City-to-city partnerships are a modality of decentralised development co‑operation (DDC) and have evolved from traditional bilateral twinning to more sophisticated arrangements. They go beyond financial flows and transfers and also include in-kind contributions such as capacity building and peer-to-peer learning. Although between 2015 and 2021 total DDC volumes increased by 30%, there has been little evidence of the framework conditions required to deliver effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships, including sufficient financing, effective multi-level governance and co‑ordination, local skills and capacity as well as the availability of data to foster transparency and accountability. This chapter addresses this gap by shedding light on those framework conditions required to make city-to-city partnerships work.
City-to-City Partnerships to Localise the Sustainable Development Goals
1. City-to-city partnerships: The road to sustainability
Abstract
Scoping city-to-city partnerships: Objectives, modalities and actors
Defining city-to-city partnerships
City-to-city partnerships are a modality of decentralised development co‑operation (DDC). While there is no standard definition of DDC, the literature looks at DDC as partnerships among local governments. It can therefore be understood as international development co‑operation carried out by subnational governments, or when cities and regions from one (often developed) country partner with cities and regions from another (often developing) country (OECD, 2018[1]; 2019[2]). The dominant interpretation of DDC comprises a variety of subnational actors such as cities and regions, provinces, city-states, federal states and inter-municipal co‑operation bodies (OECD, 2018[1]). City-to-city partnerships are a form of decentralised development co‑operation undertaken by municipalities from developed and developing countries to initiate and develop co‑operative actions to their mutual benefit. These partnerships usually rely on a peer-to-peer exchange and learning based on good practice and follow the principle of reciprocity. This involves a political and technical dimension, notably via the engagement of the local government administration, and a social dimension, for example through the mobilisation of civil society (OECD, 2018[1]; CoE, 2015[3]). It is estimated that 70% of cities in the world are engaged in some form of city-to-city international co‑operation programmes, including partnerships across borders (UCLG, 2016[4]). The roles and responsibilities of the actors engaged in city partnerships can vary both across and within countries, depending on the country’s administrative characteristics (e.g. federal, unitary or hybrid) as well as historical, social, political and economic factors (OECD, 2018[1]).
City-to-city co‑operation has evolved from bilateral twinning to more sophisticated arrangements. Historically, the first partnerships of European municipalities with peers from abroad were mostly formed after World War II to reconnect the populations of formerly hostile countries. These municipal partnerships were later expanded to countries in the Global South. In 1971, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly formally recognised those city partnerships as an international co‑operation mechanism. In the following years, bilateral municipal twinning evolved into more sophisticated structures, including multi-stakeholder partnerships involving civil society, local public agencies, academia and the private sector among others. DDC has shifted from North-South verticality to a variety of modalities, including South-South and triangular co‑operation (Figure 1.1) (OECD, 2018[1]). DDC has furthermore adopted new concepts and principles of development co‑operation, such as the notion of development effectiveness, as opposed to aid effectiveness (Figure 1.1). Increasing the effectiveness of aid means ensuring that aid helps developing countries improve the welfare of their poorest populations (OECD, 2007[5]). The shift to development effectiveness emerged in 2011 with the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (Busan Partnership). It recognised the need to look beyond whether the objectives of aid interventions are being achieved to development results of a much broader set of actors in an increasingly complex development landscape. The Busan Partnership agreement formally recognised the subnational level as development actors, calling for the implementation of four main principles: i) ownership of development priorities by developing countries; ii) focus on results; iii) inclusive development partnerships; and iv) transparency and accountability (OECD, 2018[1]). Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for many cities to engage in international co‑operation and city-to-city co‑operation, notably for economic and material benefits, the exchange of experiences and expertise in responding to the health crisis and as an advocacy tool to create a collective voice for support from different levels of government (Pipa and Bouchet, 2020[6]). Since 2022, city-to-city partnerships and alliances between cities have also gained prominence with Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. In Germany for example, more than 70 cities have partnerships with peers in Ukraine (SKEW, 2022[7]). An increasing number of such partnerships were established following Russia’s large-scale aggression against Ukraine. More than 40 additional German municipalities have expressed their interest in such partnerships to provide medical equipment, generators, rescue and firefighting vehicles, as well as to support the reconstruction of Ukraine in the medium- and long-terms (SKEW, 2022[8]).
Figure 1.1. Evolution of DDC-related concepts
Source: Own elaboration based on OECD (2018[1]), Reshaping Decentralised Development Co-operation: The Key Role of Cities and Regions for the 2030 Agenda, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264302914-en.
