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

As we wrapped up last week’s discussion on the evaluation of South-South and Triangular Cooperation, we continued to receive valuable insights from evaluation practitioners with diverse experiences and perspectives. Their contributions deepened our understanding of effective approaches, challenges, and opportunities in evaluating SSTC across different contexts.
Svetlana Negroustoueva from CGIAR shared insights on evaluating SSTC initiatives based on CGIAR’s experience as a global research consortium. She highlighted CGIAR’s evaluation policy, which emphasizes the Quality of Science and legitimacy through ethical, collaborative research -- often evaluated through tools like Social Network Analysis. Key challenges include data gaps and attribution complexity, but designated partnership frameworks and adaptive evaluation approaches help enhance learning, accountability, and strategic planning.
Dr. Monira Ahsan advocates for participatory, intersectional, and systems-based approaches—like Outcome Harvesting and Intersectional Feminist Methodologies—to evaluate complex development and humanitarian initiatives, including SSTC. To enhance SSTC’s visibility and impact, she emphasizes systems thinking, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and strong quality assurance. She also highlights the importance of meta-evaluations and strategic dissemination to foster learning and long-term influence.
Although the online discussion has concluded, the interest and momentum it generated will certainly continue. In 2023, South–South trade surpassed North–South trade, signaling a transformative shift that is expanding markets and redefining global partnerships. As SSTC grows in relevance and impact, we look forward to more insightful exchanges on its role in shaping the future of development.

Dear colleagues,

 Thank you for bringing up such an important topic and all the insights from the COP members. I am offering insights from CGIAR, a consortium of 13 agricultural research centers which are primarily based in the global South. Through and with partners, including national agricultural research systems, CGIAR centers work collaboratively and evaluations of CGIAR’s portfolio then prioritize approaches and methods to capture elements of, albeit not necessarily in the context of a formal SSTC framework.

• Guidance or tools for such evaluations:
  CGIAR’s evaluation policy (link) includes the Quality of Science eval criterion, at its core-  ‘legitimacy’ through ethical research practices- a designated evaluation guidance was developed (link, also in Spanish). To operationalize QoS, process/performance evaluations often involve analyzing collaborative research, capacity-building, and knowledge exchange among researchers in the global north-south, and of research done in the global South- (see brief on partnerships). Among the specific tools tailored to SSTC, Social Network Analysis (SNA) has proven to be a useful tool (see SNA Guide from CGIAR, and example of report).
• Challenges and facilitators faced in evaluating SSTC initiatives:
  Common challenges include monitoring data scarcity, lacking documentation such as MOUs, attribution complexities in contexts of multiple interventions by CGIAR centers, and external partners to CGIAR, and limited ability to  comprehensively capture depth of diversity of stakeholder perspectives. On the other hand, designated Partnerships Frameworks and Strategies greatly facilitate evaluability of such efforts.
• Evaluators can facilitate learning by adapting approaches and tools to contexts, promote transparency and accountability, and highlight best practices. They can also advocate for integrating SSTC evaluation results into strategic planning processes to maximize development impact and foster sustainable partnerships (see example of a Partnershp report)

Watch out or a designated gLOCAL session from CGIAR on use of SNA to evaluate partnerships. : https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k-2ak4d9Rjef_KLo_yS6XQ Top of Form

Svetlana Negroustoueva -Lead, Evaluation Function, The Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service, CGIAR.

The third week of the discussion continued to build on the methodological insights from the first two weeks, with a sustained focus on learning-oriented approaches. In addition, an important new dimension was introduced: adaptive evaluation management.
·        Learning-Oriented Evaluation Methods
Claudia F C (Gavi) emphasized the need for evaluation methods that prioritize learning over accountability, particularly to capture intangible benefits and emergent change within SSTC. Drawing on her experience with multi-country and multi-stakeholder initiatives, she suggested several innovative methodologies: Outcome Harvesting, Most Significant Change, Networks and Systems Mapping, and Developmental Evaluation. These methods are well-suited to understanding influence, relationships, knowledge diffusion, and mutual learning systems, all of which are central to SSTC.
·        Adaptive Evaluation Management
Pietro Tornese emphasized the importance of adaptive evaluation management in SSTC, where diverse stakeholders and dynamic contexts require flexibility. Adaptive approaches help evaluators adjust questions and methods in real time, enabling them to capture emerging outcomes like new partnerships and policy changes. Crucially, this approach also fosters ownership and strengthens evaluation capacity in the Global South by engaging local actors as active participants rather than passive data providers.

