Keywords

In this chapter we present all our empirical cases via the provision of general information, followed by their modality profiles in which we categorise the partner’s modalities into modality function, format and activities. Further, we analyse their modalities along the lines of the sensitising concept and the four dimensions: Ownership, Relationship Dynamics, Innovation & Co-creation and Sustainability. It is important to note that our empirical findings are largely based on data gathered in interviews, participatory observations, surveys and workshops. In order to guarantee anonymity, we chose not to make explicit references to single data sources.

5.1 Rwanda Cooperation Initiative

In 2018, the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation established Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI) with the ambition to strategically engage in SSC and to share Rwanda’s innovative development mechanisms with the other countries on the continent and beyond. RCI is a private company owned by the Rwandan government and is based in Kigali. Its official mandate statement is to “promote knowledge exchange and mutual growth”, to “advocate for and share innovative development initiatives through South–South and triangular cooperation” (RCI, 2021). Rwanda’s ambition is to transition from “least developed country (LDC) to an upper-middle income country (UMIC) by 2035, and a high-income country (HIC) by 2050” (Klingebiel, 2019, p. 2). This is used as a starting point for upscaling its missions and providing insights into practical expertise to other countries.

Rwanda’s socio-economic development journey after the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi sparked interest among other African countries who face development challenges comparable to Rwanda (Karuhanga, 2018; Klingebiel et al., 2016; RCI, 2021). Prior to the establishment of RCI, Rwanda’s ministries had frequently received various requests for study visits from other African nations to benchmark what Rwanda calls “home-grown initiatives” (HGIs) and best practices. RCI now receives these study visit requests and coordinates them. HGIs have emerged in the post-genocide context, are rooted in societal traditions, and are community-based institutional and organisational mechanisms targeted at social challenges such as social protection, rural development or the handling of genocide related trials. Examples for such initiatives are Girinka (one cow per family), Umurenge (community savings and credit cooperatives) or Imihingo (performance-based contracts) (Rwanda Cooperation Initiative, 2022). Best practices are drawn from other countries and adapted to Rwanda’s context, one example being the integrated financial management information system (IFMIS), which enables effective stewardship over public assets and funds (Rwanda Cooperation Initiative, 2022).

5.1.1 RCI’s Modality Profile

RCI uses different modalities to disseminate knowledge. These are study visits, Rwandan experts who work in a foreign country for project implementation, and an online learning platform. RCI’s deciphered modality profile, separated into modality function, modality format and modality activities, is depicted in Fig. 5.1.

Fig. 5.1
A block chart. It has rows for modality function, modality format, and modality activities. Study visits are presentations, field visits, and open discussion with experts on requested topic. Experts have joint project development and implementation. Rwandapedia has provision of online learning platform.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Modality profile of Rwanda Cooperation Initiative

Full size image

  • Rwandapedia: Rwandapedia is an online learning platform to inform about the HGIs and best practices, and contribute to the modality function capacity development. It consists of two major modality activities: a free encyclopaedia and online-learning features with detailed courses on Rwanda’s HGIs and selected adopted good practices. The access to the courses has to be purchased.

  • Experts: RCI facilitates project implementation related to best practices and HGIs in other countries, possibly with the support of a development partner, and aims to provide capacity development and policy advice. Typically, RCI identifies Rwandan experts that implement projects in another country. The Rwandan expert has the advantage over others in that he or she has already operated in similar local realities. RCI identifies such Rwandan experts in public or private institutions and engages them to support RCI in mobilising development partners to contribute financial means. A current example of someone obtained by this means is a Rwandan expert who works on the improvement of the tax system in Chad.

  • Study visits: Following the objective to benchmark Rwanda as a role model, state bodies of partner countries request a study visit to Rwanda. All requests are channelled through RCI to facilitate the study visit (modality format) by creating a schedule that responds to the requests of the incoming study visit participants and taking care of the logistics. By this, the study trip (modality format) contributes to the capacity development and policy advisory (modality functions). The expertise of interest to the study visits lies within Rwanda’s ministries. Following RCI’s request, relevant ministries within the Rwandan government identify suitable personnel to engage with the study visit participants. A study visit typically includes different modality activities. Examples are field visits, open discussions, presentations, but also informal events, such as cocktail receptions. One integral part of study visits is to teach participants about Rwanda’s history and the genocide. To make the Rwandan context easily accessible, RCI currently constructs a virtual exhibition hall about Rwanda’s post-genocide development. Usually, study visits take place at short notice, with sometimes only a couple of days between a country’s request and the proposed arrival date of the participants. While the study visit takes place, changes to the visit’s programme are often made to respond to their evolving demands. Staff of RCI accompany the study visit participants throughout their stay to ensure a smooth procedure. As study visits are the most frequently requested modality, our empirical focus also lies here.

5.1.2 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept

Along the lines of the sensitising concept, the following characteristics of the way study visits are conducted are important.

5.1.2.1 Ownership

The incoming study visit participants determine the subject they want to learn about, they express their wish to learn from Rwanda’s development story and approach RCI themselves. It is hence a very demand-driven process. Also, during the course of the study visit in Rwanda, study visit participants frequently express the wish to look in more detail at a topic, and RCI responds to these requests by making changes to the schedule. RCI ensures that requested study visits take place although due to a high demand they sometimes cannot happen in the requested time frame. This focus on the needs of the study visit participants, and RCI’s flexibility in adapting to their emerging demands, demonstrates its commitment to the programme and generates a strong sense of ownership in the participants.

Another aspect of ownership concerns RCI’s position in the development cooperation landscape. RCI offers a further option to services in the realm of “traditional” ODA, and is establishing itself as an organisation that decides how they want to present the requested topics of the study visits and, hence, owns its position in the field of development cooperation.

5.1.2.2 Relationship Dynamics

From our data we have learned that study visit participants perceive their interactions with RCI to be on a basis of equality. The manner in which modality activities are conducted reveals the degree of horizontality: the accessibility to resources and decision-making processes and the dynamic between RCI and an incoming study visit participants. Interestingly, RCI has emphasised that Rwanda can still learn from other countries’ experiences; during the participants’ interactions with Rwandan institutions this attitude was made very clear. Although RCI and Rwandan ministries have a knowledge advantage on the topics participants study on the visits, our observations and interviews did not indicate notions of superiority on the Rwandan side. In terms of accessibility to resources and decision-making processes, we noticed that decisions concerning the modality formats, such as changes to the study visit schedule, were made jointly. The interaction between the study visit participants and RCI’s staff was rather informal, WhatsApp being the preferred means of communication. From RCI we have learned that they themselves do not always feel on an equal level when interacting with traditional ODA donors.

5.1.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation

Study visit participants generally greatly appreciate the quality and learning experience of the study visits, as our survey shows (see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Survey results Rwanda Cooperation Initiative
Full size table

The survey responses and our observations led us to suggest possible minor improvements that could enhance the already highly rated quality of the study visits. Since its establishment in 2018, and despite COVID-19 caused travel restrictions, RCI has received more than 200 study visits. As RCI has not yet set up an impact assessment of the study visits, it is impossible to say to which outputs the high number of study visits has led. However, the surveys show that at least some study visits led to a follow up (further collaborative activities).

5.1.2.4 Sustainability

Social relationships and the spoken word are the main drivers making RCI’s services more popular. Concerning financial sustainability, RCI has established a cost-recovery mechanism. It is not intended that RCI makes a profit from the study visits. Only costs directly associated with the study visits, such as logistics, are covered by the participants’ organisation. Another aspect of the sustainability dimension is the adaptability of RCI’s services. As we have observed through the flexibility in drafting the study visit programmes at short notice, as well as adjustments made during the study visit, RCI tries to respond, as far as possible, to the participant’s demands. Since RCI does not yet systematically keep track of its impacts, it is impossible to make a final statement regarding the study visits’ long-lasting effects. We can say, however, that based on our survey results, the study visits do sometimes lead participants to concrete actions.

5.1.3 Further RCI Specific Aspects

Rwanda, as a low-income country, has a special position in the landscape of knowledge actors in development cooperation. The global discourse on SSC is dominated by perceptions related to the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and emerging countries. Typical Southern bilateral partners are the Brazilian Cooperation Agency, the China International Development Agency, the Finance Industry Development Council in India and Agencia Mexicana de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (Jing & Naohiro, 2018).

In its own view, RCI has a comparative advantage over the well-established SSC actors. As Rwanda’s socio-economic transformation has started and is ongoing with minimal economic resources available to it, compared to traditional countries in SSC, fellow low-income countries might relate to the Rwandan example, according to RCI and former participants of study visits (RCI, n.d.). This aspect was also confirmed by our survey, in which similarity in development challenges is stated as a reason why Rwanda is a suitable country to benchmark against. On the African continent, RCI as an institution is unique in its mandate and coordinating role in knowledge exchange.

To the best of our knowledge Rwanda is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that has a designated national institution with the function of engaging in SSC via the provision of services.

A confirmation of the relevance of RCI’s work is the continuously high demand for study visits by African countries. The systematic and coordinated access to Rwanda’s socio-economic transformation is well accepted and seems to cater to a need. In future, RCI strives to engage in forms of triangular cooperation, as written in Rwanda’s Plan for South–South Cooperation Strategy (RCI, n.d.).

Generally, RCI follows a practical, hands-on understanding of knowledge. It is, in essence, the savoir-faire and the practical application of the HGIs and best practices that is being shared through their services. While RCI is well aware that context matters for the applicability of their approaches, RCI’s staff consider the HGIs and best practices as an accumulation of knowledge which can be shared and contextualised. RCI’s set goal to become a global gateway for knowledge exchange is partially fulfilled. RCI transfers experiences and knowledge generated in Rwanda, but through its current modalities this does not happen the other way around.