Cities’ engagement in development co‑operation can take various forms. Recent DDC activities such as city-to-city partnerships often go beyond “traditional” technical assistance and have evolved from a donor-recipient to a partnership approach. Nowadays, subnational entities mainly engage in activities where their comparative advantages and competencies lie. This is notably the case in knowledge sharing and transfer in areas like local governance and service delivery, for example in water and waste management. Other activities include awareness-raising (e.g. on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)), peer-to-peer exchanges and mutual learning. Peer-to-peer learning, in particular, can be a valuable tool for subnational entities to learn from each other’s successes and obstacles and enable a return on investment for both parties. Such activities are usually based on the principle of partnership and reciprocity going beyond a top-down, North-South type of co‑operation (OECD, 2018[1]). DDC is increasingly driven by a territorial network model based on demand from peer regions and cities that involves regions, municipalities, civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector and universities (Figure 1.1) (OECD, 2018[1]). Proximity to territorial stakeholders and the local population often enables subnational entities to integrate territorial stakeholders more closely in their partnership activities than national governments would be able to. Metropolitan areas can also support activities in areas that go beyond municipal boundaries, such as housing, public transportation, environmental protection and economic development (OECD, 2018[1]).
Regional-to-national government DDC, territorial partnerships, city-to-city partnerships and region to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are four modalities to implement DDC projects. Based on the analysis of several case studies, the OECD (2018[1]) has identified four different approaches that are being used to implement DDC projects. First, the regional-to-national government DDC approach (e.g. implemented in Flanders, Belgium) refers to a situation where the institutional counterpart of the region in the partner country is the national government, which receives financial support to implement the DDC activities in the priority sectors identified together with the region. The implementation is done through multilateral actors and NGOs. A second approach is the territorial partnership model, which entails a direct collaboration between local and regional governments (LRGs) in partner countries. It is for example used by the region of Tuscany in Italy. The third approach, city-to-city DDC, is based on a peer-to-peer partnership between municipalities in donor and partner countries. It is particularly prominent in the field of water supply, collection and treatment in France. Lastly, in the region-to-NGO model of DDC, NGOs act as intermediaries between local governments, while the implementation in the field is mainly carried out by local NGOs in the partner country as is primarily the case in the Basque Country, Spain, for example (OECD, 2018[1]).
Not all projects and co‑operation carried out in city-to-city partnerships are currently reported in official development assistance (ODA) data. In most OECD countries, LRGs are responsible for policies that are central to sustainable development and well-being, such as water, housing, transport, infrastructure, land use and climate change amongst others (OECD, 2020[9]). Due to the evolution of decentralised development co‑operation activities and city-to-city partnerships over the past years, DDC also increasingly includes non-financial partnerships fostering peer-to-peer learning activities, knowledge exchange, capacity building and exchange of experiences and best practices amongst subnational actors, in particular in those areas mentioned above (Figure 1.1). The reasons behind this uptake of peer-to-peer or capacity-building activities include: i) the need to steer ODA flows more effectively and impactfully; and ii) the increasing emergence of LRGs as important players in the international sphere (see Box 1.1 for more information about ODA reporting) (OECD, 2018[1]). Twinning, peer-to-peer learning, capacity building for local governance as well as projects implemented by CSOs represent in-kind contributions that are included in ODA reporting (OECD, 2018[1]). Recognising the growing importance of the in-kind contributions of DDC is key to fully capturing the diversity of DDC modalities and approaches. However, not all DDC is captured by ODA, either because OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members decide not to report it (only 11 DAC members report on DDC) or because local governments are not aware that their partnerships qualify as DDC and should be reported.
Box 1.1. Background information about ODA reporting
The OECD defines official development assistance (ODA) flows as “those flows to countries and territories on the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) List of ODA Recipients and to multilateral development institutions, which are provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies; and each transaction of which is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective; and concessional (i.e. grants and soft loans) in character” (OECD, 2022[10]). Those flows that can be classified as ODA support cover development activities in a wide range of areas including education, health, infrastructure, sanitation but also local governance and taxation. The ODA reporting captures most forms of DDC and is therefore considered the most comprehensive measure of DDC. However, many activities are not reported because countries are not aware that they count as ODA.