Dear Fellow Colleagues,

Thank you for initiating and contributing to this exciting dialogue. Although I have not evaluated SSTC, I am drawing on my 20 years of experience, including the first 10 years as a development practitioner and the last 10 years as a researcher and evaluator in development and humanitarian emergencies across South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Africa. 

• What evaluation approaches or tools have you found effective in assessing SSTC initiatives?

While leveraging the relative strengths of mixed methods for specific projects, I have found in my work that a qualitative and participatory approach, focusing on both process and impact, offers a better understanding, heightened rigour, and greater insight. Assessing the OECD/DAC criteria, I find that the use of Intersectional Feminist Methodologies is a particularly powerful framework for evaluating projects that address gender, intersectionality, decolonization, and participatory research, effectively challenging power structures and inequalities. This framework is underpinned by lived experiences, values cultural and ethical considerations, and promotes social justice. 

In my most recent decentralized evaluation, I found that a light internal assessment, combined with the mapping of outcomes utilizing Outcome Harvesting and Outcome Mapping, was particularly helpful in gaining a holistic understanding of the effectiveness and impacts of the projects of four implementing Partners. Instead of grounding the findings and results on the Partners’ Results Frameworks, we collected and classified key outcomes at different levels: at the individual level, leading to the empowerment of women and girls; at the community level, where changes in social norms, values, and practices occur; at the organizational level, which provides the settings for implementation; and at the political and policy level, which offers the overall enabling environment. Using these tools, combined with their contribution-focused approach and resource mapping, was also instrumental in addressing attribution complexities in identification, analysis, and reporting, as well as in exploring both tangible and intangible outcomes. Additionally, the utilization-focused approach yielded findings that were both relevant and impactful, ultimately contributing to the shaping of user decision-making and policies. 

https://cdn.sida.se/app/uploads/2024/08/13134122/62720_DE2024_17_Evaluation-of-Swedens-support-to-Womens_WEB.pdf

• What challenges have you faced—methodologically, politically, or operationally?

Methodological Challenges

One of the recurring methodological challenges I face in decentralized evaluations is the constraint of resources, both in terms of time and budget. It is a particularly classic phenomenon across commissioning organizations, whether international, national, or local, that very little and disproportionate time is allocated for collecting empirical evidence, when expecting rigour in analysis and reporting. Additionally, evaluating multiple and complex outcomes across various dimensions with several partners and producing an aggregated report as per the ToR presents challenges in terms of measuring, interpreting data, and generalizing effectively. The experience further added another layer of complexity when the four individual Partners expected individual organization-specific reports. Besides, particularly in the confined refugee camp context, such as with the Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, familiarity, congested space, and overcrowding create distinct ethical challenges in maintaining privacy and confidentiality and thereby pose risks of possible harms to the study participants. 

Additionally, when working in a team or commissioning an evaluation task, it is often challenging to confront capacity deficiencies among both junior and senior evaluators in the South, particularly in terms of knowledge, technical skills, and adherence to ethical practices. For instance, during the inception phase of a decentralized evaluation of a health partnership in a humanitarian emergency, the senior team lead acknowledged that they had never used OECD/DAC criteria and were uncertain how to apply them, despite their application and experience documents claiming to do so. Consequently, I had to provide extensive technical support for the evaluation, from designing the evaluation framework to data analysis and reporting, which conflicted with my role as Program and Partnerships Manager at the commissioning organization. Similarly, while evaluating the Women’s Rights Organizations in the political context of shrinking civic space in Bangladesh a few years ago, the junior team member remarked, “my today’s FGD group was very critical about the government actions against NGOs human rights activism and how their organizations had been suffered at the hands of the government officials from not releasing the overseas funding to not approving the NGOs activities under Foreign Donation, FD-6. Obviously, I have not included this ‘negative discussion’ in my FGD note today.” Thus, without formal education and training in research and evaluation approaches, methodologies —including methods, techniques, and ethical practices —among professionals engaged in evaluation in Southern contexts may risk generating data and reports that lack reliability and rigour, thereby compromising the quality of the findings.  