RCI, as a young organisation operating in the disruptive, challenging times of the pandemic, still undergoes changes and is at the crossroads of its organisational development. In early 2022 a new Chief Executive Officer was appointed who will bring new impulses to the organisation. For the long-term prospects of RCI’s mandate, effort has to be made to ensure that the content of RCI’s services stays relevant. Also, the recurrent question that came up in discussions was whether Rwanda’s success factors lie beyond technical knowledge and innovative policies, in its ability to effectively implement laws, and whether the study visits do capture this aspect sufficiently.

5.1.4 Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations are twofold and concern strategic aspects of RCI’s operations and their position in the SSC landscape.

  • The study visit (modality format) in its current design fosters one-directional knowledge transfer, where Rwandan institutions act as knowledge sender and study visit participants are knowledge receivers. This transfer model is fit for purpose, as study visit participants come on study visits to learn from Rwandan experiences. If RCI wants to engage in knowledge exchange, modalities have to be adapted to integrate a backchannel for knowledge to allow a bi-directional knowledge exchange.

  • In the debate on SSC and TrC, RCI’s role and profile is not yet well known. Enhancing their visibility and enlarging their networks offers ample opportunities for RCI to explore collaboration formats, and is also enriching for the global debate on SSC and TrC. RCI undertakes steps to increase their visibility and makes an effort to establish itself in the SSC and TrC landscape which we think is beneficial at this stage of their organisational development.

5.2 Research and Information System for Developing Countries

Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) is a New Delhi-based policy research institute under the Indian Ministry of External Affairs; RIS was founded in 1983. RIS describes itself as an envisioned “forum for fostering effective policy dialogue and capacity-building among developing countries on global and regional economic issues” (RIS, 2022). Generally, the think tank centres around four core research programmes (“Research Pillars”) (RIS, 2022), namely: (1) Global Economic Governance and Cooperation, (2) Trade, Investment and Economic Cooperation, (3) Trade Facilitation, Connectivity and Regional Cooperation, and (4) New Technologies and Development Issues. To operationalise and adapt knowledge, RIS increasingly focuses on “spin-offs”—the act of creating a separate entity with employees of the “mother” organisation.

For our research, we specifically focused on the Global Development Center (GDC) as one of these spin-offs. The GDC is a practical knowledge platform that aims to take best practices/core competencies from India's development experience or new ideas from abroad in thematic niches such as health, agriculture, and financial inclusion, and pass them on to partner countries (especially East African ones). The establishment of the centre was funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which provided a grant under the UK-India Triangular Partnership. From a knowledge collaboration perspective, we see that one of GDC’s main goals is to build impactful SSC narratives, implement time-tested flagship initiatives that have been successfully established in previous projects, and ultimately contribute to generating (more) public goods. For example, in the area of digital payment systems, during COVID-19, contactless payment was necessary and Unified Payment Interface (UPI), an Indian touch-free payment, developed very quickly and successfully and was then adopted in African countries.

5.2.1 RIS’s Modalities Profile

RIS generally has its own understanding of the term modality. It follows the Indian Development Compact,Footnote 1 the cornerstone of India’s development cooperation, and defines its modalities as grants, concessional finance, trade and investment, technology and capacity building (Chakrabarti, 2016, p. 1). Linked to this, RIS conceptualises corresponding modalities. Following our research’s iterative and adaptive approach, we discussed our perception of RIS’s modality profile with respect to its initial understanding of modalities, and jointly developed the modality profile shown in Fig. 5.2.

Fig. 5.2
A table of modality profile. It has rows for modality functions, modality formats, and modality activities. The research pillars are as follows. Training programs are scholarships and fellowships. Lecture skills are F I D C lecture and S T I P lecture. FORA has Delhi Process and I B S A. Research has journals and books.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Modality profile of Research and Information System for Developing Countries

Full size image

RIS’s knowledge cooperation is characterised by multiple mandates. On the one hand, it is a think tank with analysis and research functions, but on the other hand it acts also as a do tank by taking on implementing capacities/activities with its GDC spin-off. At the same time, it is also a training institute and functions beyond that as an implementing SSC agency. In this context, RIS offers a broad and diverse range of knowledge interaction modalities, starting with the modality functions as follows: capacity development, academic knowledge contribution, discourse shaping, policy advisory, topic branding, policy dialogue, identifying community leadership, networking and ecosystem support (see Fig. 5.2).

RIS structures its modality formats according to its own logic, stating that they cannot be separated from each other but have to be problem-based and interconnected—mainly for two reasons:

  • Modalities should not be separated and weighed against each other, because it is not about the modalities themselves per se, but about the issues they are addressing. Such a structure, with interwoven modalities, seems to be a pragmatic approach that allows RIS a lot of flexibility.

  • Modalities cannot be seen or implemented separately when aiming for a policy change. When seeking action on climate change, for example, a separate modality is insufficient; interactions between different modalities are required to move the issue in the right direction. In other words, different interlinked modalities are needed to generate momentum.

In essence, this means that RIS has its core research pillars and the modality formats are in some way subsequent to the research pillars. In other words: the modality formats and activities follow the thematic focus of RIS. Thereby, each research pillar would typically be the centre of the following modality formats:

  • Training programmes, including modality activities such as scholarships, fellowships, training activities, internships, summer schools, young scholar forums, and research capacity-building programmes.

  • Lecture series, which cover modality activities such as the FIDC (Forum for Indian Development Cooperation) Lectures or the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Lecture. The third modality format of fora consists of the modality activities such as Delhi Process, Delhi Dialogue, FIDC Annual Dialogue, the South Asia Economic Summit, the BRICS Academic Summit, IBSA fellowship programme, and other conferences.

  • Research collaboration, including journals, books, reports, discussion papers, and policy briefs.

  • Policy formats, including the modality activities policy analysis, surveys, and providing policy perspectives.

  • Networking (Pal & Spence, 2021), which covers modality activities such as NeST, Forum on Indian Traditional Medicine, Forum for Indian Science Diplomacy, academic collaborations with universities, institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), and joint projects, events and publications.

5.2.2 Modality Analysis Based on Our Sensitising Concept

5.2.2.1 Ownership

Ownership manifests itself in the sense that RIS includes various stakeholders in its modality formats and activities, from Indian ministries, domestic policy actors and CSOs to think tanks, agencies and students as well as practitioners from various countries and many more. In doing so, it is strengthening especially SSC voices in the global cooperation arena. Due to its multiple mandate as a policy research institute primarily reporting to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and at the same time as agency and training institution strongly linked to this variety of actors abroad, the question arises as to how RIS navigates ownership-related issues when working between partner country requests and Indian government initiatives. In fact, RIS points here to the Indian Development Compact as the basis of the organisation’s work, and building on ownership as a core principle of Indian development actors’ engagement with partners, thus potentially synthesising aspirations towards ownership held by various stakeholders involved in its activities. Especially notable is RIS’s own capacity to shape the international agendas and discourses it is part of, especially regarding SSC, and increasingly also the sphere of triangular cooperation.

5.2.2.2 Relationship Dynamics

RIS aims for flat hierarchies among its partner and open-ended collaboration. However, due to the complexity of such relationships, it is hard to capture the extent to which they also enable a knowledge backchannel from partner countries into India and to domestic actors to effectively take up best-practices or new ideas from abroad. Firstly, RIS, not only wants to take forward what is dubbed “Indian successes” with GDC, but also proven solutions from other countries, with domestic ministries being potential recipients here. Secondly, the case of RIS’s special engagement in the state of Madhya Pradesh shows RIS’s efforts to increase the sharing of knowledge gained from one state to another within India. In this regard, RIS can play a mediator role, taking up knowledge gained from international partners and distributing it domestically through its publications, policy work, trainings etc. In doing so, RIS also tries to bring together different Indian ministries and to break silo thinking, e.g. between the domains of biotech, space, energy and more.

Finally, with a view to face-to-face interactions not being possible, COVID-19 evidently became a challenge for organisational relationships. At the same time, RIS advises on potentials brought about by the pandemic’s push for digitalisation in terms of relationship hierarchies in international knowledge cooperation. Without them having to be physically present anymore, the possibilities for knowledge actors in the Global South to gain easier access to science infrastructure in the Global North—through the remote use of laboratories, data centres and computation capacity—are potentially opening up. Here, RIS aims to foster possibilities for actors in the Global South to profit from research infrastructure abroad while building up its own domestic capacities.

5.2.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation

Due to the wide array of different modalities in use and RIS’s partially pragmatic and flexible application, the organisation shows a significant capacity to adapt to the needs and context requirements in enabling innovative co-creation of knowledge. This agility was especially put to the test during the peak phase of the pandemic—and was thereby further enhanced, beyond the usual capacity of a think and do tank. RIS was at times very directly involved in ad hoc knowledge processing and fast information flows in finding innovative solutions in times of crisis. And while innovating as an organisation itself, RIS at the same time aims to push the (co-)creative capacities of participants in its trainings and programmes. For example, in the IBSA fellowship programme, which promotes academic SSC exchange of young scholars between India, Brazil and South Africa, the idea is for participants to become part of RIS’s co-creation cycles and to be supported in jointly writing reports to be distributed via the organisation’s knowledge dissemination formats. And this is just one example of several. Finally, even though RIS staff stress the interlinked nature of topics in the area of “development”, and the necessity for holistic approaches, the general question still remains whether, in the end, the range of innovation areas the organisation tries to address with its various modalities is too broad to be covered in sufficient depth in every case.