The OECD DAC collects data on its members’ development co‑operation activities, including on DDC. Since 1961, DAC has served as an international forum for many of the largest development co‑operation actors. Its 30 members include the majority of European Union (EU) countries and the EU itself, while the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), amongst others, contribute as observers. One of the main responsibilities of the DAC is the collection of ODA data and the production of related statistics to meet the needs of policy makers In the area of development co‑operation. The goal is to enable an assessment of the comparative performance of aid providers. Over the past decades, the DAC has updated its ODA reporting rules to reflect new development trends and instruments (e.g. guarantees for development), ensure the consistency of reporting and the relevance of ODA rules in new development and economic contexts. The DAC is also responsible for the collection of DDC data and statistics (OECD, 2022[11]).
Thirty DAC members, 20 non-DAC providers and more than 40 multilateral institutions report data on ODA and beyond on an annual basis. Apart from ODA, there are Other Official Flows (OOF) and officially supported export credits reported as public spending. From private sources, DAC collects data from NGOs, foundations and charity organisations, as well as information on bonds, foreign direct investment, portfolio investments and amounts mobilised from the private sector by official development finance institutions. Each year, more than 250 000 transactions are presented in a detailed manner in the Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Quality assurance makes the DAC the only source of reliable, comparable and complete data on development assistance.
The concept of ODA contains in its name the three major requirements for flows directed at countries and multilateral institutions on the DAC list of ODA recipients:
“Official”: Provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies.
“Development”: Administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective.
“Assistance”: Concessional in character. Provided in the form of grants or soft loans.
This definition thus excludes primarily commercial or religious objectives, military aid and promotion of the donor’s security interests, as well as promotion of the donor’s language and culture.
The number of countries reporting on DDC has increased over the past years but data gaps remain. While only 9 countries1 used to report their DDC activities to the OECD DAC in 2005, the number increased to 11 countries2 in 2021. Recent trends in ODA flows reported by those 11 members are described below. To indicate the flow of DDC ODA, member countries use specific donor codes to attribute project-level data to institutions at the subnational level. Nevertheless, two major challenges persist in terms of DDC data reporting. First, DAC members are carrying out some activities that qualify as DDC but are not reported (e.g. capacity building and technical assistance for local governments by the Association of Netherlands Municipalities and the Dutch Water Authorities). Second, reporting practices differ across DAC members. This relates to the agency codes used to report, to the availability of resources in statistical units to collect subnational data but also to national reporting preferences regarding the role of subnational actors. Furthermore, only a few DAC members use separate codes for local and regional actors (OECD, 2018[1]). Consequently, different types of co‑operation, including data on city-to-city partnerships, cannot be analysed individually, but fall under the same category of DDC ODA data.
1. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland.
2. Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Source: OECD (2022[11]), Development Assistance Committee (DAC), https://www.oecd.org/dac/development-assistance-committee/ (accessed on 20 October 2022); OECD (2018[1]), Reshaping Decentralised Development Co-operation: The Key Role of Cities and Regions for the 2030 Agenda, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264302914-en; OECD (2022[10]), Official Development Assistance – Definition and Coverage, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/officialdevelopmentassistancedefinitionandcoverage.htm (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Key trends in DDC flows and the role of city-to-city partnerships for the localisation of the SDGs
Key trends in DDC flows
Between 2015 and 2021, total DDC volumes increased by 38%, from USD 2 051 million to 2 831 million (Table 1.1). The two largest donors throughout that period were Germany and Spain. In 2021, Germany accounted for around two-thirds of total DDC volumes reported to the DAC, however mainly due to imputed student costs.1 Spain contributed 14% of total DDC volumes reported in 2021, followed by Canada (6%), France (5%) and Belgium (3%).
Table 1.1. Trends in DDC ODA growth rates
USD million, net disbursements
Note: The volumes indicated in the table include in-donor costs.
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
DDC ODA volumes vary considerably between countries and over time. Despite the overall growth trend of DDC volumes, spending volumes across countries are heterogeneous (Table 1.1). Between 2015 and 2021, Portugal registered the largest increase in DDC volumes (+1 500%), although this is mainly attributable to the marginal amounts reported in 2015. French DDC volumes have more than doubled (+107%) between 2015 and 2021 as did the British (+112%), while Germany (+74%) and Spain (+63%) registered growth rates of more than 50%. Those three countries were also the main drivers behind the overall increase in DDC between 2015 and 2021. In contrast, some countries saw a decrease in DDC volumes, in particular, Austria (-83%), Italy (-65%), Japan (-69%) and Canada (-34%).