Political Challenges

I felt vulnerable as an evaluator due to potential physical and psychological dangers associated with collecting data on several occasions in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. Assessing human rights issues in the Rohingya context was challenging, particularly during the initial years of the influx. While supporting humanitarian actors in facilitating the humanitarian response, the Bangladesh Government does not recognize Rohingya people as refugees, but as ‘forcibly displaced Myanmar nationals,’ which creates political sensitivities in discussions about the human rights issues affecting Rohingya people. During an initial-year assessment to monitor progress on commitments made under the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), a group of Rohingya women was trained as Peer Researchers to collect data from their peers at the community level. Due to their lack of political sensitivity in the local context, my three expatriate colleagues dismissed my suggestion to exclude human rights discussions from the training. Eventually, our training was interrupted by the Intelligence Forces of the Bangladesh Government on the second day, resulting in significant changes to our methodology and data collection. I felt concerned about my security as the only native Bangladeshi among my three expatriate colleagues. Similarly, I also felt vulnerable and insecure while collecting data recently in the Rohingya camps, where various political factions were engaged in constant gunfighting, murder, abduction, and causing access constraints.

Moreover, I also encountered political challenges in evaluation stemming from stakeholder interests, resistance from stakeholders, and power dynamics, which impaired the independence and utilization of evaluation findings. I evaluated the NGO Platform, a forum for NGOs working with Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Once the data were collected and the report was presented to key stakeholders through a validation workshop, I received both in-person and written comments from some of the key stakeholders, indicating that the report effectively explored the challenges behind the NGO Platform's malfunction and proposed a way forward for effective functioning. However, later, I was asked by the Coordinator of the NGO Platform to revise some of the key findings in the report, which contradicted the empirical evidence, stating, “the donor will be highly disappointed with the report, given its current findings.” 

Operational Challenges

I also have experience with inadequate data and data quality issues, including a lack of consistent and comparable data, such as baseline data for key indicators, as well as ineffective process monitoring and evaluation systems. For example, in an African context, I was advised to produce baseline data and discovered that the project did not utilize a well-designed Results Framework throughout its entire three-year duration. The issues of inadequate data and data quality are particularly stark in fragile humanitarian contexts, which I experienced while assessing projects in the Rohingya humanitarian response. In these contexts, management can be weak, with high staff turnover among both expatriate and local staff, and leadership changes frequently, resulting in a poor institutional memory. Similarly, issues concerning the availability of adequate and high-quality data for evaluating projects in humanitarian emergencies are also linked to the gaps in translating the localization agenda into practical action. In this regard, United Nations agencies and International NGOs entered into partnerships with local NGOs without necessarily investing in developing the latter's technical skills and institutional capacity, leading to dysfunctional monitoring, evaluation, and reporting systems, procedures, and practices. 

I have experience involving relevant stakeholders, such as implementing Partners in designing evaluation frameworks in a limited capacity, contributing to the evaluation schedule, and identifying participants. However, my experience in attempting to actively engage all concerned stakeholders, particularly the primary stakeholders who are the beneficiaries, in co-designing evaluation frameworks and criteria in a meaningful way is nearly impossible unless there is a shift in the donors' and the commissioning organizations’ policies, attitudes, and values towards inclusive practices. This has implications for increased resources, including budget, time, and personnel. Finally, I faced difficulties in involving policy planners from the national government and academics, despite a timely schedule.

• How can we, as evaluators, enhance the visibility, learning, and impact of SSTC in this shifting aid architecture?

A few ideas to enhance the visibility, learning and impact of SSTC:

Taking a Systems Perspective in evaluation can be highly impactful, as this approach emphasizes the interconnectedness and complexity of systems, thereby considering the overall relational context in the South, which is often complex and intertwined with political, economic, social, and environmental dynamics. Furthermore, a systems-based evaluation encourages adaptive evaluation management approaches to address the inherently complex and evolving challenges of humanitarian and development sectors, facilitating continuous reflection and learning. Additionally, a systems perspective involves all relevant stakeholders, including beneficiaries, not only as study participants in data collection but also in agenda setting, designing evaluation frameworks, identifying the roots and underlying causes of problems, and considering broader impacts, including unintended consequences. 

