CGD Podcast: Building Better Development Partnerships with Santiago Quiñones Cardenas

Rachael Calleja: Hi, everyone, and welcome to the CGD podcast. My name is Rachael Calleja, and I'm a research fellow with the Center for Global Development's Europe program. Joining me today is Santiago Quiñones, who is the director of ODA, private sector and philanthropy with the Presidential Agency for International Cooperation of Colombia. Thanks so much for joining us, Santiago, and we really appreciate your time. It's great to have you with us.

Santiago Quiñones: Really happy to be with you, Rachael.

Rachael: Great. Today, Santiago and I are going to be talking about building better development partnerships. Specifically about an initiative we've both been part of over the last few years called the Re-thinking Development Cooperation Working Group, or as we more affectionately call it, the RDC for short. Just a little bit of background about the RDC. This is an initiative that was launched by the Norwegian and Swedish development agencies as a space for dialogue between officials from a group of eight diverse donors so they could learn more about each other and build better partnerships to support shared development goals.

A key feature of this group is, really, that our members include four traditional donors, so Canada, Norway, South Korea, and Sweden, and four emerging donors, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa. Which makes the RDC quite a unique space and provides an interesting starting place for peer-learning, building understanding of each other's agencies and contacts, and ultimately, creating a network between development practitioners that might otherwise not have had many opportunities to connect. Actually, some of the research that we've been doing over the last few years has shown that there really aren't many forums for traditional and emerging donors to engage in this type of dialogue. In most cases, these groups tend to operate quite separately. Traditional donors talk to each other at the DAC and emerging donors have their own spaces for development discussion. In this context, we see the RDC really as an opportunity to try and fill this gap, at least to some small degree.

Santiago, before we move on to the meat of the discussion, can you tell us what are the right terms to use when we're talking about development cooperation agencies from the global South? As you know, in our research, we tend to use DAC and non-DAC as technical terms for describing the different groups of agencies. On the other hand, the term "emerging donor" is so vague that I keep coming back to something one of our Mexican colleagues said a few years ago, which is, "Emerging from what? At what point have you actually emerged?" In your opinion, what is the best way or the least problematic way to talk about different groups of development agencies?

Santiago: Rachael, probably if we have this conversation in two, three months time, my answer will be different because this is under construction, I would say. [laughter] I think nowadays, if we refer to the DAC and the non-DAC, could be the easiest way to somehow pack one type and another type of donors. The first being members of, the second not being members of.

Basically, the second group, not being members of, even though we have been asked to join, but we never participated in the definition of rules and procedures of that group, so we don't really feel like part of it. Yet again, these recipient, traditional, non-traditional categorization, it's a difficult one. Yes, we don't necessarily feel comfortable with that, so for the time being, and once again, probably in three months I would be saying something different, DAC and non-DAC could be the best way to go about it.

Rachael: DAC and non-DAC. Okay, let's use that for the duration of this podcast, but in three months time, I want an update on where we stand in terms of the terminology to make sure we're getting it right. Perhaps then, using this as our jumping-off point, let's talk about the RDC. I wonder if you could, maybe, start by telling us a little bit about why APC Colombia decided to join the RDC initiative. Maybe, also, what you see, Santiago, as the value of the group for your agency.

Santiago: A very straightforward answer is, why not? When we saw the opportunity of joining RDC, we saw a group of very interesting peers. Even if we're non-DAC, we see each other as peers because we're working on the same thematics, let's say. Hey, it's our business. Then again, the possibility to have open, straightforward discussions under Chatham House rules, which also brings that possibility to engage in a different way in which we would do, traditionally, perhaps, in other forums.

I think it brought an opportunity to us. We saw it also as an opportunity to keep enhancing the voice from those countries from the South that are seeing development, perhaps, in a different way that has been traditionally seen. Again, a forum where we can bring these topics, concerns, visions into the attention of others that normally haven't been paying attention, if I could say. Definitely that. Yes, the possibility to, again, learn from others. I think that's very important. From other agencies, peers, again, that are, perhaps, some of them going through similar challenges as ourselves.