Cross-border DDC volumes have increased by 17% between 2016 and 2021. Among all DAC members reporting on DDC, Spain was by far the country with the highest cross-border DDC spending in 2021, accounting for 53% of total cross-border DDC (USD 311 million), followed by Belgium (14%) and Switzerland (9%). Several countries have registered an increase in their cross-border DDC volumes over that period, notably Portugal (+89%), the United Kingdom (+36%) and Spain (+30%), while others experienced considerable a considerable decrease, in particular Italy (-117%), Japan (-108%) and Canada (-62%). These developments are often in line with the change in DDC volumes disbursed by these countries overall.
In several countries, notably Belgium, Germany and Spain, DDC represents a considerable share of the total ODA. Over the 2017-21 period, DDC as a share of total ODA has slightly increased from 3.0% in 2017 to 3.6% in 2021 (Table 1.2). One notable case is Spain, where DDC accounted for more than 30% of total bilateral ODA in 2019 (35%) and 2021 (38%), although partially driven by a decrease in Spanish ODA overall. Overall, the share of DDC as a proportion of total ODA has gone up in several countries, namely in Spain (+28 percentage points or pp), Germany (+2 pp) and Belgium (+1 pp). However, several donors have registered a decreasing share of DDC. These countries are Austria (-1 pp) and Canada (‑6 pp). In the other donor countries, the proportion of DDC has remained relatively stable over the 2017‑21 period.
Table 1.2. The proportion of DDC in total bilateral ODA
USD million, net disbursements
Note: The volumes indicated in the table include in-donor costs.
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
Globally, China is the top individual recipient of DDC. Among those countries receiving country-allocable DDC between 2017 and 2021, China consistently received the highest share (11.1% in 2017, 11.92.0% in 2019 and 12.1% in 2021). This is however mainly due to imputed student costs from Germany provided to Chinese students. The same is the case for India, which has consistently been the second-largest recipient of DDC in the 2017-21 period (5.7% in 2017, 6.8% in 2019 and 8.8% in 2021). Other main recipients were, Cameroon, Egypt, Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and Türkiye. The largest portion of DDC was comprised of small activities programmed across a large number of countries, targeting close to 160 different countries during the 2017-21 period. Between 2017 and 2021, less than 10 countries accounted for more than 2% of total DDC respectively, showing that DDC is often provided through small projects. This reflects the modest size and scale of country institutions as well as the limited availability of financial resources at the subnational level (OECD, 2018[1]).
The top three recipients of cross-border DDC between 2017 and 2021 were Senegal, Guatemala and Mozambique. Figure 1.3 shows the main recipients of DDC ODA when only considering cross-border flows. This measurement excludes in-donor costs such as imputed student costs. Consequently, China and India do not appear among the top recipients. Instead, the composition of the main recipients varies more over time than if taking into account all ODA flows. In 2017, Malawi (4.0%), Senegal (3.7%) and Mozambique (3.3%) were the 3 main recipients of DDC ODA. In 2019, Guatemala (3.1%), Senegal (3.0%) and Mozambique (3.0%) took the 3 top positions. Two years later, Senegal (4.3%), Guatemala (4.0%) and Bolivia (3.9%) were among the top 3, followed by Colombia (3.6%). In terms of overall volumes, Senegal, Guatemala and Mozambique were the three countries that received the largest amounts of DDC between 2017 and 2021 (only considering cross-border flows). Table 1.3 provides an overview of the ten main recipients in the 2017-21 period.
Figure 1.2. DDC ODA by top recipients, including in-donor costs
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
Figure 1.3. DDC ODA by top recipients, cross-border flows
Note: The “Bilateral, unspecified” category represents resources provided without being allocated to a specific recipient country and mainly consists of in-donor refugee costs and aggregate projects.
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
Table 1.3. Main recipients of DDC ODA
Cross-border flows, 2017-21 period
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
Post-secondary education is the main sector targeted by DDC flows when including in-donor costs.2 In the past years, DDC has targeted several key social sectors such as water, health, agriculture and education. Considering all DDC flows between 2017 and 2021, post-secondary education was by far the most important sector (Figure 1.4). Its share within total DDC increased from 55% in 2017 to close to 66% in 2021. However, as mentioned before, this is almost exclusively due to imputed student costs. Another key area for DDC between 2017 and 2021 was the support for refugees in donor countries. This accounted for more than 13% in 2017, although it decreased to around 10% four years later, potentially due to the decrease in the migration flows to European DAC countries. Other sectoral allocations of DDC included government and civil society (3.5% in 2021), health3 (3.5% in 2021), agriculture (1.9% in 2021) and water supply and sanitation (1.6% in 2021).