Integrating a systems perspective into self/process evaluation is therefore essential for developing Southern capacity and can be readily applied in impact and decentralized evaluation. In an impact/decentralized evaluation, external independent evaluators may find it challenging to influence donors or commissioning organizations to design an inclusive evaluation framework that actively involves relevant stakeholders, including beneficiaries, due to implications for resources such as time, budget, and personnel. 

A Systems thinking perspective in evaluation can yield greater insights and nuances if underpinned by relevant theoretical and conceptual lenses and analytical frameworks.  These may include, but are not limited to, the Capabilities Approach, which emphasizes the significance of critically examining socio-cultural, economic and political environments and how they shape individuals’ capabilities to achieve their potential beings and doings. Similarly, the Social Relations Approach can help deconstruct institutional practices by examining the characteristics of rules, activities, resources, people, and power to analyze how gender inequalities are produced and reproduced within various institutions, contributing to inequality and injustice for specific individuals and groups. Additionally, the Intersectional Feminist Framework is powerful in examining how multiple socio-cultural, politico-economic, and other factors, coupled with broader historical and current systems of discrimination, such as colonialism and globalization, act in a powerful way to determine the conditions of inequality and social exclusion among individuals and groups, and thereby to questions of social and economic justice. 

Setting up an Evaluation Quality Assurance System or conducting an external review for quality assurance of methodology and content, as well as engaging Peer Review of the evaluation function to review issues of credibility, independence, and utility, can strengthen the SSTC evaluation and promote learning. Strategic dissemination of findings tailored to different audiences through various communication channels is crucial for enhancing both learning and visibility. Likewise, establishing strong linkages between evaluation, management response, follow-up, knowledge management, and the utilization of evaluation findings, such as integrating evaluation concerns into policy initiatives or establishing an evaluation resource centre as a public platform, is critical for strengthening learning and increasing the visibility of SSTC. Moreover, conducting meta-evaluations, meta-analysis, evaluation synthesis,  and reviews of recommendations on the same issues, topics, or themes has the potential to yield far richer, more nuanced, and complex evidence and findings, thereby enhancing the learning, visibility, and ultimately the impact of SSTC. 

Looking forward to continuing this critical conversation.

Kind Regards,

Monira Ahsan, PhD

Dear colleagues, thank you for starting this important and necessary discussion. A perspective I'd like to add from my experience in evaluating complex interventions with diverse, non-traditional stakeholders, which I argue can be very relevant for SSTC evaluations, is the importance of shifting towards adaptive evaluation management approaches. Adaptive evaluation management transforms evaluation from a retrospective exercise into an ongoing, live dialogue. As witnessed during evaluating development interventions in LDCs, adaptive designs help national governments, CSOs, and local networks all see their insights acted upon immediately, strengthening ownership, trust, and relevance. Briefly, three points:

(1) SSTC interventions routinely involve diverse stakeholders - local communities, national ministries, regional knowledge networks, and multiple international partners. Each level brings its own pace, priorities, and risks. A static evaluation design, with fixed frameworks and rigid timelines and data-collection plans can miss emerging issues. Adaptive evaluation instead constantly scans the context, identifies red flags and bright spots, and recalibrates both evaluation questions and data collection methods accordingly.

(2) SSTC interventions more often than not generate unexpected spillover effects, in terms of new partnerships, new networks, policy changes, stakeholder engagement… that only surface mid-way. Adaptive management can track and map these ripples in near real time. Especially at a historical time where donors demand solid evidence, adaptive evaluation helps build that evidence incrementally, responding to new data and refining attribution claims.

(3) Perhaps more importantly, adaptive evaluations in SSTC can accelerate knowledge transfer and strengthen Southern evaluation capacities, since Southern partners move from passive data providers to active evaluators, becoming more equipped to lead future evaluation processes in their own contexts. 
 

Great conversation! Like Eddah, while I haven't been necessarily involved in evaluations that are labelled as SSTC, I have looked as several multi-country, multi-stakeholder initiatives. Based on previous comments and responses, and my experience I believe methods that prioritise learning over accountability would work best, but will require a good amount of involvement from stakeholders. If planned well, these methods would be most impactful, especially around the area of  capturing of intangible benefits. For example, Outcome Harvesting, Most Significant Change techniques, Networks and Systems Mapping and Developmental Evaluation as an overall approach would be extremely helpful. These would support analysis of influence and relationships among actors, but also capture the diffusion of knowledge and emergence of mutual learning systems. 