Rachael: That's great. I think, maybe, just picking up on that a little bit, I guess one thing we're really conscious of at the RDC is that, as much as it's not a huge demand on time, this is an extra thing for agencies to prioritize. We do recognize that your time is precious, and you're engaging with lots of other forums. I think, perhaps, a related question is, really, what makes this group, perhaps, unique compared to some of the other forums that you have? To speak to other agencies, right? There are other spaces where you're engaging in dialogue, so I guess, in addition to the value, is there something about the RDC that makes it really unique and good?

Santiago: We take part in many forums where development agencies sit together. I could have three of them on top of my mind. The Development Leaders Conference, which gathers a huge amount of development agencies, and it keeps growing. Then we have a new one, which is called the Emerging Development Partners Meeting, which coincides timely with the Development Leaders Conference- there's only been one of those -and this one.

The rest of the forums are mostly bilateral between development cooperation agencies. Again, having the possibility to have a different set of stakeholders, agencies, with different visions, but it's not too big. Reduced group where we can ask ourselves the difficult questions, basically. One thing that I really appreciated at the beginning of the group is that there was no agenda. The agenda is built collectively. This feature really put us on a situation of equality amongst partners.

Rachael: Yes, that's great. This idea that this group was really built on co-creation has been so pivotal and central to being able to bring everybody together and, as you say, have these open conversations about the things that are of interest to the group, really. The space becomes more about peer learning than having any sort of political dialogue or anything that would be a bit more controversial, and I think that's really helped to bring the group together and make it a useful space in the time that we've spent at the RDC. What are the main lessons that you've taken away from the group so far?

Santiago: One lesson, perhaps, is that even though South-South Cooperation, for example, has been going for a while, the DACs have not been necessarily listening to what the countries from the South have been doing and we are appealing for. That could be one. A second takeaway is that it's not secret for anybody that development cooperation, even the world, is at crossroads. Right?

Everyone is asking themselves, okay, are we doing it right? What should we do? With whom should we do it? At a time where ODA is also at stake. I think one lesson is that it's really important to have a different set of voices and stakeholders bringing their opinion to the table in order to rethink development cooperation or rebuild development cooperation. Some values have been questioned, objectives have been questioned, so I guess it's a good moment to have these stakeholders thinking about what's happening next.

Rachael: Great. I think one of the things that we want out of the RDC is, really, in relation to partnership building. I was quite struck with what you said about the South-South Cooperation's, obviously, been happening for a time but the DACs not listening. Do you see these kind of forums where you can have DACs and non-DACs together? Even at a technical or practitioner level because that's really what the RDC is. Do this as a way to try and deepen partnerships through understanding? What's the benefit of these types of spaces, perhaps, for building better partnerships?

Santiago: You can start building on something that I would say it's more political, of course, and it's the vision and the objectives of development cooperation. I think that's a fair discussion after, I don't know, 60 years of aid. It's good to have new stakeholders on the table with different visions. Yes, this is political. Why not? More on the technical side, I think there are alternatives and RDC has brought the opportunity to bring down to earth those opportunities to work together between DACs and non-DACs through different types of cooperation, example, triangular cooperation, and try to break that vertical point of view of aid and development cooperation and development overall.

Most of the solutions come from the south, so by acknowledging that, DAC north partners, they can really tap into an opportunity to build up solutions. Not only for countries in the South, but also for countries in the North. This is just an example, but just last week, we sat with the head of one development corporation office from the north, and they're struggling with migration. Colombia, we're not doing 100% great, but somehow we've managed with 2.8 million migrants coming into the country, so we can show these guys those types of solutions. Then, of course, adapt them to their contexts.