Regarding cross-border DDC, governance, agriculture and health are the three main target areas. The sectoral allocation of DDC changes considerably if one excludes in-donor costs and only considers cross-border flows. The most important cross-border DDC area was government and civil society, which accounted for 16.8% of total cross-border DDC volumes in 2021, up from 14.3% in 2017 (Figure 1.5). After government and civil society, the most important sectoral allocation in 2021 was health. Its share went up from 11.7% in 2017 to 16.5% in 2021, potentially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was followed by other multisector DDC, which includes a range of sectoral targets, e.g. training, scientific research, rural development and other social areas. Multisector DDC accounted for more than 15% of overall cross-border DDC spending. Other relevant sectors were agriculture (9.9% in 2021 vs. 8.9% in 2017), water supply and sanitation (7.7% in 2021 vs. 7.6% in 2017) and emergency response (6.5% in 2021 vs. 4.7% in 2017).
Figure 1.4. Sectoral allocations of DDC, 2017 and 2021
Note: “Other” concerns a multitude of other sectors that are difficult to show in the chart.
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
Figure 1.5. Sectoral allocation of cross-border DDC, 2017 and 2021
Note: “Other” concerns a multitude of other sectors that are difficult to show in the chart.
Source: OECD DAC CRS database (accessed on 26 January 2023).
The role of city-to-city partnerships in achieving the SDGs
LRGs play a major role in the achievement of the SDGs. City-to-city partnerships have the potential to affect urban governance and sustainability from different angles and can improve local government performance, while at the same time encouraging citizen participation in urban decision-making (Bontenbal, 2009[12]). In particular, city-to-city partnerships can be a tool to advance the UN 2030 Agenda and collectively address common challenges. Such objectives may include achieving low-carbon growth while delivering electricity (SDGs 7 and 8), water (SDG 6), health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), security (SDG 16) and other social services to local communities – which is challenging both for cities in developed countries and the Global South. Recent OECD work on A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals (2020[9]) shows that cities and regions are responsible for almost 55% of public investment and 37% of public spending in OECD countries and have a closer connection to citizens than the national government (OECD, 2022[13]). Furthermore, the OECD estimated that at least 105 out of 169 SDG targets will not be realised without engagement and co‑ordination with LRGs, which illustrates the crucial importance of city-to-city partnerships (OECD, 2020[9]). Within the 2030 Agenda, SDG 11 “Sustainable cities and communities” explicitly calls upon the local level to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Its target of universal access to affordable housing and basic services largely depends on municipalities’ capacities (OECD, 2019[2]). Many of the SDGs require mobilising the expertise and resources of subnational entities for delivering essential public services in a range of areas, including health, education, water and energy (SDSN, 2016[14]). Oftentimes, LRGs are closer to citizens than national governments and therefore more likely to better appraise local needs and capabilities from a policy or financing standpoint (OECD, 2019[2]). The interconnected nature of the SDGs also requires coherence in policy design and implementation and calls for mobilising a variety of stakeholders to find collective solutions. This is why the SDGs hold much potential to provide a systemic framework that can help subnational governments rethink their strategies, policies, investment and budget priorities according to the needs of their local communities. Fostering a territorial approach that can help to localise the SDGs requires: i) a shift from a sectoral to a multi-sectoral approach to the SDGs; ii) incentives for bottom-up approaches and their alignment with top-down priorities; iii) the development of context-specific policies; and iv) the recognition of the importance of a comprehensive multi-level governance system (OECD, 2020[9]).
DDC and city-to-city partnerships can be key contributors to the localisation of the SDGs. In recent years, the thematic scope of DDC has widened, which reflects the increasing importance of thematic global agendas such as the Paris Climate Agreement. The SDGs and their holistic approach to sustainable development provide an opportunity to further mainstream the 2030 Agenda into policy design and implementation, in particular in development co‑operation activities (OECD, 2018[1]). Many national and subnational governments in OECD and non-OECD countries have therefore revised their development co‑operation guidelines and integrated the SDGs as a guiding principle. In addition, the SDGs have provided a useful framework to identify and evaluate existing DDC programmes against identified priorities and/or to elaborate new DDC programmes, for example in Flanders, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal (OECD, 2018[1]). An increasing number of DDC actors determine their geographical focus depending on global priorities and agendas, in particular the SDGs. The DDC principle of reciprocity, aiming to ensure that DDC actions are beneficial to all partners, captures the essence of the 2030 Agenda. As such, it also provides a key tool to support LRGs in their own SDG implementation process. The exchange of good practices, capacity building, knowledge exchange and peer-to-peer learning in the respective areas of expertise of the partners involved are ways through which DDC and city-to-city partnerships can contribute to the localisation of the SDGs.
