This chapter reviews existing global datasets on triangular co-operation and provides an overview of global trends: who engages, how much funding is provided, and which regions and sectors benefit. It calls on all partners engaging in triangular co-operation to strengthen their own reporting and monitoring, and to support improved reporting at the regional and global levels.
Global Perspectives on Triangular Co-operation
2. Global data trends on triangular co-operation
Abstract
A growing and diverse set of governments, international organisations and non-state actors are reporting engagement in triangular co-operation. While the volume of funding reported as disbursed through triangular co-operation is increasing, it remains low compared to overall official development assistance (ODA) flows. Triangular co-operation is deployed across all regions, with the largest share in terms of the volume disbursed undertaken in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the volume deployed in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific has grown substantially since 2018. Triangular co-operation is deployed across multiple sectors and is a popular instrument for sharing experiences and knowledge on how to support government and civil society, protect the environment, and tackle health issues. Looking ahead, all stakeholders engaged in triangular co-operation need to enhance their own reporting of triangular co-operation at the national level and encourage better monitoring at the regional and global level.
The most comprehensive dataset on triangular co-operation projects is run by the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB) but it covers just the Ibero-American region. At present, there is no single, consistent and comprehensive dataset on triangular co-operation at the global level. In light of this gap, this report focuses on three global datasets that capture different aspects of triangular co-operation: the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS), the new statistical measurement of total official support for sustainable development (TOSSD), and the OECD’s online project repository for triangular co-operation. As these databases vary greatly in their methodological approaches, scope and the types of information gathered, caution needs to be taken when comparing information across the databases (Table 2.1).
The OECD’s CRS is an official database that captures data from the 32 members1 of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) on their ODA and other development finance flows. Reporting is mandatory for DAC members, and other official providers can also report to the OECD on a voluntary basis.2 The OECD Secretariat checks and officially verifies the data, to ensure rigor, consistency, and comparability. The CRS has been collecting global data on triangular co-operation only since 2016, when the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT) introduced a new reporting code for triangular co-operation. Currently, some OECD members do not report or under-report their triangular co-operation to the CRS.
Table 2.1. Overview of databases on triangular co-operation
1. The Development Assistance Committee members are not fully covered. A first round of data collection to pilot TOSSD with refinements is planned.
The OECD’s online project repository is a voluntary, self-reporting database that is open to all governments, international organisations, CSOs and research organisations. It thus covers the widest range of actors of the three databases and is the oldest dataset, dating from 2000. The project repository links to the South-South Galaxy platform of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation by identifying and including the triangular co-operation projects from its database. The evidence and data collected in the OECD online project repository, however, are not officially verified or updated on an annual basis. Rather, most respondents report data on an ad hoc basis but can also input historical data, thus contributing to a constantly evolving dataset. The project repository does not track the exact volume of finance disbursed but provides information on project budgets. Only Norway has consistently reported all of its triangular co-operation since 2002, representing good practice. Its engagement in Africa, as reported to the OECD repository, is outlined in Box 2.1.
TOSSD is the newest of the three databases referenced in this report. An international standard for measuring resources to deliver on the 2030 Agenda, as agreed in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. It is open to all official development co-operation providers and international organisations. TOSSD captures a wide set of flows covering ODA, ODA-like flows and other official flows that support global public goods around sustainable development. At the moment, it is a voluntary database, and the data are verified by the OECD Secretariat. Data are available from 2019-21 and from 106 reporting institutions.
Unpacking global trends in triangular co-operation
Who is engaging in triangular co-operation?
While the data vary substantially across the three datasets due to their methodological differences, it is clear that a wide and growing range of governments and international organisations report engagement in triangular co-operation. According to data shared to the OECD project repository, which captures more stakeholders engaged in triangular co-operation projects than the other global datasets, 199 countries and territories and 85 international and regional organisations engaged in triangular co-operation over 2000-22. Since its beginning in 2000 the number of triangular co-operation projects shared to the repository increased from about 400 to over 1 000 in 2022. The project repository also shows that triangular co-operation projects were deployed across all regions, many sectors and with partners other than governments. Infographic 2.1 provides a global overview of who is engaged in triangular co-operation.