5.2.2.4 Sustainability

Generally, RIS’s significant capacity to use prior resources and adapt modalities is potentially contributing significantly to it achieving sustainable effects. In every regard, RIS and its spin-off GDC, can draw on the institution’s long-term relationships, networks and funding potential. When monitoring and evaluating its activities, RIS aims to focus on qualitative methods of assessment instead of quantitative indicators. To do so, staff are especially looking at publication activities and policy implementations. They highlight examples of ideas born or accelerated inside RIS and taken up by policy makers or political representatives who explicitly refer to RIS in regard to finding solutions to current issues.

In this regard, RIS works on alternative approaches to capturing long-term impact. Here, RIS is also active in discussions about major established forms and indicators of long-term assessments in the sphere of development and in how far they are a concept from the Global North which can and/or should not be adapted to the contexts RIS is working in and on. RIS appears to aim for impact assessment which takes into account SSC principals, a focus on processes (the “how’) as well as on performance. All this can be seen as grounded in the principles of the Indian Development Compact—and at the same time many of these aspects are part of already established forms of impact assessment.

5.2.3 Further aspects of RIS

Five more aspects of RIS make an interesting case. First, RIS is different from other institutions in the development sphere due to its focus on developing linkages between foreign and domestic policy. Despite generally being oriented towards external affairs in its primal mandate, it deliberately reaches out, not only to international organisations that have an international footprint and specialise in international relations, but also to partners and target groups that operate at the state level to create synergies. This means fostering an inclusion of global thinking and transnational relations in the thinking and practice of partner organisations such as regional public organisations, universities and CSOs, as well as, conversely, enabling internationally practised ways of knowledge sharing within India among different states. And it is not only Indian states that benefit from this approach. Smaller African countries, for example, can perhaps learn more from the state of Madhya Pradesh than from the nation state of India.

Next, RIS itself shapes the global discourses it is part of. For example, RIS both organises the Delhi processFootnote 2 and actively participates in it, providing expert contributions on issues such as impact assessment frameworks for SSC. Thus, conference attendees can see how theoretical discourse is manifested in practice by RIS.

Further, RIS increasingly becomes a global gateway, a focal point for various international discussions. We see this in the context of the G20, for example, to which RIS contributes through research-based policy advice.

Moreover, RIS intensifies its work towards facilitating knowledge-sharing processes. This means that, in addition to the classical research orientation of a think tank, RIS more and more acts as a do tank in offering multi-stakeholder activities and trainings, and in engaging with civil society organisations. Part of RIS’s increased engagement in this field of action was the creation of the Global Development Center.

And, finally, when looking at its knowledge understanding, RIS focuses on actionable knowledge. That is, knowledge that—beyond its theoretical value—is also implementable. Linking this to the results of our analysis of RIS’s different modalities of knowledge interaction, it can be concluded that through its inputs, RIS itself predominantly organises knowledge creation, knowledge co-creation and, at the same time, facilitates knowledge exchange.

5.2.4 Conclusions

In conclusion, modalities at RIS are problem-based and interconnected, since RIS usually works on highly interdisciplinary issues. In its work, RIS explicitly tries to take into account what is known as the butterfly effect, namely that small changes in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere. This means that RIS aims to address development challenges in a multitude of ways and not to neglect seemingly less-relevant aspects of complex development processes. While this approach tries to make sure that underexplored aspects are also properly captured, the question arises whether RIS is taking too many different tasks (think tank and do tank functions) and parallel issues into consideration, and is too diversified, instead of specialising in selected functions and topics.

Finally, there is also the issue of long-term impact assessment. It was interesting to see that such an influential player, who initiates and covers many topics and reports to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, is still working on providing suitable ways to capture its long-term impact. RIS appears to aim for forms of impact assessment which take into account SSC principals, a focus on processes (the “how”) as well as on performance. It remains interesting to see how RIS will use its influential role in SSC to shape this discussion or develop concrete tools for this matter.

5.3 UNDP Seoul Policy Centre

The UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC), based in Seoul, Republic of Korea (ROK), is one of a number of global policy centres of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Its role is to facilitate global knowledge exchange “on innovative and tested-and-proven policy solutions in strategic areas of expertise” (USPC, 2021b).

USPC draws on the development history of the Republic of Korea (ROK), characterised by rapid economic growth and a significant drop in poverty after the Korean War in 1953 (West, 2018). UNDP initiated assistance programmes in the ROK in 1966. In 2010, the country became the first former aid recipient to join the OECD’s DAC, and thereafter the UNDP Country Office in the ROK closed. USPC was established in 2011 to share the ROK’s development experience with other countries by using the country’s expertise to provide innovative development solutions and support to partner countries (USPC, 2019, 2021b). The ROK’s “from aid recipient to donor” story is of interest to development actors globally, and particularly actors in the Global South, many of whom show an interest in learning about Korea’s success factors (Hong & Izmestiev, 2020; Keijzer, Klingebiel, & Oh, 2022; Kim & Kalu, 2021; Mawdsley, 2012; Prizzon & Calleja, 2019). Additionally, USPC has the mandate to act as a knowledge facilitator, enabling knowledge interactions and connecting stakeholders: both internally to connect institutions and organisations located in the ROK with actors in the UNDP system, and externally to partner with stakeholders from the ROK to work on international issues (USPC, 2021b).

USPC is part of UNDP’s Global Policy Network (GPN) and exchanges with different parts of UNDP’s structure as well as with the wider UN ecosystem, including the United Nations Office for South–South Cooperation (UNOSSC). The centre addresses several thematic areas; within the area of Governance, USPC focuses on Transparency & Accountability as well as Sexual & Gender-based Violence (SGBV). Sustainable Forestry is the focus of the Resilience area. The third area, Development Cooperation, has two focus themes: Capacity for Addressing the Challenges of Development Cooperation and Non-state Development Actors.

With USPC’s vision to facilitate global knowledge exchange in strategic areas of expertise, each thematic area is anchored in the overall UNDP global programme. For instance, as the representative of UNDP in Korea, USPC works closely with GPN, including the teams for gender, governance, rule of law, security and human rights, and for SDG integration, to generate concrete programme results. USPC’s substantive engagement in each of these areas is further addressed through USPC’s main approach: so-called “SDG partnerships” are the vehicle of collaboration with partners in all thematic areas to foster policy dialogue, research and knowledge sharing on development issues for local adaptation and ownership for sustainability, tapping into countries’ knowledge and shared experiences (USPC, 2019). SDG partnerships combine different modality functions, formats and activities.

USPC understands itself as a knowledge facilitatorFootnote 3 that aims to co-create knowledge with UNDP country offices, partners in the respective partner country and stakeholders from the ROK in the SDG Partnerships (Fig. 5.3).

Fig. 5.3
A flow chart of knowledge co-creation in S D G partnerships. Republic of Korea has U S P C and South Korean Stakeholders. Partner country has U N D P Country Office and partner. Knowledge co-creation in S D G partnerships is between Republic of Korea and Partner Country.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Knowledge co-creation in SDG partnerships

Full size image

5.3.1 USPC’s Modality Profile

Analysed through the lens of the modality typology we developed, USPC uses different modality formats and activities that follow different modality functions. USPC’s modality profile is depicted in Fig. 5.4.

Fig. 5.4
A block diagram of Modality profile of U N D P Seoul Policy Center. Modality functions are capacity development, policy advisory, networking, and discourse shaping. Modality formats are study visits, E-consultations, experts, and FORA. Modality activities are workshops, meetings, training activities, and networking.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Modality profile of UNDP Seoul Policy Centre

Full size image

“SDG Partnerships” is an umbrella term for the collection of the modality formats study visits, e-consultations and experts combined with seed funding and USPC’s work with partner countries to implement their own set of policy reform and capacity-building activities. As part of SDG Partnerships, USPC uses the different modality formats according to the requests of the respective partner in a UNDP country office for facilitating knowledge interactions with Korean stakeholders and subject-matter experts.

The partners who benefit are selected on a competitive basis through Calls for Expression of Interest.Footnote 4 Partners can be government departments, administrative bodies and various kinds of organisations, such as the Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI). USPC supported RCI in the establishment of its virtual exhibition by connecting RCI with the Korean Global Knowledge Exchange and Development Centre.

There are two different ways in which USPC matches partner country requests with experts from the ROK. In the Governance area, based on the respective thematic focus, USPC brings in relevant experts from the government and civil society in the ROK and they provide collective support for beneficiaries from partner countries. In the Development Cooperation area, USPC reaches out to Korean stakeholders according to requests from partners.

Seed funding is a part of the SDG Partnerships that USPC channels through the respective UNDP country offices. The seed funding made available by USPC for its SDG partnerships is then mainly used for in-country activities in order to utilise and apply relevant elements from Korean experiences and best practices. Activities include workshops, trainings, (ad hoc) consultancy and more.

Major modality formats are as follows:

  • Study visits: Study visits are a format with the function of capacity development. Partners travel to Korea, usually for one week, to study the Korean approach to, for example, transparency and accountability or the development of sharing platforms for cooperation. Through USPC, visiting partners gain access to experts from the ROK and the knowledge they can share. Through these study visits, USPC, in collaboration with the experts, tries to make knowledge tangible, grounded in reality, easy to understand and applicable. The study visit delegates then become the key knowledge holders and agents of change in their home countries and make the difference with local adaptation. Essentially, USPC aims to utilise study visits to bring together key policy makers from its partner countries to own the initiative. After the study visits, delegations from the partner countries lead the in-country activities within their specific local contexts, based on additional knowledge and lessons learned. Beyond that, USPC can continue seed funding and technical support for one to two years after a study visit.