During the second week of the discussion, the EvalForEarth community shared valuable insights on the evaluation of South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC), reflecting a wide range of perspectives from different regions and institutions. The following key themes emerged:
Ventura Mufume (Associação Moçambicana de Monitoria e Avaliação) Despite growing South-South commercial ties, limited access to internet, electricity, and digital infrastructure—especially in rural and peri-urban areas—remains a major barrier to exchanging evaluation practices and achieving inclusive cooperation.
Hailu Negu (Ethiopian Electric Power). To maximize the impact of South-South and Triangular Cooperation in today’s evolving aid architecture, robust, participatory, and context-sensitive evaluation systems are essential to ensure accountability, mutual learning, and evidence-based decision-making that align with the SDGs and foster inclusive development.
Mariana Vidal Merino (Adaptation Fund Technical Evaluation Reference Group) While SSTC holds great promise—particularly for climate adaptation through peer learning, technical assistance, and shared solutions—the lack of dedicated evaluation frameworks risks it being perceived as symbolic rather than a substantive tool for development, underscoring the need for integrated and evidence-based assessment approaches.
Eddah Kanini (Board Member: AfrEA, AGDEN & MEPAK) Evaluating SSTC requires co-created, qualitative approaches that reflect Southern values and capture relational, process-based outcomes—such as mutual learning and capacity exchange—which are often missed due to the absence of SSTC-specific frameworks and limited documentation of success beyond outputs.
Marlene Roefs (Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation – WCDI) To enhance the evaluation of complex SSTC and multistakeholder interventions, it is valuable to incorporate partners’ diverse criteria for success, address contextual power dynamics, and explore participatory, experience-based evaluation approaches that actively involve decision-makers in the entire evaluation process.

📣 Please Join the Conversation
Contribute your insights to the ongoing EvalForEarth discussion on evaluating South-South and Triangular Cooperation:
🔗 https://lnkd.in/gnB-3Eaw 

Dear colleagues, thank you for starting and contributing to this rich conversation evaluation of SSTC interventions. In addition to the relevance of using behavioural insights (see the COM B model for instance - https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/organizational-behavior/the-com-b-model-for-behavior-change), addressing power dynamics, legitimacy concerns, and other key contextual dimensions, it might be useful to actively take on board the evaluation uses and criteria of the key partners involved. This was one of the insights we gained in a recent study on multistakeholder collaboration for the EU DeSIRA programme, which supported research and innovation in agriculture in Africa, Asia and Latin America - https://www.desiraliftcommunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/0704-DeSIRA-LIFT-Learning-brief3-1.pdf ). Understanding when different actors regard collaboration or cooperation as successful, and the similarities or dissimilarities in their views may be valuable information in itself. 

Going one step further, evaluating multistakeholder collaboration and other complex interventions may benefit from 'experience-based' evaluation. This is a rather unconventional approach we are reflecting upon in the International Support Group (https://isginternational.org/ )  . It entails engaging decision-makers (at different levels) in the actual evaluation process; putting on the evaluator hat and actively formulating evaluation questions, developing methods and tools, gathering and analyzing data, sensemaking, and communicating findings. In this evaluation process, or parts thereof, they mix cognition with the 5 human senses and experience the evaluand and process. We wonder if having this in-depth experience of complex evaluation may benefit the users of evaluation in their and their partners' uses. I am very keen to hear what fellow evaluators think of this, and perhaps some have experience in this that they could share.

While my evaluation experience cannot be formally labelled as SSTC, I have assessed several multi-country and regional initiatives which have the same principles of SSTC, such as the peer learning, mutual accountability, and capacity exchange between countries in the Global South. Notably, I participated in an evaluation of a regional health systems strengthening program that involved technical cooperation between various countries where they shared innovations in health models, data use for decision-making, and integrated service delivery. Although the cooperation was organically South-South in nature, the absence of an SSTC-specific evaluation framework made it hard to fully capture the unique dimensions of reciprocal learning and ownership.