Rachael: The point you're making, I think, about learning from each other is a really important one. I'm actually really glad that you mentioned also the triangular cooperation. I was really struck by the conversation that we had at our last in-person RDC meeting which you hosted in Cartagena about triangular cooperation. For me, it was quite interesting to hear some of our DAC colleagues say, well, they don't really know that much about it.

It's something that we keep hearing about, and we keep hearing that, maybe, we should be involved in it, and we know it's important for partnership-building, but in terms of what it actually looks like and, perhaps, some of the concrete benefits, there seemed to be a bit of a gap between the experience of the non-DACs and the experience of the DACs through the conversation. Which I thought was really interesting.

I guess the other lesson for me that comes out of the RDC, which I was really struck by, especially during the first meeting that we had a year ago in Oslo, was about how similar DAC and non-DAC donors are to a degree. It was this idea that, actually, a lot of the shared purposes of cooperation and the objectives and the goals were fundamentally the same.

The way that these agencies differed was, really, in terms of the implementation and the tools and the ways of working. That always struck me, and I thought it was a really useful way to think about a basis for partnerships and a basis for having more of these types of discussions which can lead to better understandings and a better way of doing things in the future.

Santiago: 100%. Actually, this reflects on the whole spirit of the RDC, I would think, and this has been collectively built. We're not afraid of talking about vision, objectives, goals, and I think it's fair to have other stakeholders sitting on the table telling what they think and what they envision for development cooperation. Yet again, in a time where ODA, and you guys at the Center for Global Development have the data, this is not Santiago saying it, ODA, it's going through a crisis of legitimacy. By its own constituents.

The ODA or in the DAC countries, people are not seeing the added value of ODA and politicians taking advantage of this. Even countries in the South questioning, okay, are we okay with this kind of financial flows and the results they have brought? I think triangular cooperation brings an interesting element to the table. First, it's cost-effective because you tap into things that you've already done that have been tested. Of course, you adapt. Secondly, it brings legitimacy to ODA.

Let me quote an example. Colombia just launched a peacebuilding program with three African and one South Asian country taking part of that program. This was said by one of our African peers when we launched the program in Cameroon earlier this year. They told us, "Look, for us, it's much more legitimate to have Colombia here in Cameroon speaking about peace than having any other country from the North." Well, let's tap on that. Actually, peacebuilding in Colombia has been done in good part thanks to ODA partners who have been funding, particularly the implementation of the peace accords with FARC in 2016. Many of those lessons that we're sharing with the world have been funded with ODA, so it's value for money.

Rachael: Absolutely. I totally take your point on the cost-effective and especially on the legitimacy. I think that, for me, has always been the point about triangular cooperation that I think resonates the strongest. It's a way to develop a partnership and to use the skills and knowledge and resources that exist across the system in a way that's more horizontal and more legitimate. If you had to give advice to DAC members who were thinking about engaging more in triangular cooperation, what advice would you give?

Santiago: I would say it's important to reflect on those DAC members that are already doing triangular cooperation. It's not new for some DAC members. We have, for instance, Germany has done triangular cooperation, Portugal has done triangular cooperation, Spain has done triangular cooperation. I'm probably missing a couple. There are some others that are interested. Korea, for instance.

I would say, reflect on the lessons learned from these experiences between DAC and non-DAC triangular work. I think we have a very good example nowadays ongoing with Spain. Spain launched a call for proposals for Latin America and the Caribbean on triangular cooperation supported by some other development cooperation agencies, including us in Colombia. I think it's really interesting.

First, because it's regional, and that gives another angle to it, but then it's a co-creation process. Which involves national authorities, particularly development cooperation agencies, ourselves with Spain, and then whoever is proposing the ideas, so it's mostly based on ideas and then co-creating what's going to be funded. It doesn't have a criteria for the amount of money you can ask for. It's not going to be a lot, that's for sure, but still, you don't have to build that from the very beginning, this budget, da-da-da-da-da, and then it goes to expert review. It's changing the game a little bit, which makes it interesting. I think it's very innovative.

