.
If evaluations only look at short-term results, they might label this as a failure and miss the bigger story. Without recognizing the role of local actors and the longer adaptation process, evaluations risk overlooking such "delayed" successes. We need to give more space to local feedback and recognize the slow, sometimes messy, but powerful process of localization.

2. Measuring intangible outcomes through psychology & behavioral science
Things like empowerment, ownership, and mutual learning are often seen as “too soft” to measure. But behavioral science and psychology have been studying these for decades. These disciplines offer a range of validated tools and frameworks that could strengthen evaluations in this area. However, adaptation is crucial: many existing measures are designed for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations. Tailoring tools to fit local contexts would help ensure that evaluations meaningfully capture the behavioral and psychological dimensions of SSC initiatives.

3. Tackling attribution complexity with stronger causal and people-centered analysis
Attribution remains one of the toughest challenges in evaluating SSTC, especially when multiple initiatives overlap or interact. However, evaluations can move beyond simply acknowledging this difficulty. Applying causal inference methods—such as Propensity Score Matching (PSM), natural experiments, and carefully structured comparison groups—can provide clearer evidence of an initiative’s specific contribution. Even when all beneficiaries ultimately receive the program, differences in timing (e.g., earlier versus later adopters) can offer natural comparison opportunities and help evaluators trace causal pathways over time.

Moreover, exploring non-traditional, people-centered statistical methods can further improve attribution analysis. For example, in analyzing data from my recent elderly care survey, I applied Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)—a technique that groups individuals into sub-profiles based on selected indicators such as psychological traits, willingness, and demographic characteristics. This revealed hidden diversity within the population and explained why treatment effects appeared inconsistent at the aggregate level. Applying such approaches in SSC evaluations can uncover latent differences among beneficiaries, helping evaluators better understand nuanced impacts across different sub-groups. Segmenting populations based on both timing and underlying profiles could produce more accurate and meaningful assessments of program effects.

While these methods require additional effort in design and analysis, they offer critical pathways to make SSC evaluations more credible, context-sensitive, and actionable.

In short: Recognizing the contributions of grassroots actors, adopting innovative measurement strategies for intangible outcomes, and applying more diverse causal analysis can make evaluations of SSTC initiatives more responsive, credible, and ultimately more impactful.

I would welcome any thoughts or experiences from others on how you have strengthened evaluations to better reflect local adaptation processes and intangible results in SSTC programs.

Thanks very much to Carlos Tarazona (FAO), Arwa Khalid (FAO), Javier Guarnizo (UNIDO), and Xin Xin Yang (UNICEF) for initiating this important disucssion! 

Cheers,

Zhiqi

Reflections on Evaluating South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC)
Submitted by Vinesh Prasad

Thank you for initiating this important dialogue. With over 20 years of experience leading agricultural development and climate-resilient programs across the Pacific Islands—and more recently in Australia—I’ve seen firsthand both the strengths and the complexities of South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC).

What evaluation approaches or tools have you found effective in assessing SSTC initiatives?
In my work with organizations such as the Pacific Community (SPC) and ACIAR, participatory approaches have been critical. Tools like outcome mapping, peer learning reviews, and community-led storytelling have enabled more authentic tracking of mutual learning, ownership, and adaptive change—elements often overlooked by traditional M&E systems. Evaluations that embedded local voices and Southern perspectives produced more relevant and trusted findings.

What challenges have you faced—methodologically, politically, or operationally?
Challenges include limited data infrastructure, short project timelines, and externally imposed indicators that don’t reflect local values. Political sensitivities also arise when cooperation intersects with national diplomacy or regional power dynamics, making transparency and attribution more complex.

How can we enhance visibility, learning, and impact of SSTC?
To strengthen SSTC evaluation, we must build Southern evaluation capacities, co-create context-sensitive indicators, and document intangible outcomes like trust and solidarity. Elevating SSTC requires moving beyond validation to genuine mutual accountability and learning. By embracing more inclusive, culturally grounded methodologies, we can amplify the impact of SSTC in this evolving aid architecture.

I look forward to learning from fellow practitioners and exploring pathways toward more rigorous, responsive, and meaningful evaluation practice.

Thank you

Thank you for sharing this comprehensive overview of the challenges and opportunities in SSTC evaluation. South-South Cooperation (SSC) embodies a dynamic, ongoing collaborative partnership among diverse stakeholders working towards shared goals, especially within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) describes multi-stakeholder partnerships for the SDGs as “An ongoing collaborative relationship among organisations from different stakeholder types aligning their interests around a common vision, combining their complementary resources and competencies and sharing risk, to maximise value creation towards the Sustainable Development Goals and deliver benefit to each of the partners.” 

My recent evaluations of partnerships between FAO, civil society organizations, and the private sector have also provided valuable insights highlighting the critical need for truly transformative partnerships and collaborative efforts that foster innovation, mutual benefit, and shared ownership among all stakeholders and beneficiaries. Strengthening such partnerships is essential to advancing sustainable development and achieving the SDGs effectively. (These evaluation reports can be accessed here: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cb1636en; https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca6678en)

Building on my experience with these impactful evaluations, I believe that one of the most promising strategies to enhance the evaluation of South-South and Triangular Cooperation lies in embracing multi-stakeholder partnerships and participatory engagement and collaboration that aligns with the core principles of the 2030 agenda, including mutual benefits, solidarity and local ownership.

My perspective is to view evaluation not just as a measurement tool but as a catalyst for reinforcing partnership dynamics. This means involving all relevant stakeholders actively in co-designing evaluation frameworks and criteria, which can help ensure that assessments reflect locally prioritized outcomes and contextual realities. When national partners lead or co-lead evaluations, it fosters ownership, enhances relevance, and builds local evaluation capacity—addressing some of the capacity gaps and data challenges identified.

Recognizing SSTC as a form of transformative partnership, evaluations should assess not only immediate results but also the evolution of trust, solidarity, and mutual respect over time. Such an approach underscores the importance of long-term relationship-building as an integral part of sustainable development impact. By embedding participatory, narrative, and contextually grounded evaluation practices, and fostering nationally-led capacities, we can better capture the true value of SSTC initiatives. This, in turn, will strengthen accountability, inform more effective partnership strategies, and ultimately contribute to the SDGs in a manner that is locally owned and globally impactful.

Best regards,

Serdar Bayryyev 

Senior Evaluation Officer at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).