With no SSTC-specific guidance, several challenges are faced for example becoming difficult to articulate what success looks like for SSTC, especially when value lies more in process and relationships. You realise what comes out is more of the outputs. It also seems that SSTC successes have not been documented largely, probably due to limited tracking of the process. In this context, Narrative and story-based methods come in handy to be able to capture the mutual benefit and capacity exchange. Therefore, the qualitative methods such as outcome harvesting, storytelling, and appreciative inquiry are very relevant in evaluating SSTC.

Evaluators can contribute to a more impactful use of SSTC through the Co-creation of frameworks with partners to ensure they reflect Southern values and definitions of success. Documentation and dissemination of different learning of the successful processes and what success looked like, the how and why. Evaluators can also contribute through intentionally embedding equity and inclusion lenses as well as integrating the systems thinking when evaluating SSTC.

Such an important topic to reflect on! As you mentioned, SSTC began gaining recognition in the 1970s and has since been promoted as part of global development efforts. However, without critical evidence SSTC risks being seen more as a symbolic gesture than a genuinely development tool.

In the context of climate change adaptation, SSTC is particularly valuable. It enables countries in the Global South (many facing similar climate risks like droughts, floods, and sea-level rise) to exchange practical, context-specific solutions rooted in shared challenges. 

The Adaptation Fund actively supports SSTC through several key avenues, including:

• Technical Assistance Grants for South-South Cooperation, which help countries without direct access to the Fund learn from others that do, paving the way for their own accreditation.
• Workshops and peer learning events, where countries share adaptation experiences and lessons learned.
• Publication of case studies from successful projects to promote replication and scaling of effective practices.
• Support for partnerships among Southern institutions to strengthen collaborative climate action.

While the Fund does not have a separate evaluation framework specifically for SSTC, it embeds SSTC considerations into its broader evaluation processes. One key approach is the monitoring of South-South Cooperation Grants, which are tracked through project documents, inception reports, and regular monitoring updates. 

The Fund’s Technical Evaluation Reference Group (AF-TERG) also plays a role. Its 2024 Rapid Evaluation of the Adaptation Fund reviewed how well the Fund meets country needs and assessed the effectiveness of its support mechanisms—including SSTC initiatives. The ongoing evaluation of the Fund’s Readiness Program will go deeper into this analysis.

Looking forward to  learning from others’ experiences with evaluating SSTC!

A strong assessment framework that guarantees accountability, learning, and evidence-based decision-making is necessary to maximize the impact of Triangular Cooperation (TrC) and South-South Cooperation (SSC) in a changing assistance architecture. By utilizing common experiences, reciprocal advantages, and solidarity among developing nations, SSC and TrC are becoming more widely acknowledged as complementing modalities to conventional North-South cooperation, providing creative solutions to development problems. An overview of how evaluation can be crucial to increasing the efficacy and influence of different cooperation modalities is provided below:

1. Recognizing the Transition from Conventional Aid Models to the Changing Aid Architecture: In contrast to donor-recipient dynamics, collaborations, mutual learning, and horizontal interactions are now increasingly valued in the global assistance scene.
Emergence of New Actors: Regional organizations, civil society, the commercial sector, and emerging economies are all becoming more involved in development cooperation.
Put the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) front and center: With their emphasis on sustainability, equity, and inclusivity, SSC and TrC are highly compatible with the SDGs.

2. Evaluation's Function in SSC and TrC
An essential tool for enhancing the planning, execution, and results of SSC and TrC projects is evaluation. It guarantees that these modalities make a significant contribution to sustainable development.
a. Encouraging Shared Responsibility
Provide collaborative monitoring and evaluation (M&E) procedures to guarantee accountability and openness among all parties involved.
Create common measurements and indicators that represent the values of TrC and SSC, including solidarity, ownership, and mutual benefit.

a. Improving Education and Information Exchange
Document best practices, lessons learned, and creative solutions that can be duplicated or expanded upon through assessments.
Encourage peer-to-peer learning by using case studies, success stories, and evaluation procedures that involve participation.
c. Making Evidence-Based Decisions Stronger
Provide solid proof of the impact, efficacy, and efficiency of SSC and TrC programs.
Utilize assessment results to guide program design, resource allocation, and policy decisions.