  • E-consultations and virtual meetings: E-consultations have been established to meet partners’ requests virtually, and were more frequently used during the COVID-19 pandemic as entry restrictions to the ROK due to the pandemic were strict. E-consultations include different activities, such as workshops with the function of capacity development, as well as networking events across USPC’s partners to learn from each other’s approaches on a specific topic, or webinars.

  • Experts: Experts as a modality format are used in different ways. In the case of the SDG partnership with UNDP Rwanda and Rwanda Cooperation Initiative, USPC’s funding was used to finance an expert advisor to support the establishment of a Rwandan South–South and Triangular Cooperation Strategy. The expert consulted Rwanda Cooperation to capture knowledge on, discuss and eventually establish a concept. Generally, for this modality format, USPC also leverages the Global Policy Network through UNDP’s headquarters to support its partner countries most effectively.

  • Fora: Fora are an additional modality format that contributes to international networking between partners and the discourse-shaping character of USPC in the development/knowledge cooperation landscape. One example of a forum is USPC’s Seoul Debates, a biennial event that takes the form of a global platform for dialogue and collaboration on selected development topics. The Seoul Debates were first held in 2013 and have since addressed lessons learned in Korea and in collaboration with its partner countries as the development cooperation landscape has evolved (USPC, 2021a, 2021b).

5.3.2 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept

As our data collection focused on the SDG Partnerships in the areas of Governance and Development Cooperation, we analyse the modality formats and activities based on those insights.

5.3.2.1 Ownership

USPC tries to align its SDG Partnerships towards the demands of its partners. It is the prospective partner institutions that, together with the UNDP office in their country, decide to request a collaboration with USPC. The basic principle of publishing calls for interests, therefore, contributes to ownership on the side of applicants, as they approach USPC with their own specific ideas and thematic focus of interest. Thus, also the implementation through USPC’s modality formats and activities follows to a large extent partners’ requests and builds on partners’ agendas. This fosters joint determination and requires time and expertise from both sides for successful implementation.

5.3.2.2 Relationship Dynamics

Through its SDG Partnerships, USPC establishes relationships and enables knowledge interactions between actors from the ROK and partners abroad. There is not much evidence on what part of the knowledge jointly created in these constellations is flowing back to the Korean actors, and the extent to which it impacts their work. It depends on interest and demand on their side. Thus, the intensity of bi-directional exchange varies from partnership to partnership. And interactions can also take the form of activities through which knowledge is mainly transferred from Korean actors to a partner abroad. At the same time, there are examples of bidirectional exchange between the SDG Partnership and Indian actors regarding experiences in SDG localisation, to name just one. Within the realm of the wider UNDP structures, USPC contributes to UNDP internal knowledge exchange, i.e. with UNOSSC or the GPN network for better knowledge management.

5.3.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation

USPC adopts a solutions-orientated approach, with the emphasis on practical applicability of knowledge. It is focused on the area of policy development and improvement. Principally, USPC aims to combine knowledge from actors in the ROK and partner countries. Most importantly, USPC provides access to expertise from the ROK in its thematic working areas. In doing so, partners abroad can use Korean best-practices as benchmarks for domestic policy innovation. As for many policy applications by various actors in different environments, challenges in this regard can arise particularly from limits to partner organisations’ capacities, institutional structures and political-economic context. As a consequence, USPC aims to keep its SDG Partnerships flexible enough to amend the work plan during the process.

5.3.2.4 Sustainability

USPC tries to increase sustainability of the SDG Partnerships’ country-level interventions through flexibility and adaptability in several ways. First, USPC can extend funding beyond initial project periods and thereby enable follow-up activities, if requested by partners. Further, USPC proved its capacity to adapt its mode of working both short-term and longer-term, as well as in response to external and internal effects. One indicator of this is that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, USPC was able to implement the modality format of e-consultations, extensive online training modules in multiple languages, and virtual events as a key element of realising SDG Partnerships in an entirely virtual manner. For instance, USPC produced several series of PowerPoint presentations that had scripts so that UNDP Country Office partners could use those scripts to be translated into the local languages. In some cases, partners even dubbed it and/or made it into a completely new video series in their languages to run their workshops. Another major indicator for adaptability is USPC’s willingness and actual practice of experimentation in and beyond its established modes of working. This goes as far as constructively questioning and potentially reorganising its conceptual institutional approach. However, despite this institutional capacity to adapt, quickly changing priorities to match those of its partners poses a real challenge for achieving long-term goals in USPC’s partnerships and requires USPC to remain very flexible in response. Nevertheless, USPC’s network and the possibility of it pulling in experiences from other UNDP actors supports its systemic approach to development challenges and ultimately gives it the potential to increase the sustainability of its work. Finally, USPC creates a platform for partners from different SDG Partnerships to connect with each other, as, for example, in the case of actors from Rwanda and Bangladesh. This creates multiplier and spill-over effects and contributes to the sustainability of USPC’s impact. In the case of Rwanda and Bangladesh, for example, this took the form of an exchange on virtual knowledge goods and their sustainable maintenance.

5.3.3 Further USPC Specific Aspects

One way in which knowledge is regarded at USPC is as ideas and inspirations that need systemic facilitation processes to lead to changes on the ground. Practically oriented and thematically specialised understanding of knowledge drives the work of USPC in trying to make solutions and ideas actionable. USPC considers knowledge generation as a joint effort between partners along its relationship constellation, as we visualised above, and utilises this for policy advocacy, capacity building and local institutionalisation. Ultimately, the knowledge interactions USPC enables are meant to contribute to achieving the SDGs.

In supporting countries from the Global South, USPC is often regarded as being “closer” to these countries’ challenges due to the history of the ROK, and it is considered that this could create relatability and better solution finding. It is beyond the scope of our research to evaluate the extent to which this is more than a narrative. What certainly contributes to USPC’s attractiveness for actors from the Global South is its experience in working closely on issues relevant in many regions of the Global South.

In comparison to the other UNDP global policy centres, USPC’s broad-ranging topics cover many different SDG areas. Its wide-ranging mandate for knowledge exchange for the achievement of the SDGs allows for flexibility in the topic selection and toolboxes used (modality formats and activities) for its partnerships. However, more evidence would be needed to assess whether the broad range of topics can lead to segmentation and challenging need for a variety of different subject experts, or whether this thematic flexibility can also be considered a strength of USPC.

Furthermore, USPC has already undergone several “reforming” processes and continues to do so, based on experiences in their work. In that regard, SDG Partnerships are under review and the concept will be transformed. Currently, relatively small budgets are used for the implementation of SDG Partnerships at USPC. Simultaneously, the work input by USPC staff remains relatively high. Administrative tasks, such as linking partners with actors from the ROK, or planning activities such as events remain the same no matter the funding. In this regard, USPC aims to increase effectiveness and sustainability of impacts through going beyond the current form of SDG Partnerships. In fact, USPC’s impact potential also considerably depends on budget commitment and political support by its partners’ governments at national and local level. The example of the SDG partnership on the topic of Sexual and Gender-based Violence (SGBV) with Indonesia, based on policy consultations, trainings, curated study visit programmes to ensure buy-in from government stakeholders with strategic composition of delegation, and technical studies shows how subsequent funding from the Jakarta city government enabled very direct impact in the form of the establishment of one-stop service centres for SGBV survivors. Crucially, USPC’s approach to bringing on board government members with decision power, and to stressing the importance of financing the one-stop centre with 100% government funding during their study visit to Seoul, as well as continued support by USPC and UNDP Indonesia to stakeholders in Indonesia, were part of the success factors. This enabled long-lasting impact based on the knowledge-sharing exercise facilitated by USPC.

5.3.4 Conclusions

In summary, from a knowledge interaction perspective, USPC places great emphasis on co-creation of knowledge in its modality formats: knowledge within the SDG partnerships is created procedurally and collaboratively with a variety of actors, namely the UNDP country offices, partners in the respective partner country and stakeholders from the ROK. Thereby, USPC takes on the role of a knowledge facilitator with functions such as recognising knowledge holders, connecting the right partners with each other, or translating knowledge pieces and knowledge products into action at the local level.

Moreover, the USPC’s catalytic and essentially flexible approach is a distinctive feature, leading to changes in its modalities. In a constantly evolving development context with new challenges, USPC’s role and mission is to remain adaptive and move towards new issues, rather than just sticking to the tried and tested solutions. But addressing new thematic challenges also prompts USPC to rethink and redesign modalities and activities accordingly. Thus, alongside adjusting the SDG partnerships, USPC explores possible new modalities which might present a better “fit” for working on new topics with new partners. This approach of “constant reinvention” that USPC takes is the foundation of UNDP’s Strategic Plan 2022–2025 and is well reflected in the following quote:

Next Generation UNDP builds on our existing assets – worldwide presence, thought leadership, and over 50 years of experience – to help countries and communities respond to a fast-changing development landscape. We are creating new solutions, building collaboration platforms, and sparking new partnerships and instruments for development. These innovations are disrupting the way our organization thinks, invests, manages, and delivers – so we can perform faster and better than ever to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. (UNDP, 2022)

5.4 Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Part of our analysis relates to three projects of our partner GIZ. One of them, the DigiCenter, is implemented in Rwanda. The other two, WASCA and IGEF, are implemented in India.

5.4.1 Digital Transformation Center

The Digital Transformation Center (DigiCenter) is a Rwandan-German initiative commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and executed in cooperation with the Rwandan Ministry of ICT and Innovation (MINICT). It opened its premises in Kigali in May 2019 within the scope of the bilateral GIZ project Digital Solutions for Sustainable Development. The Center comprises a central open area for events that can host over 100 people, a developer space with modular interior design to flexibly rearrange tables and screens according to users’ needs, a co-working space, and lab areas equipped with virtual reality and electrical engineering technology.