Infographic 2.1. Triangular co-operation worldwide, 2000-22
Note: According to data shared on the OECD project repository.
LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; ECIS = Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; UNDP = United Nations Development Programme; IsDB = Islamic Development Bank; EU = European Union; OFID = OPEC Fund for International Development; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization.
Source: Authors’ visualisation based on (OECD, 2023[1]) Triangular co-operation repository of projects (database), https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/triangular-co-operation-repository.htm.
All three datasets show that a wide diversity of partners including subnational entities, CSOs, think tanks and the private sector are engaged in sharing knowledge through triangular co-operation. As shown in Figure 2.1 and according to the OECD project repository, which contains the most extensive information on different stakeholders’ engagement, 46% of the triangular projects recorded between 2000-22 involved at least one non-state actor. CSOs are involved in the largest number of projects, followed by research and academic institutions, and the private sector (OECD, 2023[1]). This diversity suggests that triangular co-operation is not only a good tool for sharing knowledge among emerging and strategic countries but also for forging deeper links such as with countries’ CSOs, research institutes and private sector.
How much funding is disbursed for triangular co-operation?
At the second High-level United Nations Conference on South-South Co-operation, governments called upon multilateral, regional and bilateral development co-operation providers to consider increasing financial resources and technical co-operation to promote South-South and triangular co-operation. Only the OECD CRS and TOSSD datasets capture funding flows. Both databases show that the volume of funding disbursed through triangular co-operation has grown significantly over time as reporting on triangular co-operation has improved. The volume, however, remains low compared to overall development finance flows and even accounting for underreporting there is clearly room to scale up funding through this modality in the future.
DAC members have substantially increased the volume of the ODA they disburse through triangular co-operation since reporting was introduced in the CRS in 2016. In 2016, only 2 DAC members reported, collectively disbursing USD 26 million through triangular co-operation (constant 2021 prices). In 2021, 13 DAC members reported disbursing USD 114 million. Over the six-year period from 2016-21, according to CRS data, 17 of the then-30 DAC members reported disbursing a total of USD 451 million of their ODA through triangular co-operation.
Figure 2.1. Total disbursements of official development assistance for triangular co-operation by DAC members, 2016-21 (CRS)
Note: Disbursements are shown in US dollars, millions, constant 2021 prices.
Source: OECD (2023[2]), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1.
Figure 2.2 shows only DAC members’ contributions to triangular co-operation. But pivotal partners in most cases and the beneficiaries at times also contribute financial and in-kind resources, enlarging the financing for triangular co-operation beyond what is captured in the CRS. For example, a German government study found that its Regional Fund for Triangular Co-operation with Partners in Latin America and the Caribbean contributes on average 40% of the financing for Triangular Co-operation (TrC) projects and pivotal and beneficiary partners contribute the remaining 60% of the project funding (BMZ, 2022[3]). Such contributions not only provide additional resources they also help create crucial buy-in and ownership to the projects across all partners.
The TOSSD database shows that 17 governments and 8 international organisations reported engaging in triangular co-operation from 2019-21. Financing flows to triangular co-operation have increased from USD 175 million in 2019 to USD 378 million in 2021. In total, USD 678 million in development finance was disbursed for triangular co-operation between 2019-21 (Table 2.2). While the TOSSD database covers a shorter time period than the CRS, it shows a larger volume of funding disbursed through triangular co-operation. This is because TOSSD is open to more development partners and captures a wider set of flows beyond ODA, including in-kind contributions. The total volume of triangular co-operation activities, however, is likely much higher than indicated in the TOSSD triangular co-operation data. Disbursements for South-South co-operation in TOSSD amounted to USD 2.3 billion between 2019-21. As not all countries and institutions track triangular co-operation activities on a systematic basis, part of the reported South-South co-operation may include triangular co-operation.