An overview of existing frameworks to enhance city-to-city partnerships to localise the SDGs
The following subchapter provides an overview of three main frameworks that can be used to enhance city-to-city partnerships to localise the SDGs. These are: i) the OECD Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs; ii) the G20 Rome High-level Principles on city-to-city partnerships for localising the SDGs (hereinafter the G20 Principles); and iii) the European Commission (EC) programme on Partnerships for Sustainable Cities. The OECD Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs provides an overview of the relevant framework conditions for the localisation of the SDGs that can also be applied to sustainable city-to-city partnerships. The G20 Principles will be further used in particular to design the self-assessment of the systemic monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework (see Box 1.2). The EC programme on Partnerships for Sustainable Cities will be taken into account both for the design of the M&E framework as well as for the pilot testing of the self-assessment framework.
The OECD Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs
In its 2020 synthesis report A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals (OECD, 2020[9]), the OECD proposed a Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs. The checklist targets policy makers at all levels of government and provides action-oriented recommendations across five different pillars to localise the SDGs (OECD, 2020[9]). The five pillars are: i) planning, policies and strategies; ii) multi-level governance; iii) financing and budgeting; iv) data and information; and v) stakeholder engagement (see below for more details). It takes into account the holistic approach of the SDGs as a comprehensive framework that allows for the promotion of synergies and management of trade-offs across sectoral policies, alongside the engagement of various territorial stakeholders. Furthermore, the checklist also considers the SDGs as a framework to monitor progress and set targets for the achievement of sustainability at the local level while providing transparency and accountability (OECD, 2020[9]).
The OECD Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs recommends mainstreaming the SDGs in the design and implementation of international co‑operation activities. Even though the checklist was not specifically designed as a framework to enhance city-to-city partnerships, such partnerships play a key role in the policy recommendations contained in the checklist. As part of the first pillar on planning, policies and strategies, the checklist provides recommendations on the integration of the SDGs in DDC. The checklist suggests that DDC programmes could be shaped around the SDGs where a city or region has a comparative advantage over others. It also emphasises the importance of knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer exchange on those SDGs where collaboration between different partners can have the strongest impact. As a follow-up, the “OECD toolkit for a territorial approach to the SDGs” (2022[13]) complements the recommendations under each of the five components of the checklist, with examples of how cities, regions and countries put in place each of the recommendations. For instance, the toolkit includes the example of how the region of Flanders in Belgium is integrating the SDGs in DDC. The regional government of Flanders is one of the most active governments on DDC in the OECD and determines sectoral priorities for bilateral DDC activities jointly with partner countries based on their 2030 Agenda priorities. In 2018, the region approved a reformed framework decree for DDC that aims to foster systemic change, societal innovation and multi-actor partnerships rather than mere sectoral approaches when addressing the SDGs (OECD, 2022[13]).
G20 Rome High-Level Principles on city-to-city partnerships for localising the SDGs
The G20 Principles emphasise the importance of co‑operation between cities for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. In 2021, building on the crucial role of cities to contribute to the SDGs, the G20 Development Working Group endorsed the G20 Principles under the Italian G20 presidency and with the technical support of the OECD (Box 1.2). The principles aim to promote city-to-city partnerships for the SDGs while considering their diversity across G20 countries and their partners. The ten principles underline the importance of a territorial approach to the SDGs and call for a strengthened multi-level governance framework for city-to-city partnerships and enhanced rural-urban connectivity. Furthermore, they encourage an exchange about mainstreaming SDG indicators into planning and policy documents as well as the development of M&E frameworks. The principles call for the uptake of peer-to-peer learning and capacity building and encourage the engagement of territorial stakeholders. Lastly, they pledge LRGs to develop effective financing and efficient resource mobilisation strategies, as well as to build the necessary human, technological and infrastructural capacities to take advantage of digitalisation in city-to-city partnerships (G20 DWG, 2021[15]).
Box 1.2. Ten G20 Rome High-level Principles on city-to-city partnerships for localising the SDGs
1. Territorial approach. Promote city-to-city partnerships as a means to enhance the implementation of a territorial approach in responding to and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing vulnerability to climate change.