As a project, the DigiCenter aims to train people from different parts of society and enable stakeholders in the digital ecosystem in Rwanda and beyond to better leverage digital transformation opportunities and generate sustainable solutions in areas such as Digital Skills, Smart Cities, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Smart Cities, Gaming, Machine Translation, and Cyber-Security.

To do so, four outputs are targeted:

  • Output 1 is about supporting government digitisation by developing solutions.

  • Output 2 is dedicated to the topic of digital inclusion.

  • Output 3 is intended to strengthen private and public sectors via capacity building.

  • Output 4 is on machine translation.

Since its establishment, the DigiCenter’s work has been expanded within the scope of four additional global and regional GIZ projects, Make-IT in Africa, Artificial Intelligence for All—FAIR Forward, Africa Cloud, and in support of Smart Africa. Unlike other institutions or many GIZ projects, the DigiCenter enables and participates in knowledge cooperation beyond the context of Rwanda and beyond binary partner structures, mainly through the implementation and clustering of national, regional and global projects.

5.4.2 DigiCenter’s Modality Profile

Analysed through the lens of our modality concept, the DigiCenter uses a variety of different modality formats and activities to realise its modality functions. In Fig. 5.5 we depict the modality profile of the DigiCenter as we differentiate it. The main modality functions are Operational Support to Partners, Capacity Development, Ecosystem Support, Networking, Policy Advisory, and Policy Dialogue. Our data collection focused on the three modality formats best observed during our research stay in Rwanda: (i) Working Groups—Communities of Practice (CoPs), (ii) Accelerator Programmes, and (iii) Integrated Experts. This selection was decided on jointly with our focal points from the DigiCenter. In addition, the DigiCenter also uses other modality formats to enable knowledge interactions, namely with Trainings, Multi-stakeholder Dialogues, Hackathons and Study Tours.

Fig. 5.5
A block chart of modality profile of Digi Center. Capacity development has working groups and accelerator programs. Ecosystem support has experts, training programs, and multistake holder dialogues. Networking has Hackathon and study tours.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Modality profile of DigiCenter

Full size image

Communities of practice (CoPs): The goal of a CoP is to serve as a knowledge exchange format/platform to bring together people from the public, private, and academic sectors to exchange ideas and share experiences. Working groups on a particular topic are organised by the DigiCenter, comprising people interested in cybersecurity, gaming, smart cities and robotics, along with professionals from these industries. The modality consists of activities such as meet-ups, which take place in the form of expert talks, panel events, the showcase of individual projects, as well as the associated networking. The DigiCenter provides the premises, takes care of the event logistics, and makes its staff, expertise and network available for this purpose.

Experts: The modality format of integrated experts in this case describes the integration of personnel into a partner institution. Currently, the DigiCenter provides two integrated experts—a national expert from Rwanda and an international one (currently from Germany)—working in the Ministry of ICT & Innovation and the Rwanda Information Society Authority. Through their unique role due to their affiliation to both the DigiCenter and their respective Rwandan institution, the integrated experts form a special link between the two institutions.

Accelerator programmes: These target people in start-ups and provide them with a range of interlinked activities on a specific topic—in the case of our analysis on Circular Economy and Smart Cities. Over a period of several months, these programmes combine workshops or trainings, mentoring sessions, networking possibilities, the provision of informational resources and seed-funding.

5.4.3 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept

5.4.3.1 Ownership

The DigiCenter aims for demand-driven approaches in the three modality formats we looked at. In the case of CoPs, the thematic content of meet-up sessions is based on the experiences of best-practice examples of people in the DigiCenter network. Each CoP has a team leader from the community, such as an entrepreneur from the games industry, with whom the DigiCenter collaboratively plans events and who carries responsibility for conceptual development. This approach is supposed to contribute to delivering thematic content that is desired by the community and tailored to the context of Rwanda. However, the DigiCenter is currently tackling two main challenges in relation to ownership. Firstly, currently CoP events attract mainly people from the academic sector, especially students. Thus, the DigiCenter works towards its goal of a plurality of communities, ranging from private sector to government, be represented among CoP event participants. Secondly, so far, the events largely take the form of talks, with rather formal Q&A sessions afterwards and participants have not yet taken the initiative to involve themselves more in co-organising future CoP activities and developing the format further, as ideally envisioned by DigiCenter staff to increase ownership on their side.

Also the modality format integrated experts proves the DigiCenter’s demand-driven approach towards its counterparts, as it largely follows the needs of the respective Rwandan governmental partner institutions the two experts work for. For example, on the ad hoc request of government institutions, the international expert contributed substantially and swiftly to the development of Rwanda’s digital COVID-19 warning system. This and some other examples show that this modality format caters to a great extent to the Rwandan partner institutions’ context-specific demands.

The accelerator programmes, from an ownership perspective, especially Impact Hub Kigali’s engagement in the set-up of a CoP on circularity, makes this partner the driving force in this partnership and this increases the chances of longer-term impact of the programme. Further, in this regard, what could also be interpreted as a high degree of ownership on the side of Impact Hub Kigali is that interviewed participants were generally not familiar with GIZ as the organisation behind the programme. This is a positive sign stemming from the fact that the Impact Hub can implement the programme to a large extent on its own.

5.4.3.2 Relationship Dynamics

In terms of organisational relationship dynamics, the DigiCenter works collaboratively with partners, based on existing contacts in its network, to organise its CoPs. However, it struggles to newly identify relevant actors and potential co-hosts for the six CoPs, where relations are not yet sufficiently established in the respective industry sectors. Relations with the Rwandan government institutions the two integrated experts work for put the experts in a bridging position and enable bidirectional interactions between the DigiCenter and the respective institution (Rwanda Information Society Authority and MINICT, respectively). From a knowledge perspective, the way this modality format is implemented mainly results in DigiCenter-funded inputs to the two partner institutions. However, there is not enough evidence on the question of how far the modality format’s design is geared towards a dynamic where experts also bring their knowledge gained through working in their institutions into the DigiCenter. And the modality format accelerator programmes is characterised by multidimensional networks. In the case of the one on circularity, Impact Hub Kigali describes its relationship with the DigiCenter as cooperation at eye-level and a process of true co-design.

In terms of relationship dynamics between our partner organisations and participants of their modality formats, two general challenges and divergences in perception became evident in the course of our research. First, selecting the right mix of participants is difficult. For example, in the case of CoPs, staff we interviewed diverged in their assessment of whether the current community members’ composition was too homogenous or too heterogeneous. Similar backgrounds of meet-up participants can, on the one hand, enable more technical and detailed discussions, but mean less-varied networking possibilities. On the other hand, more diverse backgrounds can stimulate out-of-the-box thinking. According to the reports from the staff, participants from different core areas of expertise cannot follow discussions properly. Second, partner organisations often find themselves in a basic conflict between supporting few beneficiaries/participants intensively versus reaching many more people, but less intensively. For example, in the case of accelerator programmes, the implementing partners would be motivated to increase their numbers of participants. But to deliver their programmes in depth and good quality, they use modality activities, such as one-on-one mentoring sessions. Those activities are resource intensive; they are not very scalable.

5.4.3.3 Innovation & co-creation

There are three things about the DigiCenter’s modality formats that are of particular note.

Communities of practice can contribute to building targeted networks in particularly interesting ways by providing physical places for meet-ups in the DigiCenter’s premises, which have state-of-the-art technology. Despite these special networking opportunities, tangible results, technical solutions or new partnerships remain elusive in this modality. The DigiCenter has now created a designated CoP taskforce to address effectiveness questions.

Integrated experts contribute significantly to the innovative development of new solutions, with measurable impact. One example is the Mbaza Chatbot, giving access to COVID-19 information throughout Rwanda and developed for the Rwanda Biomedical Center. This is mainly achieved through activities we consider as knowledge transfer in contrast to knowledge exchange. Decisive in developing the Chatbot was the transfer of capacity, new development approaches, and know-how enabled by the international expert and the DigiCenter.

The accelerator programmes effectively foster peer inspiration through facilitating trans-sectoral collaboration and exchange of ideas. This is due to the partially heterogeneous composition of the participants’ respective business areas and simultaneously the interactive session design, which leads to start-ups engaging in fruitful exchanges across various fields of activity. At the same time, the direct innovative impact potential of the accelerator programmes, so far, is mainly limited to profit-oriented companies as the sole kind of participants’ work context. Even though the DigiCenter generally aims to pursue ecosystem support, other important players around the issues of circularity and smart cities besides start-up companies are not targeted as participants of the programmes.

5.4.3.4 Sustainability

So far, the DigiCenter’s monitoring & evaluation (M&E) system does not include explicitly knowledge-related sustainability indicators. However, the Center works towards finding ways to capture long-term impacts of CoPs and accelerator programmes. Challenges in this regard arise from these modality formats’ complex mode of action which limits the measurability of concrete results. For instance, it is difficult to track the extent to which an idea born or inspired during an accelerator programme session contributed to a start-up’s success at a later point in time. Sustainable impact can generally be expected to materialise only years after completion of a programme cycle, but the programmes are too recent to allow for such follow-up evaluations. Despite these impediments to measurability, it became evident that, generally, long-term effects of the modality very likely depend on the overall commitment of those responsible in partner organisations commissioned with implementing the accelerator programmes.

In contrast, considerable parts of integrated experts’ achievements are already visible as outcomes in the form of digital solutions. This modality format is embedded in Rwanda’s existing digital ecosystem and makes use of existing resources. However, there are two main challenges to sustainability. First, the changing priorities of the institutions to which they are seconded challenge experts’ long-term orientation and require a great amount of adaptability on their side. Second, the integral people-dependency of the modality and the financial integration through the GIZ raise questions regarding the long-term future of the developed solutions and the prevalence of the modality format beyond the funding period.