The OECD project repository does not collect funding flows by year but includes the budget range of triangular co-operation projects. The data show that triangular co-operation projects tend to involve small volumes of financing, with most projects (69%) during the period 2000-22 between USD 100 000 and USD 1 million and only 30% above USD 1 million (see Table 2.3). The African continent has the largest share of projects over USD 1 million with 44% of all projects recorded over this amount.
Table 2.2. TOSSD disbursements for triangular co-operation, 2019-21
Note: *For countries and institutions with an asterisk, commitments were used as proxies as data on disbursements were not available.
** Data still under verification.
Source: (TOSSD, 2021[4]), Data visualisation tool (database) https://tossd.online/.
Table 2.3. Budget range of triangular co-operation projects shared with the OECD repository
Note: Of the 1 004 projects reported to the OECD online project repository, only 767 contain information on the project budget.
Source: OECD (2023[1]), Triangular co-operation repository of projects (database), https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/triangular-co-operation-repository.htm.
Where are partners engaging in triangular co-operation?
Partners engage in triangular co-operation across all regions. According to the CRS data, the largest share of ODA disbursements by DAC members for triangular co-operation between 2016-21 (47%) went to engagement with partners from the LAC region; 21% with partners in sub-Saharan Africa, a further 21% with partners in the Asia-Pacific region, 6% to unspecified developing countries, 4% with partners in MENA and only 1% with partners in Europe (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. Percentage of DAC disbursements for triangular co-operation by region 2016-2021 (CRS)
Source: OECD (2023[2]), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1.
Reporting to both the TOSSD database and the OECD project repository shows that LAC is the top region for triangular co-operation engagement. In the TOSSD dataset, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for the second-highest share of disbursements for TrC over 2019-21; multi-regional engagements – engagements that cover more than one region – accounted for the second-highest share of projects reported to the OECD project repository.3
Confidence in the use of and demand for triangular co-operation outside the LAC region has been increasing alongside growing awareness of its effectiveness and efficiency as a tool to achieve development goals, build trust and foster horizontal partnerships. The CRS data show a significant increase in the volume of disbursements for triangular co-operation focused on sub-Saharan Africa, highlighted by Norway’s engagement in triangular co-operation with the region (Box 2.1), and on Asia-Pacific between 2018-19. Funding levels to these two regions briefly caught up with (and in the case of Asia-Pacific, exceeded) those to the LAC region (Figure 2.3). The CRS data also show a modest rise in disbursements to the MENA region in 2020. Similar trends are evident in the project repository, which is based on project data rather than financial flows.
Figure 2.3. Trends in DAC triangular co-operation disbursements by region, 2016-21 (CRS)
Note: Figures are disbursements, USD, million, constant 2021 prices.
Source: OECD (2023[2]), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1.
Box 2.1. Norway’s triangular co-operation with Africa is on the rise
According to data shared in the OECD’s project repository, Norway is one of the most active partners in triangular co-operation projects in Africa. The Norwegian Agency for Exchange Cooperation (Norec), a platform for exchange and networking for development co-operation, supports most of these triangular partnerships. Of the 111 triangular co-operation projects between 2002-20 that Norec shared to the repository, 60% (67 projects) involved at least one African partner with a steady increase in Norway’s engagement at the project level with Africa overtime.
Source: OECD (2023[1]), Triangular co-operation repository of projects (database), https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/triangular-co-operation-repository.htm.
In which sectors are partners engaging in triangular co-operation?
Triangular co-operation is a flexible modality and is being used to address a range of development challenges as the Islamic Development Bank’s (IsDB) Reverse Linkage mechanism demonstrates (Box 2.2). CRS data show that over the six-year period of 2016-21, the top five sectors in terms of the volume of triangular co-operation disbursements by DAC members went to government and civil society (21%) general environment protection (20%), followed by multi-sector (14%), education (9%) and health (7%) (Figure 2.4).
Box 2.2. Strengthening co-operation among IsDB member countries through Reverse Linkage
The Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) has been promoting triangular co-operation among its member countries in order to channel development solutions among them while using different programs such as its home-grown mechanism called Reverse Linkage.