2. Multi-level governance. Strengthen multi-level integrated governance and co‑ordination for greater effectiveness of city-to-city partnerships and more demand-based initiatives, while considering local and regional contexts and responding to the specific needs of different geographical areas and governance systems, as appropriate.
3. Rural-urban connectivity. Enhance rural-urban connectivity and co‑operation, including between primary and intermediary cities, including through past G20 work on infrastructure.1
4. Data and indicators. Encourage local and regional governments to exchange approaches and practices in mainstreaming SDGs indicators into planning and policy documents at all levels of government and produce disaggregated data towards strengthened context-specific analysis and assessment of territorial disparities in collaboration with national governments, which could also support countries in developing their Voluntary National Reviews.
5. Monitoring and evaluation. Taking into account different national and local contexts, develop monitor and evaluation (M&E) indicators towards a result framework for evidence-based city-to-city partnerships, documenting their impact and providing recommendations to optimise those partnerships.
6. Peer-to-peer learning. Focus on mutual benefit, peer-to-peer learning, support and review in city-to-city partnerships, including the exchange of knowledge on sustainable urban planning and capital investment planning.
7. Capacity development. Support capacity development and build local managerial capital and skills for effective, efficient and inclusive city-to-city partnerships implementation.
8. Stakeholder engagement. Engage all relevant stakeholders to implement territorial network modalities of city-to-city partnerships towards the achievement of the SDGs, including by establishing partnerships with the private sector.
9. Financing. Call on local and regional governments to develop effective financing and efficient resource mobilisation strategies and instruments in collaboration with national governments as appropriate, through existing mechanisms to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda through city-to-city partnerships, including by integrating the SDGs in budgeting processes.
10. Digitalisation. Develop strategies to build human, technological and infrastructural capacities of the LRGs to make use of and incorporate digitalisation best practices in city-to-city partnerships.
1. Including the Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, the G20 Guidelines on Quality Infrastructure for Regional Connectivity and the G20 High-level Principles on Sustainable Habitat through Regional Planning.
Source: G20 DWG (2021[15]), Territorial Development and SDGs Localisation, https://dwgg20.org/app/uploads/2021/10/Territorial-Development-SDGs-Localisation.pdf.
The European Commission programme on Partnerships for Sustainable Cities
The EC has set up a programme to deepen relations with local authorities to address the urgency of urban challenges. In 2018, the EC Directorate General for Development Co-operation (then called DG DEVCO, now renamed International Partnerships [DG INTPA]) launched a programme on Partnerships for Sustainable Cities (EC, 2022[16]). The programme supports partnerships between municipalities from the EU and partner municipalities in the Global South to leverage inter-linkages among the SDGs, enhance their effectiveness and impact and accelerate progress in achieving the goals. The specific objectives of the EC Partnerships for Sustainable Cities programme are fourfold: i) to strengthen urban governance (e.g. through urban planning and land use management); ii) to ensure social inclusiveness of cities (e.g. by addressing urban planning gender gaps, safety and security in urban settings); iii) to improve resilience and greening of cities (e.g. by setting up new projects to implement environmental and climate resilient local policies); and iv) to improve prosperity and innovation in cities (e.g. by increasing job creation and entrepreneurship) (EC, 2022[16]) (Figure 1.6).
Figure 1.6. The EC programme on Partnerships for Sustainable Cities
The programme incentivises mutual learning and participatory approaches. Following 3 consecutive calls for proposals between 2018 and 2021, DG INTPA selected a total of 57 city-to-city partnership projects to participate in the programme and has mobilised more than EUR 160 million to support them. Partners from the EU and outside the EU implement the projects together with the EU delegations in the respective country where the actions take place. Actions can include peer-to-peer activities or decentralised co‑operation activities that contribute to the four specific objectives of the programme mentioned above. One of the main characteristics of the programme is the participation of all relevant stakeholders in specific partnerships. Within such partnerships, municipalities work together on areas of mutual interest that fall under the category of integrated urban development. Their goal is to act as “laboratories” to generate innovative solutions to urban challenges. As such, they are expected to impact positively the EU’s development co‑operation activities and promote the uptake of lessons learned among EU institutions (EC, 2022[16]).
Framework conditions for effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships
What makes city-to-city partnerships work?