5.4.4 Further aspects of DigiCenter

Across the DigiCenter’s wide and diverse range of modalities of knowledge interactions, the knowledge cooperation of the DigiCenter is characterised by its two-fold role. On the one hand, it follows a demand-driven implementation role that focuses on the needs of partners. On the other hand, it takes an active role in shaping the structure and direction of its knowledge interactions. Further, the DigiCenter follows a practical understanding of knowledge that centres on skills and capacity development. Linking this to the results of our analysis of the DigiCenter’s different modalities of knowledge interaction, it can be concluded that through their inputs, the DigiCenter itself predominantly organises knowledge transfer. The focus here lies on the allocation of capacity, skills and know-how through DigiCenter staff or cooperating partners. More generally, the DigiCenter functions as a physical networking space that enables knowledge sharing, knowledge exchange, and knowledge co-creation between the partners and target groups themselves. Therefore, and in addition to transferring knowledge, the DigiCenter also facilitates processes of knowledge generation and sharing among partners and participants in its projects. In this regard, the DigiCenter focuses on technical approaches and solutions that principally correspond with the standards and guidance of the BMZ, but at the same time are adapted towards the Rwandan context. Here, the DigiCenter tries to navigate its work based on common interests between both countries’ governments.

5.4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

In the following, we introduce selected potentials for the three modalities of knowledge interaction we focused on that were mentioned in interviews and discussed during a validation workshop with the DigiCenter:

  • Communities of practice: Despite the over-representation of students from the academic sector and much less participation from the private and public sectors than hoped for, CoPs have a huge potential for a more balanced gender representation. The possibility of increasing women’s participation includes giving them priority on calls or fostering targeted event invitations through word-of-mouth and through platforms used by women in Rwandan tech communities. In addition, long-term participation in CoPs could be increased through establishing a framework giving participants more power to bring in their perspectives and co-determine the direction of future activities.

  • Integrated experts: In this modality format, it remains a challenge for experts to find their role and position in this relationship and to fulfil expectations from both sides. On the one hand, they are fully integrated as full-time workers into their respective Rwandan organisation. On the other, they are also accountable to the DigiCenter. Thus, the incorporation of modality-specific guidelines and a strategic cooperative steering process are possible potentials, while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing priorities and needs of the Rwandan partners. Moreover, establishing institutionalised exchange opportunities between the national and the international expert could support them. Ultimately, such internal knowledge exchange would contribute to the sustainability of the modality—experienced integrated experts could help to bring on board new experts and therefore transfer their role-specific knowledge.

  • Accelerator programmes: In the case of the circularity acceleration programme, thematic experts are decisively involved in the conceptualisation and implementation of sessions. However, participants express interest in and enthusiasm for getting to know circularity experts in Germany and Europe for deeper exchange on best-practice examples, learnings and recommendations. With GIZ being a German organisation with an expert network in Europe and beyond, this should be comparatively easy to realise and facilitate in future programme cycles. Secondly, as initially also requested by our focal points at the DigiCenter, we took a closer look at the role of mentors in the accelerator programmes. What became evident in our interviews was the general appreciation of mentors’ support as part of this modality. However, participants wished to get into contact with them even earlier, prior to the start of the programme, to be able to get even more out of the mentorship.

5.5 Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Rural India

The Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Rural India (WASCA) project aims to improve water resource management with regards to water security and climate adaptation in rural areas of India. It was launched by GIZ in India in April 2019 with an initial life span of three years and emerged as an enhanced continuation of the predecessor project Environmental Benefits for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA EB) (2013–2019). The WASCA project is closely linked to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), a public works scheme initiated by the Indian Ministry of Rural Development that guarantees the right to work for India’s rural unskilled population while also contributing to asset development such as roads, canals ponds and wells (Babu et al., 2014). As of 5 May 2022, close to 319 million people are employed under the scheme (MoRD, 2022). The overall objective of WASCA is to enhance water resource management by enabling an evidence and geospatial information-based planning approach for the MGNREGA scheme. Through consultancy, educational trainings in geographical information systems (GIS) and development of planning tools, WASCA plays a supporting role to MGNREGA. At the same time, the administration under MGNREGA is responsible for its implementation and is using WASCA’s input for guidance on sustainable (water) development, economic activities and capacity development. The project attempts to achieve three main outputs:

  1. 1.

    improve strategy development (planning and financing mechanisms) for integrated and climate-adapted management of water resources in rural areas;

  2. 2.

    promote demonstrations on climate-adapted approaches on integrated management of water resources at local level; and

  3. 3.

    strengthen private sector cooperation for integrated and climate adapted management of water resources at state and local levels (GIZ, 2019).

WASCA operates in four Indian states: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In these states, ten pilot districts covering 115 block and 5,345 local administrations responsible for 22 million people have been selected for support through WASCA (GIZ, 2021). Although WASCA has a primary focus on water management, knowledge—its interchange and dissemination—lies at the core of the project activities and is key to achieving its objectives. Due to lack of human resources, knowledge capacities and awareness regarding water management issues on the part of the MGNREGA administrations and rural population, WASCA’s activities predominantly focus on addressing these issues by knowledge-related capacity development. WASCA’s project period ended on the 31 March 2022 and was succeeded by WASCA 2.0. Although the exact content of the new project phase is not yet determined, it is intended to build upon and enhance the efforts and achievements made by its predecessor.

5.5.1 WASCA’s Modality Profile

WASCA’s modalities of knowledge interaction are a diverse set of functions, formats and activities that are well aligned with each other and accustomed to addressing the issues related to knowledge capacity issues, as stated above. The modality profile of WASCA is depicted in Fig. 5.6.

Fig. 5.6
A block chart has modality profile of WASCA. Policy advisory has experts, training program, and online learning platform. Capacity development has study visits on best practices across states an knowledge creation for dissemination.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Modality profile of WASCA

Full size image

On the level of modality functions, WASCA focuses on two main areas:

  1. 1.

    policy advisory—persuasion and creation of awareness on the value and benefits of GIS-based planning approaches in the government administrations on different levels (from state- to local-level); and

  2. 2.

    capacity development—enhancement of knowledge capacities and technical expertise on science- and GIS-based planning procedures for water management of staff in administrations and rural population.

WASCA’s modalities can be further deciphered into five different modality formats:

  • Experts: These are located at the state-level administration in the pilot states and closely collaborate with officials and staff working with MGNREGA. An expert’s key function is to ensure the coordination of state-specific knowledge actors and projects relating to WASCA on the state level. By having a steering committee and jour fix meetings with the MGNREGA administration of the state government, the integrated expert is closely involved in the policy advisory mechanisms at state and district level and is enhancing the awareness of science- and GIS-based planning in the MGNREGA administration.

  • Training programmes: Prior to the initiation of the project, the digital equipment and the knowledge on evidence- and GIS-based planning approaches was insufficient in the states. WASCA’s activities have been predominantly focused on the provision of educational trainings, technical support, consultancy and (digital) equipment for administrations and rural population in GIS. WASCA conducts training programmes for the administration working under MGNREGA, as well as for the rural population targeted by MGNREGA. The trainings are done in joint collaboration with local consultancies and NGOs that not only are specialised in GIS and water resources management, but also possess valuable local knowledge (local dialects, local geography, social conditions etc.). Since there were insufficient trainers at MGNREGA for GIS, the training activities initially focused on training new trainers. Those selected for this were mainly people working in state, district and local level administration. As a second step, the newly trained trainers disseminated their expertise about GIS-based planning to other people in their environment. Utilising this approach a total of 17,000 people have been educated in GIS-based planning across all pilot areas of WASCA.

  • Online learning platforms: To further increase the dissemination of GIS-related knowledge, WASCA created an online platform for educational tutorial videos in GIS-based planning. Only the possession of a computer, basic IT skills and the investment of time is needed to learn the basics of GIS and to contribute to the local-level planning processes of water management.

  • Study visits: In order to enhance knowledge interactions not only in the pilot states themselves, but also between the states, WASCA established monthly and annual meetings at which WASCA staff members join and exchange ideas, best practices and approaches relevant to the work in each state. In addition to that, WASCA staff members who work at the state level maintain close informal relationships, with frequent communication.

  • Knowledge (co-)creation for dissemination: A key contribution to of WASCA has been to develop and support the implementation of the Composite Water Resources Management (CWRM) planning framework across the different administrative levels of its pilot areas (GIZ, 2020, p. 4). The CWRM planning framework represents a composition of guidelines for sustainable and climate adaptive water management and planning and can be applied by any local administration to the enhancement of its water management measures. It heavily focuses on utilising an analytical approach to water management based on scientific evidence and GIS (GIZ, 2021), in which geographic data from various digital platforms as well as from local sites are gathered for the planning process. The approach is designed to be particularly user-friendly and is based on open-source software such as Google Earth, taking into account that the planning procedures and the CWRM have to be implemented in places with little to no knowledge about GIS and digital media. WASCA staff are in collaboration with external experts engaged in research and (co-)creative activities for finding innovative analytical approaches to and procedures for monitoring water resources. Tools such as the CWRM planning framework, and analytical procedures for measuring ground and surface water levels are developed.

The following additional activities are undertaken:

  • GIZ internal exchange: For further intensification of knowledge interactions and synergy-creation, modality formats and activities directed at GIZ-internal exchange between WASCA and other projects are used. Subject-specific exchange platforms and special working groups for natural resource management, climate, biodiversity and gender equality were established in which GIZ staff have monthly meetings for exchanges about current work progress and experiences. Further formalised and long-term collaborations between WASCA and other GIZ activities have been initiated. One example is the close collaboration with the GIZ programme develoPPP, which aims to facilitate new public–private partnerships (PPP) within the WASCA context. Another example is the collaboration with a project focusing on the establishing of community nutrition gardens and self-help women groups.