The IsDB started using Reverse Linkage in 2013 as a scaled-up technical co-operation mechanism. The Reverse Linkage goes beyond traditional capacity development and aims to resolve a member country’s development needs by transferring and tailoring a proven solution from another member country while building local capacity in order to ensure the solution is sustainable. Reverse Linkage can be funded by grants, non-grants or both. In terms of typology, Reverse Linkage projects can take the form of standalone interventions or they can be mainstreamed as a component of ordinary operations of the Bank. These projects covered a wide spectrum of sectors and thematic areas such as health, education, renewable energy and agriculture.
Over the years, the Bank successfully managed to mobilize technical and financial resources through Reverse Linkage. Thus far, the sources of funding for Reverse Linkage projects include 56% from IsDB’s non-grant resources, 4% from IsDB’s grant resources, and 40% covered by the member countries and partners, including both cash and in-kind contributions.
By the end of 2022, the Bank helped more than 33 member countries to collaborate with each other in problem-solving projects while using the Reverse Linkage mechanism.
The data from the three databases indicate that most partners engage in triangular co-operation to share learning, experiences and knowledge between countries on how best to support the government and civil society sector, including through projects ranging from public financial management and strengthening the rule of law to supporting the media.
Figure 2.4. Sector shares of DAC disbursements for triangular co-operation, 2016-21 (CRS)
Source: OECD (2023[2]), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1.
The TOSSD dataset, which covers a more diverse set of actors but has not collected data for as long as the CRS has, shows an even larger share of disbursements through triangular co-operation supported government and civil society (47%) from 2019-21. As in the CRS, the second-largest share went to environmental protection (15%) followed by health (10%).
The OECD’s project repository, which has the oldest data series and widest set of providers of the three datasets, also shows a similar breakdown. While not all its sector categories match those employed by the TOSSD and CRS, the repository shows that the largest number of triangular co-operation projects between 2000-22 also focused on the government and civil society sector (24%), followed by agriculture and food security (15%), health (13%), and environmental protection (9%).
According to the CRS, 56% of triangular co-operation disbursements in 2020-21 that had been screened to assess whether they are targeting the environment or not using the OECD’s environmental marker4, were found to have targeted the environment (Figure 2.5). This is higher than the DAC member average of 34.3% of bilateral ODA targeted towards the environment over the same period (OECD, 2022[5]).
Figure 2.5. Share of DAC members screened using triangular co-operation targeting the environment, 2020-21 (CRS)
Source: OECD (2023[2]), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1.
The CRS data also show that 76% of screened disbursements in 2020-21 targeted gender using the OECD’s gender marker. This percentage is also far greater than the DAC member average of 45% of bilateral ODA targeted towards gender in 2019-20.
Looking ahead: Improving global data on triangular co-operation
This snapshot of existing datasets and assessment of trends in triangular co-operation highlights the need for improved reporting and monitoring of this modality at the global level to enhance the evidence base. The extremely comprehensive regional dataset on triangular co-operation projects, established and managed by the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB), is a good example of how concerted efforts can lead to a far more systematic approach to capturing data across partners (Box 2.3). An equivalent level of ambition is required at the global level.
Box 2.3. Data from more than a decade of triangular co-operation in Ibero-America show its growing importance
SEGIB has published an annual report on South-South and triangular co-operation in Ibero-America since 2007. Data are collected each year through a conceptual and methodological framework agreed among the SEGIB member states to register South-South and triangular co-operation.
In 2015, the Ibero-American Integrated Data System on South-South and Triangular Co-operation created the first regional online data platform where countries share data on their South-South and triangular co-operation. The platform is based on four pillars: 1) political legitimacy by involving representatives from all SEGIB members and the Secretariat’s co-ordination; 2) statistical reliability through an annual review and feedback on registered data; 3) a technological platform that is constantly updated; and 4) continuous methodological improvement by consensus, which allows adaptation to changes in the context of co-operation (GPI on Effective Triangular Co-operation, 2019[6]).