Rachael: This idea about co-creating is super interesting. I'm just trying to understand how it works, especially with a third partner. Is it you and iXceed doing the co-creation first and then bringing the third partner, or do you work with the third partner first and then pitch to iXceed? How does it work?

Santiago: Basically, there's the first phase where we collect proposals in-- it has a template, but it's not the typical project document template. We collect those ideas for Triangular, proposals for triangular cooperation. It has some criteria, of course. You have to involve certain Spanish, for example, technical institution or educational institution. Then after we collect all of these proposals, we review them with Spain.

Based on the different priorities set by the agencies, we select the top to be funded. Then is when the co-creation process starts, because we will tell, I don't know, an entity in Honduras, which is proposing a triangular cooperation between Honduras, Colombia, and Spain. All right, let's sit with the technical people. Let's say we're talking about, I don't know, WASH. Let's sit with the authorities or the entities or the think tanks or whoever is involved in this proposal to co-create the project. That's how it works, basically.

Rachael: Interesting. Okay. I've heard some agencies say sometimes it can take up to like two years to think about and negotiate development projects. How long does this process typically take?

Santiago: This is one feature of the triangular cooperation, it's quite flexible. There's no rules set in terms of partners, in terms of amounts, in terms of times, so it really varies. We've seen examples with Portugal, for instance, where we've developed really quick triangular cooperation. A call for proposals, normally, regardless if it's Triangular or whatever it is, a call for proposals, it will take a little bit more time, but I won't say it takes more time, or it's more cumbersome than any other type of cooperation.

Rachael: Great. One thing that came up in the discussion that we had in Cartagena was it's also for some countries that are in the process of graduating from ODA, that triangular cooperation can be a really interesting way of maintaining that partnership with DAC members, especially if the relationship changes, so that there's no longer that financial kind of engagement. Triangular can help build partnerships in that way. What I'm hearing is this is a positive modality and, maybe- I don't want to put words in your mouth -but perhaps you'd recommend that agencies consider it, perhaps, a bit more actively.

Santiago: Absolutely. ODA keeps being important. Very important. Triangular is one modality where we have found good lessons learned- cost-effectiveness, legitimacy, building stronger partnerships -but there are different types of cooperation, and it really depends. I would encourage, of course, particularly DAC members, to deepen their knowledge and practice around triangular cooperation with those who have done it, perhaps, in the past already.

For those who are in transition or transitioning, it remains very important. We make the case, of course, it cannot only be one indicator to define who graduates and who doesn't. You have to look at the bigger picture on this. Actually, there are emerging types of cooperation like circular cooperation, which has not been totally conceptualized, I would say, I think it's on the works, but we're working with think tanks, we're working with ECLAC on conceptualizing a little bit better circular cooperation.

What we're seeing is that we share between north and south and east and west, you name it, similar challenges. Migration, for example. Biodiversity loss and climate change, it's shared amongst everybody. That oblige us to think differently in how we cooperate and how we build systems and financial flows to address those problems.

Rachael: Can I ask, just for anybody who's not aware of or hasn't heard this term "circular cooperation", can you just, maybe, explain just in a few sentences how you understand that?

Santiago: Shared challenges between north and south. Solutions that can be coming from the south. The example I gave earlier about migration, I think, is a good one. Countries from the north looking on how some countries in the south are addressing the issue because they're not doing pretty well, as mentioned, by themselves. This breaks this verticality of cooperation and makes us think differently again, so we see this circularity. Things that have been done somewhere else, how can we adapt them to different or similar contexts, but same issues?

Rachael: Interesting. It's about learning, perhaps, from each other in a multidirectional way as opposed to it just being this from the north.

Santiago: Absolutely.

Rachael: Is that right?

Santiago: Yes, absolutely.

Rachael: As we think about the future of the RDC, what are the opportunities, perhaps, that for the RDC on the horizon? What are the ways that we can build on the group's strengths to improve its usefulness for APC?