  • Triangular Cooperation: Triangular cooperation represents a contextual modality used by WASCA. In the WASCA 2.0 process, WASCA will be involved in a trilateral cooperation with Peru. This transnational cooperation mode is used for the purpose of knowledge sharing and dissemination. Through online workshops and meeting activities with Peruvian and Indian partners, WASCA shares its working experience with knowledge-capacity enhancement measures in water management resources (including the CWRM planning framework, training programmes, and GIS-based planning approach) in India. These activities are, from a knowledge perspective, one sided, with WASCA being the “knowledge sender” and the Peruvian counterpart being the “knowledge receiver”.

5.5.2 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept

Considering our sensitising concept, the following aspects about WASCA are important:

5.5.2.1 Ownership

Prior to WASCA, the MGNREGA administration did not have any structured water management and planning procedures in place. WASCA has made sure in its exit strategy that the administration can conduct a GIS-based approach without further support. WASCA’s CWRM framework, the GIS-based planning approach and its capacity building activities filled this gap and enhanced administrators’ technical expertise for science-based planning. This allows the MGNREGA administration to steer evidence-based planning processes themselves. During the project, WASCA has chosen to collaborate with local firms and organisations that possess a good understanding of the local context, local dialects, geography and social condition in the operating sites. Also, a scalable and user-friendly design of the GIS-based planning procedures was put in place, which enhances the possibilities for inclusiveness of the local society.

5.5.2.2 Relationship Dynamics

WASCA is the successor of MGNREGA EB (see above). Its longstanding relationships with partners are built upon its predecessor. Using a wide range of different modalities to connect to different actors that foster long and mutual relationships with each other makes WASCA’s knowledge interactions very dynamic and intertwined. Many actors are involved on many different levels and in many different places.

Based on the responses of our interviewees, there is a high level of trust in the work and competencies of each other, lively and frequent interaction dynamics and high transparency between the actors. An important part in creating these conditions has again been the experts who work in the pilot states. In the case of Madhya Pradesh, the expert was located in a state government building next to the MGNREGA administration as well as close to the external consultancy partners. This set good conditions for vivid exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge between WASCA and its partners. Further, (informal) WhatsApp groups were established for digital communication, by which close and trusting ties between the actors were further fostered.

We observed a high accessibility and high transparency, especially between WASCA, the MGNREGA administration, the consultancies and NGOs. The accessibility to decisions and transparency of private actors is, however, rather limited. Although they have successfully established PPPs between the MGNREGA administration and a few private actors through the develoPPP programme (including Mars Cooperation, Symrise and several farmer producer organisations), our interviewees commented that private actors are usually rarely drawn into participation in WASCA, since they lack interest in investing in remote rural areas and possess a different approach and mind-set for water management and planning procedures which is opposed to public actors.

Finally, WASCA has also contributed to more participatory decision-making procedures, driven from the bottom up, and transparency between external actors. By implementing user-friendly open source GIS-approaches to water management and planning, the planning procedure from state- to local-level is enhanced and gives local administrations more abilities to identify and address pressing issues. The digital and quantitative data foundation generated by its activities furthermore led to an increased bottom-up planning procedure, in which particular demands from the local level could be adequately addressed.

5.5.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation

WASCA facilitated an intense learning and capacity development process for all levels of administration in the pilot states through its large-scale training programmes in GIS. Due to its successful implementation in a few selected rural pilot areas in the states, the central Indian government is striving to expand the WASCAs approach to all states across all agro-ecological zones.

WASCA facilitates further learning and co-creation processes across states. In the case of the WASCA team in Rajasthan, for example, the GIZ internal exchange platform on natural resource management led to a collaboration with experts working on agriculture issues with plantation methods in Tamil Nadu. Experts from Tamil Nadu travelled to Rajasthan to learn about measurement indicators for water resource management that were developed by the local experts in Rajasthan, while at the same time sharing with Rajasthan new plantation techniques that could be integrated into WASCAs state-specific activities.

A core challenge for learning and co-creation through WASCA is the rotation of state officials in the MGNREGA administration. State officials in the Indian administration follow a rotating system in which they change their workplace every few years. As one interviewee mentioned, this circulation of officials dampens the commitment and enthusiasm for learning. Additionally, it also causes a “loss” of knowledge once the official has left.

5.5.2.4 Sustainability

Viewing WASCA from a sustainability perspective, three aspects become apparent. First, WASCA contributes to an increased sustainability in the administration through project alignment across different ministries and a greater coherence. A common issue within the Indian administration is that many different ministries operate according to their mandate, without paying much attention to possible synergy effects and existing resources in other ministries and areas of the government. WASCA has set itself the ambition to break “silos” across ministries and topics and move towards a more holistic approach of addressing water- and climate-related planning issues. In Madhya Pradesh, for instance, WASCA’s expert put a lot of effort into increasing the dialogue and coherence between the Public Health Engineering department and the Ministry for Environment, Forest and Climate Change. By utilising WASCA’s focus on water security and climate adaptation, a foundation for a closer collaboration between the two ministries was set.

Second, WASCA has also contributed to sustainability, by its easily accessible science- and GIS-based planning approach. Since the GIS-based planning approach is designed to be user-friendly, only using easy accessibly and open-source software and data, there is the potential for more structured planning processes for water and beyond that can persist in time.

Third, the extensive use of local resources also contributes to sustainability. WASCA chooses to collaborate with local consultancies and NGOs that are familiar with local languages, geography and social conditions. By doing that, the project is working for the enhancement of local in-house capacities and through that an enhancement of local self-sustainability.

5.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

WASCA has had a wide reach and large impact on the working procedures of the administration of MGNREGA. Having operated for three years in four pilot states, WASCA was able to make a significant contribution to water security and climate adaptation measures through its CWRM planning framework and its science and GIS-based planning approach. As a result of WASCAs success, the national government is open to a nationwide scale up of WASCA’s planning approaches.

WASCA’s modalities of knowledge interactions have played a crucial role in this by facilitating knowledge interactions between different actors and conducting knowledge capacity-building activities. The close established working relationships with its partners through integrated experts, the training programmes in GIS, and its synergy creating-activities with other projects (both GIZ internal and external) have been crucial in achieving this.

With respect to the transition from the WASCA to the WASCA 2.0 project, two major challenging fields have been identified for improvement:

  1. 1.

    Intensifying private sector engagement: Engaging with the private sector has been a challenge for WASCA. Though it has successfully established public–private partnerships with Mars Cooperation, Symrise and farmer producer organisations, a general lack of interest from private actors in investing in the remote pilot areas of WASCA, as well as different approaches to development and water management have been difficult to overcome. Benchmarking against similar projects that have engaged in private-sector dialogues in water management-related issues can be useful.

  2. 2.

    Enhancing triangular cooperation approach: In WASCA 2.0 plans are made to enhance engagement in trilateral cooperation with Peru. Although this cooperation has emerged on a voluntary basis and played a minor role compared to its main activities, it bears a lot of potential for knowledge exchange and mutual learning. It is important that these relations are embedded in a cooperation architecture that allows for knowledge creation and exchange in which all actors can learn from one another.

5.6 Indo-German Energy Forum

The Indo-German Energy Forum (IGEF) was established in 2006 as a bilateral high-level platform for deepened and enhanced cooperation between India and Germany in the energy sector. It is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWK) and the Indian Ministry of Power. Partner ministries are the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) and the BMZ. The Indian counterparts are the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy and the Indian government agencies Bureau of Energy Efficiency and Central Electricity Authority as well as Indian financial institutions and various state governments (IGEF, 2022).

IGEF’s high-level character is due to engagement at the level of the state secretary. IGEF’s support office is steered by the Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency, GIZ and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), who jointly advise and support the Indian and German governments regarding energy transformation and the promotion of the Indian energy market. The support office’s prime objective is to provide liaison services for the involved stakeholders, to identify possible topics for the IGEF dialogue, and to support projects in the private sectors. It also makes valuable contact with the Indian and German governments and companies that strive to engage in the process.

We consider the IGEF support office as a knowledge actor that fosters dialogue amongst and between stakeholders in governments and industries on the following topics:

  • sustainable energy supply and energy use;

  • development of markets for power plant technologies, energy efficiency and renewable energies;

  • support for strategic private-sector activities, such as pilot and demonstration projects; and

  • collaborative projects involving Indian and German private businesses (IGEF, 2022).

In addition to IGEF, GIZ assists BMWK in the energy partnerships in other countries in the global project Support for Bilateral Energy Partnerships in Developing and Emerging Countries in Algeria, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Jordan Mexico, Morocco South Africa and Tunisia. IGEF is the only case in our case selection that actively engages in policy brokering and trust-building in the context of knowledge cooperation. Through policy brokering, IGEF supports the linking of policy and practice in Germany and India through the navigation of the complex policy making scenarios and multiplicity of stakeholders and interests in both countries. Trust-building is an important component to strengthen confidence in the work of the IGEF support office, and consequently the Indo-German political relations.

5.6.1 IGEF’s Modality Profile

IGEF uses different modalities to carry out knowledge interactions amongst and between governmental, private sector and academic stakeholders. Their deciphered modality profile is depicted in Fig. 5.7. The support office coordinates the platform’s modality formats and activities, identifies possible topics for dialogue or projects and supports all modality formats in their successful implementation (IGEF, 2022).