d. Adjusting to Situational Factors
Recognize the varied capacities and development paths of partner nations and adapt assessment frameworks to their particular settings and agendas.
To capture the intangible effects of SSC and TrC, such improved relationships and institutional capability, use qualitative and participative methodologies.
3. Essential Guidelines for Assessing SSC and TrC
The following guidelines should be followed in assessments in order to optimize the effects of SSC and TrC:
a. Participation and Inclusivity
Involve all parties involved in the evaluation process, such as recipients, governments, and civil society.
Make sure underrepresented groups may influence evaluation standards and interpretation of results.

b. National Possession
Evaluation frameworks should be in line with national development plans and priorities.
Increase local competence to carry out assessments in order to encourage self-reliance and sustainability.
c. Adaptability and Creativity
Make use of flexible assessment techniques that can adapt to the changing needs of SSC and TrC projects.
Increase the effectiveness and precision of assessments by utilizing data analytics and technology.

d. Pay Attention to Impact and Results
Assess long-term results and transformative effects by going beyond output-level metrics.
Assess contributions to the SDGs, especially in areas such as social inclusion, climate resilience, and poverty reduction.

4. Difficulties in Assessing TrC and SSC
Notwithstanding its significance, assessing SSC and TrC poses a number of difficulties:
Absence of standardized models Applying consistent evaluation criteria is challenging due to the diversity of SSC and TrC projects.
Data Limitations: The evaluation of outcomes and effects may be hampered by inconsistent or lacking data.
Limitations on Capacity: Many developing nations lack the finances and technical know-how required for thorough assessments.
Problems with Attribution: Separating the precise contributions of SSC and TrC from other variables affecting development outcomes might be difficult.

5. Suggestions for Improving Impact via Assessment
The following steps are advised in order to resolve these issues and improve the effectiveness of SSC and TrC:
a. Create Standard Evaluation Criteria
Work along with global organizations (such as the UNDP, OECD, and GPI on SSC) to develop flexible yet uniform evaluation standards for SSC and TrC.
b. Make an investment in building capacity
To improve partner nations' and institutions' evaluation capabilities, offer training and technical support.
Encourage the sharing of knowledge on evaluation techniques and resources between the South and the South.

c. Make Use of Collaborations
Collaborate with academic institutions, think tanks, and international organizations to carry out collaborative assessments and disseminate the results.
Encourage triangular collaboration as a means of combining resources and evaluation-related knowledge.
d. Integrate Evaluation into Program Design
Incorporate M&E systems into SSC and TrC activities' planning and execution stages.
Provide enough funding for evaluation-related tasks, such as baseline research and follow-up evaluations.

e. Encourage Openness and Communication
Evaluation reports should be published and made available to all parties involved.
Make use of the results to support further funding for SSC and TrC as efficient development strategies.

6. Final thoughts
SSC and TrC present important chances to promote inclusive and sustainable development in a fast evolving aid architecture. Stakeholders can guarantee that these cooperation mechanisms have the greatest possible impact, promote reciprocal accountability, and significantly aid in the accomplishment of the SDGs by giving top priority to thorough evaluation procedures. Evaluation improves trust, cooperation, and creativity among developing nations in addition to increasing the efficacy of SSC and TrC.

I applaud Carlos, Arwa, Javier, and Xin for initiating this discussion. The reengineering of global development aid, alongside recurring shocks such as natural disasters, security threats, and economic fragility, should inspire Southern hemisphere countries to mobilize their human resources and create synergies that unlock capacities, promote win-win solutions, and strengthen multilateralism.

A major barrier that evaluation practice should address is the connectivity divide isolating countries and evaluation communities of practice, despite technology's potential to bridge physical boundaries. Internet access remains a luxury for urban technocrats in countries like Mozambique, where education, research, and other processes are still manual-based. The digital transformation driving economies elsewhere has yet to impact traditional socioeconomic sectors such as agriculture, which employs most of the Southern population.

With slow and unequal access to electricity, internet, and road connectivity, countries struggle to share experiences and learn from successful practices. While South-South commercial ties are growing, the exchange of evaluation practices lags behind, despite most countries having active evaluation societies that use evaluation products internally for policy formulation, decision making, and learning.

In summary, effective South-South cooperation in evaluation practice requires vigorous measures to ensure rural communities and peri-urban areas in the Global South have access to internet, mobile networks, and electricity.

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).

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

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

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. 

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).