To focus its official development assistance further, the Swiss Agency for Development Co-operation (SDC) decided to strategically phase out its bilateral development co-operation from Latin America and the Caribbean. A well-planned and responsible transition allowed for continuity and offers lessons for other Development Assistance Committee members seeking to phase out bilateral programming without undermining years of support.
Phasing out responsibly: Switzerland’s lessons from ending bilateral co-operation in Latin America and the Caribbean
Abstract
Spreading bilateral ODA too thinly across numerous priority countries can reduce effectiveness and impact. Following the 2019 peer review recommendation and appeals by national actors to increase the focus of Switzerland’s ODA, the Federal Council and the Swiss Parliament decided in 2020 to strategically phase out Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)’s bilateral development co-operation from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in order to concentrate efforts on other regions. However, there were concerns about jeopardising the progress made over six decades of support to the LAC region.
The phasing out of SDC programmes from Latin America and the Caribbean was well planned and responsibly handled. Its approach involved:
A gradual and sustainable withdrawal: SDC planned its exit over four years to allow for a smooth transition for staff, partner governments and other development partners. Over this period, SDC aimed to ensure either project continuity or orderly closing.
Engaging beyond bilateral co-operation: With the phasing out of bilateral development co-operation, SDC transformed its LAC engagement towards a regional, thematically focused co-operation (regional hub in Lima focusing on environmental issues) combined with a regional rapid response mechanism for natural disasters. Humanitarian midterm programmes continue to be implemented in protracted crisis contexts (Haiti, Venezuela and Colombia). The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs’ economic co-operation in Peru and the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs' Peace and Human Rights Division support to peace processes in Colombia continue.
An important knowledge-management process to learn from experience: To ensure that 60 years of experience were not lost, reflections on priorities, impact, learnings and recommendations were compiled and published over an 18-month period.
Project continuity or orderly closing. Roughly half of projects were continued by local organisations, around 20% were taken on by other bilateral donors or multilateral organisations, and around 30% had reached their term and were closed. SDC ensured that much of the important work it had been doing in the region would continue to benefit local populations.
Responsible staff management: The approximately 90 local staff whose posts were terminated, were offered termination indemnities and supported in this process. In particular, SDC offered trainings (e.g. in personal development, personal coaching, language classes and thematic trainings) over a two-year period and SDC also made efforts to connect staff to other organisations.
A wealth of lessons for future programmes: lessons from SDC’s 60 years of experience in the LAC region have been compiled and shared widely through its online Knowledge capitalisation hub, and the website Best Practices from Latin America and the Caribbean, which provides insights into the history and results achieved in different sectors, including disaster risk reduction, vocational education, culture and gender. A range of events were organised to share some of these experiences internally and with partners, and good practices and lessons have been actively disseminated to SDC offices in partner countries.
Identifying development partners to take on projects is not easy. Development partners often have slightly different strategic orientations, which means that project components change. The hand-over period can also be challenging for implementing partners, who have to adjust their approaches and report to two different donors.
A responsible and sustainable phase out requires time and appropriate communication, but was four years too long? A four-year horizon was important to manage the transition and help prepare local staff for the future, find partners to take on projects and to capture lessons and experience. However, it also created challenges for SDC in maintaining credibility with, and interest from, partner countries. Some felt that three years might have been adequate. Accompanying the process with careful communication helped meet these challenges.
Ensuring that knowledge management is demand-driven, prioritised and integrated into institutional learning processes is key. Knowledge management is important, but less can be more. While the impact capitalisation process led to many in-depth reports, complementing them with shorter and more accessible products helped widen diffusion and reach.
SDC (2024), 60 Years of Successful Cooperation, https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/deza/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2024/04/60-jahre-erfolgreiche-zusammenarbeit.html.
SDC (2024), Best Practices from Latin America and the Caribbean, https://www.sdc-regions.ch/en/capitalisation-of-experiences-lac.
OECD (2025), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Switzerland 2025, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, (forthcoming).
OECD (2022) OECD-DAC Mid-term Review of Switzerland, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/19/en/pdf.
OECD (2019) OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Switzerland 2019, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312340-en.
To learn more about Switzerland's development co-operation:
OECD, “Switzerland”, in Development Co-operation Profiles, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/00eb9f0b-en.
See more In Practice examples from Switzerland here: https://www.oecd.org/development-cooperation-learning?tag-key+partner=switzerland#search.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
© OECD 2025
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