Fig. 5.7
A block chart of modality profile of the Indo-German Energy Forum. Policy brokering and policy dialogue has forum, policy advisory and trust-building has sub-groups, and net-working and capacity development has local business council.

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Modality profile of the Indo-German Energy Forum

Full size image

The modality formats and activities that the IGEF support office supports pursue the modality functions of policy advisory, policy dialogue, policy brokering, trust-building, networking, and capacity development. Modality formats that contribute to knowledge interactions, and thus knowledge cooperation, through IGEF are the High-Level Forum and its four sub-groups, as well as the local business council.

  • Forum: The forum, also called high-level steering committee takes place annually for dialogue on trajectories for energy transformation and collaboration between Germany and India (IGEF, 2022). The Forum is a platform for key policy makers, representatives, industry associations, financial institutions and research organisations to share knowledge, and is targeted towards government-to-government interactions. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the forum in 2020 and 2021 did not take place but reconvened in April 2022.

  • Sub-groups: The four existing sub-groups shape the partnership between Germany and India thematically (IGEF, 2022). They are the main operative body for the Forum, as members shape the conversations and actions on the four topics:

    1. 1.

      flexibilisation of existing thermal power plants

    2. 2.

      renewable energies

    3. 3.

      energy efficiency

    4. 4.

      green energy grid integration.

    The members of the respective sub-groups are two chairpersons, one each from Indian and German ministries (i.e. BMWK/BMZ and Ministry of Power/Ministry of New and Renewable Energy), representatives from industry associations, research institutes, investors, technology providers and project developers as well as staff from government organisations (e.g. Solar Energy Corporation of India, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt) (IGEF, 2022). Members of the sub-groups usually meet once or twice a year to plan the cooperation and follow-up activities such as field visits, delegations, trainings, participation in trade-fairs or the commissioning of analyses or events to better grasp the topics and enhance Indo-German cooperation. The sub-groups enable a knowledge exchange and transfer amongst members, while members are capacitated through external partners, such as consultants commissioned for studies or organisations that offer field visits. Task forces can emerge from the sub-groups and are mostly made up of companies that aim to react quickly to trends in the energy sector. Task forces exist for a short term to conceptualise and implement cooperation projects, such as on green hydrogen. They contribute to the sub-groups by reporting back to them and can be granted funding for activities by IGEF. Thus, task forces take on a business-to-government interaction character.

  • Local Business Council (LBC): The support office invites German enterprises in the energy sector operating in India to the LBC for networking purposes to discuss and exchange ideas on business ventures and trends in the energy sector along an open agenda that businesses can design according to their needs. The LBC serves the purpose of business-to-business interactions, and is promoted against the background of BMWK’s mandate of promoting economic activities. The IGEF support office also utilises the LBC to channel back the needs and challenges of German businesses to the sub-groups and eventually the forum.

5.6.2 Modality Analysis Based on Our Sensitising Concept

In the outlined modalities, the IGEF support office’s role is not direct involvement in the formats as a participating stakeholder, but to operate as an enabler of the formats through their organisation and implementation, which is why we differentiate between the characteristics of the formats as such and the role of the IGEF support office in them.

5.6.2.1 Ownership

Shared ownership in the high-level steering committee is at the core of IGEF’s mandate: The Forum was founded to promote political dialogue on the transformation of the energy systems in both countries. The high-level steering committee responds to a demand from India and Germany to exchange knowledge on the energy transformation process and to support each other in the endeavour. The cooperation is backed up on the highest political level in both countries, respecting the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (IGEF, 2022). The design of the forum reflects the common effort and demand with respect to the different responsibilities in reducing overall and per capita emissions. Stakeholders in both countries can decide upon dialogue topics and cooperation trajectories.

The role of the support office is to identify and navigate shared interests of the forum’s sub-groups and to translate these into activities. The support office is responsible for following the communicated needs of the co-chairs of the sub-groups who are the highest authority of the sub-group and have the power to decide. In the sub-groups, the IGEF support office reacts on an ad-hoc basis to the demands of the working groups through small-size funding or organisational support, for example to initiate a study, to plan study visits to particular sites or delegations visits to institutions in India or Germany.

The ad-hoc mechanisms is possible due to the high-level commitment and IGEF’s monitoring & evaluation indicators that allow for flexibility. Thus, involved stakeholders can own the process as they thematically and strategically guide the working groups themselves with the support of the IGEF support office. Moreover, the involvement of different stakeholder groups, such as the private sector and research institutions, leads to a greater degree of ownership as actors are directly concerned and involved in the energy transition of their respective countries. The IGEF support office ensures that the partners are represented in the study products and authorship is given to them, which contributes to their formal ownership.

German enterprises operating in the Indian energy sector are invited to a meeting at the LBC once or twice a year. While the support office invites them, the participants decide on the agenda. IGEF tries to ensure the LBC is as accessible as possible and plans the meetings as hybrid events to allow non-Delhi based businesses to participate.

5.6.2.2 Relationship Dynamics

A high level of trust in the support office on both the Indian and German sides is key to the the success of high-level dialogue modality. The support office continuously fosters its trustful relationship with and between Indian and German stakeholders through building close working and informal relationships with, for example, the delegations that travel to Germany. The IGEF office contributes to trustful relationship through its availability and competency..

Relationship dynamics are differently shaped in the forum, sub-groups and LBC. The forum is a platform in which stakeholders from India and Germany express a political will for the partnership. Investments that result from cooperation are mostly targeted towards Indian partners. Given the high-level character of the forum, only the co-chairs of the sub-groups have a speaking role and report on the progress of the partnership and on possible further endeavours. Secretaries of state agree or disagree and eventually carry the decision-making power. All other stakeholders, such as the businesses, have a listening role and are more actively engaged in the work of the sub-groups that contribute to the content of the forum.

The sub-groups support the initiatives taken on in the forum and aim towards the modality function of networking and capacity development to work towards policy advisory. This creates a space for further stakeholders to contribute to the energy cooperation between India and Germany. However, the chairs of the sub-groups have the final decision-making power in the groups. The sub-groups’ focus is on knowledge transfer, for example through study visits to further learn about a specific energy-related topic, rather than on knowledge exchange.

The IGEF support office invites the small number of German companies based in India and active in the energy sector to the LBC. This creates a rather informal space for networking and creating closer relationships. However, sometimes businesses only participate once in the LBC and are more likely to approach the German embassy directly with requests or ideas.

5.6.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation

After each forum, memorandums of understanding are jointly created that guide the way forward for collaboration and further activities. The support office itself is not the initiator but prepares the documents needed and supports the Indian and German sides in the process. The sub-groups play a significant role in developing new solutions, approaches and know-how, as well as in fostering a network in the energy sector within and across India and Germany. New activities within IGEF can be implemented relatively spontaneously, due to the support office’s flexible indicators, as explained above. The LBC promotes peer exchange and networking. Businesses can learn from each other’s strategies, trajectories or approaches, which can foster inspiration and innovation.

5.6.2.4 Sustainability

The quantitative nature of indicators that are used to monitor the support office’s success do offer insights into how many activities are supported and accompanied, but do not allow for insights on the success of the IGEF platform itself. The indicators provide the information that the dialogue continues and the tools that the support office can access are employed to foster the exchange between India and Germany on the many aspects of energy transition IGEF’s architecture that foresees the annual meeting and the institutionalised sub-groups are designed for long-term-cooperation that can take up innovations and translate political momentum into activities. The IGEF support office is mandated to take on follow-up processes of the forum and sub-groups. Additionally, energy efficiency and renewable energy generation have a high priority in German development cooperation and within the geopolitical landscape, as highlighted, for example, by the German–Indian cabinet consultations on the 2 May 2022 (Presse und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, 2022). This further promotes the work of IGEF and results in funding possibilities for new approaches. Simultaneously, tangible results going beyond the count of events that took place under IGEF are currently not captured or measured. Thus, there is little empirical evidence on the impact of the high-level political dialogue.

5.6.3 Further IGEF Specific Aspects and Conclusion

The high-level political character of IGEF differentiates the project from many other GIZ initiatives. Modalities of the support office are, therefore, specifically geared towards supporting IGEF through policy brokering and dialogue which influences the design of activities, the stakeholder setting and relationship among actors. The support office as secretariat is a further structure that eases the Indian rotation system of state officials that have an active role in the forum’s sub-groups. When state officials are newly in office, the IGEF support office briefs them and offers information on the working groups and the status quo.

Another aspect of the IGEF support office is the variety of German and Indian ministries involved. Next to liaising among stakeholders within the formats of the IGEF, the support office needs to navigate between ministries with overlapping and complementing interests and institutional mandates that make the work of IGEF possible.

The logical chain and close connection between the technical and financial cooperation agency GIZ and KfW that jointly steer the support office promotes possibilities for financing after technical collaborations enabled the creation of approaches and the design of projects in the energy sector. Funding possibilities further incentivise stakeholders to take part in IGEF’s modality formats and make it an attractive platform for cooperation. Another incentivising aspect is the ad-hoc and demand-based budgets and follow-up activities that can be made possible in the sub-groups. The institutional structure of the support office and the design of the IGEF project are important and contribute to the processual flexibility.

Overall, the IGEF’s support office logic is very different from the other empirical cases in the sense that it is established as a rather continuous process support structure for the political dialogue between India and Germany on the energy transition. Due to its function to enable and foster dialogue between the two parties, the four criteria for effectiveness of the sensitising concept follow a different logic: the support office’s role is to ensure the smooth rollout of its modality functions and formats but strives to stay in the background of the high political platform it supports. The support office is hence successful when ownership between the parties involved in IGEF is well navigated, relationship dynamics allow for a constructive exchange, the forum continuously produces new outputs and political course is set in the direction of energy transition.