Santiago: There's a couple of angles to it. One is the institutional, and I think this one is very important. We're speaking about institutions, about development cooperation agencies. As we've seen in RDC, but in other foras, everyone's struggling. We're in one type or in another type of transition, so everyone's questioning a little bit, what are we going to do? ODAs or DAC members, how do we bring legitimacy to ODA? How do we deal with our migration issues in country without affecting ODA? How do we fund biodiversity and climate change without affecting our efforts towards reducing poverty?

Whereas countries like Colombia are transitioning from being recipients mostly to more and more be providers using the DAC terminology. [chuckling] Under this transition, the institutional angle towards it is like, okay, institutionally, how do we make or build agencies for the future or for the reality that we are seeing? There's obsolescence institutionally. What was thought 30, 40, 50 years ago is not the reality anymore, so that's the institutional angle towards it.

The other one, I would say, it's more on the financial side. Financing for development is the hot topic. With environmental issues on the rise, how do we manage to fund everything that we need to fund? The gaps are huge and how do we involve new partners? This is one of the discussions that I think is picking up globally. The RDC being one forum where we can learn better from each other on how do we do innovative finance.

How do we build up on different types of instruments that can help so we address some of the problems that we're facing? First locally but then globally, because the effort required is huge. We need new models, we need new instruments, we need new stakeholders, we need new resources. I think RDC is helping somehow, at least the partners that take part in RDC, to think about this and bring some examples to the table. Colombia has been doing good, I would say, in terms of innovative finance, and we're sharing that experience with other countries. Yet again, at scale, but it's showing some results. Effectiveness as well.

Rachael: Thanks so much, Santiago. The point that you made that stood out for me the most was-- is about everybody's in transition, and I think you're absolutely right about that. It's something that came out of the last meeting that we had in Cartagena. It was very clear when we were talking, all the agencies were speaking a little bit that everybody is struggling to adapt to the changing landscape and the changing realities.

I think that's super interesting to be able to have these forums where we can come together and discuss these shared challenges and realize that, actually, none of these agencies are alone, and there are things that we can learn from each other in the way that we deal with these issues. Shifting gears a little bit, Santiago, if you don't mind. We have two standard CGD questions that we ask all guests on the podcast. They're more fun, I promise.

Santiago: Bring it on.

Rachael: The first one is, what's one weird, funny, or memorable thing that has happened to you on the job?

Santiago: All right, I would say that most of the memorable or funny things that have happened have to do with cultural differences. Having the opportunity to work in African countries for about nine years, I did [laughs] struggle with some cultural differences. Perhaps one of them, when you go to communities, and they really want you to drink palm wine, [chuckling] and you being a little bit afraid of saying no. You have to take the palm wine. They really want you to drink palm wine, and it's a little bit heavy for your stomach, [laughter] I would say.

Rachael: Oh, no.

Santiago: Yes, similar to this, cultural differences with colleagues in the office where you, perhaps, are not really aware of those cultural features, and you make small mistakes and they're a bit funny. Not in a controversial way.

Rachael: Oh, that's great. Then the second question we have for you is, if you could instantly change any one policy in the world, what change do you think would do the most good? Just a small question here for you to wrap up.

Santiago: Yes, it was very small. Wow. First would be the reform to the international financial system. Totally obsolete and not responding to the global needs of people and communities and environment. Second, tax justice. The big issue is financing, I would say, and without those two, we probably won't be able to solve the problems that we have nowadays.

Rachael: Yes, absolutely. Thanks again, Santiago. It's been an absolute pleasure having you with us.

Santiago: Thanks to you, Rachael, and to the Center for Global Development, who has been a great ally and partner in this road.

Rachael: Of course, thanks to our listeners. If anyone has any questions or wants to learn more about the RDC, we do have a CGD blog with more details about the initiative. Of course, please feel free to reach out if you want to discuss or interested in the RDC in the future.