SEGIB data, which identify approximately 1 000 triangular initiatives in the region over 2010-21, confirm the growing importance and strengthening of triangular co-operation (Figure 2.6). The number of triangular co-operation projects peaked in 2017 and declined from then onwards, it is noteworthy that the number of projects increased strongly over time and the number of small activities (indicated as Actions in Figure 2.6) decreased (SEGIB, 2021[7]). This is a sign of triangular co-operation moving towards a next step of maturity in the region.
Figure 2.6. Triangular co-operation actions and projects in Ibero-America, 2010-21
Source: Ibero-American General Secretariat (2021[7]), Ibero-American cooperation figures (database), https://informesursur.org/en/ibero-american-cooperation-figures/; GPI on Effective Triangular Co-operation (2019[6]), Triangular Co-operation in the Era of the 2030 Agenda: Sharing Evidence and Stories from the Field, https://triangular-cooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Final-GPI-report-BAPA40.pdf. Ibero-American General Secretariat (2018[8]), A Decade of South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America, https://informesursur.org/en/report/a-decade-of-south-south-cooperation-in-ibero-america/.
To improve global data on triangular co-operation, there first needs to be greater awareness among all those engaging in triangular co-operation of what constitutes triangular co-operation and how to define it. More guidance as to what constitutes triangular co-operation is required if reporting is to improve.
Second, reporting systems at the organisational level need to be improved to more easily track and report triangular co-operation. Governments, international organisations and non-state actors need to adapt their own internal systems to enable more systematic monitoring and tracking of triangular co-operation. Including a tick box within an organisation’s project management reporting systems to identify triangular co-operation is an easy first step. Germany, for instance, introduced a new marker for triangular co-operation in its system. New project proposals now must explicitly state (by a tick in a box) if the proposed project contains a triangular partnership. The marker is flexible and applies to stand-alone triangular co-operation projects and programmes as well as those that are embedded within larger, more standard bilateral programmes.
Third, development co-operation providers need to demand that the regional and global databases they report to effectively monitor and track triangular co-operation. Making more data available on triangular co-operation at the global level will enhance the knowledge base and improve the future deployment of triangular co-operation.
References
[3] BMZ (2022), Triangular Cooperation In Germany Development Cooperation, Germany Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Berlin, https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/105782/936ecfc901f64e676d837f28318df9d3/dreieckskooperation-en-data.pdf.
[6] GPI on Effective Triangular Co-operation (2019), Triangular Co-operation in the Era of the 2030 Agenda: Sharing Evidence and Stories from the Field, Global Partnership Initiative (GPI) on Effective Triangular Co-operation, New York, https://triangular-cooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Final-GPI-report-BAPA40.pdf.
[2] OECD (2023), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1.
[1] OECD (2023), Triangular co-operation repository of projects (database), https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/triangular-co-operation-repository.htm.
[5] OECD (2022), Aid in Support of the Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/Aid-Support-Environment.pdf.
[7] SEGIB (2021), Ibero-American cooperation figures (database), https://informesursur.org/en/ibero-american-cooperation-figures/.
[8] SEGIB (2018), A Decade of South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America (2007-2017), https://informesursur.org/en/report/a-decade-of-south-south-cooperation-in-ibero-america/.
[4] TOSSD (2021), Data visualisation tool (database), https://tossd.online/.
Notes
← 1. The DAC is an international forum of many of the largest providers of development assistance. Its 31 members are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Union (EU), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
← 2. The CRS also captures data on international organisations, but there is no code for reporting triangular co-operation for international organisations.
← 3. TOSSD data show the largest share of disbursements through triangular co-operation over 2019-21 went to the LAC region (30%), 21% to sub-Saharan Africa and 17% to the Asia-Pacific (17%). The OECD project repository, which has project-level data rather than disbursement data, shows that from 2000-22, 41% of TrC projects were allocation to the LAC region. In contrast to the CRS, the second-largest share of projects in the repository focused on multi-regional engagement (26%) followed by sub-Saharan Africa (16%).
← 4. The environmental marker allows providers to mark multiple sectors beyond the environmental protection sector as environmentally-focused.