Specific framework conditions need to be in place for city-to-city partnerships to deliver on their objectives. Since city-to-city partnerships are an important factor contributing to the localisation of the SDGs, the OECD Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs provides a useful framework that can help promote effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships. The checklist is structured around five components: i) policies and strategies, e.g. integrating the SDGs into territorial policies and strategies; ii) governance, e.g. improving multi-level governance structures and policy coherence for the implementation of the SDGs; iii) data and information, e.g. measuring the performance of cities and regions on the SDGs through localised indicators; iv) financing, e.g. aligning budget and financing to ensure sufficient resources for sustainability (which has been complemented by a component on the capacity for this project); and v) stakeholder engagement, e.g. by integrating territorial stakeholders into the implementation of the SDGs at the local level. The below section discusses the framework conditions (see Figure 1.8 for an overview of the relevant framework conditions for effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships) that are necessary for effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships along the five components of the checklist. However, when the framework conditions are not in place nor effectively discharged, city-to-city partnerships may face various obstacles, ranging from: i) lack and cost of co‑ordination; ii) financing; iii) local capacity; iv) small-scale projects; v) transparency and accountability; and vi) data availability.
Figure 1.7. The OECD Checklist for Public Action to Localise the SDGs
Source: OECD (2022[13]), “OECD toolkit for a territorial approach to the SDGs”, https://doi.org/10.1787/2913bae2-en.
Policies and strategies
City-to-city partnerships call for a territorial approach. Successful city-to-city partnerships address concrete local challenges such as clean forms of urban mobility, affordable housing, clean water and sanitation amongst others. Adopting a territorial approach that takes into account place-specific contexts is critical to address the interconnectedness of many of these policy areas. It is also important to establish city-to-city partnerships that create synergies across sectoral policies and manage trade-offs, e.g. between mobility and spatial planning. In particular, city-to-city partnerships should target those policy areas that can help exploit the territorial development potential of the city through context-specific policies and interventions. City-to-city partnerships also need to be integrated into local development strategies and their objectives aligned with local and regional priorities (OECD, 2018[1]).
The principles of reciprocity, proximity and territorial partnership can foster sustainable city-to-city co‑operation. First, a two-way relationship, where both partner governments are considered equal, is key to ensuring that the impact and results of partnerships fulfil the expected outcomes. Furthermore, local governments and stakeholders must be the main actors involved since they are the best equipped to deal with local territorial development challenges, given their proximity to the local population. Lastly, since city‑to-city partnerships are based on partnerships between local governments in developed and developing countries, they should be grounded in a policy vision and objectives shared by all partners to facilitate ownership and optimise the results of the partnership (OECD, 2018[1]).
Political leadership is an important success factor for sustainable city-to-city partnerships. A survey conducted among 30 local governments from 16 countries in Asia, Tjandradewi and Marcotullio (2009[17]) found that political leadership was considered one of the most important factors contributing to successful city-to-city co‑operation, alongside the free flow of information and reciprocity. Drawing on several city-to-city partnership case studies from South Africa and the United States, de Villiers (2009[18]) identified strong community leadership as well as effective and permanent organisational structures as success factors for sustained city-to-city partnerships. Political leadership is also essential for the achievement of the SDGs at the local level. A survey conducted by the OECD and the European Committee of the Regions showed that political leadership at the local and regional levels was the most important factor of success for the implementation of the SDGs (OECD, 2022[19]).
City-to-city partnerships require a strategy that elaborates on the rationale, aim and vision of the envisaged collaboration and relationship. Developing a strategy that defines the scope and objectives of city-to-city partnerships against the background of the SDGs is important for the design of a partnership’s actions. Starting to map existing strategies and plans allows to identify crucial areas of collaboration and link them to the SDGs. This mapping exercise can therefore represent the starting point for the development of that strategy (SDSN, 2016[14]). Based on that analysis, successful strategies outline the partnership’s goals, guidelines for partner selection and mechanisms to draw lessons from the collaboration. A partnership strategy should also include guidelines for capacity building and the partnership’s governance structure (de Villiers, 2009[18]).
Effective strategies for city-to-city partnerships should follow a multiple-step approach. The United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Capacity and Institution Building (CIB) Working Group (2019[20]) presents a multiple-step approach to how to draft an effective SDG-linked development co‑operation policy, which can also be applied to city-to-city partnerships. The main elements are: i) the purpose; ii) the problem statement; iii) policy; iv) procedures; as well as v) evaluation and review. The purpose section entails an explanation of why the policy plan is drafted and why it should be linked to the SDGs. The problem statement elaborates on the need for a DDC policy or a specific city-to-city partnership. It points out a particular issue to be addressed in one or both of the partner cities. In that context, the two cities and local stakeholders ideally share common ideas and objectives in areas of sustainable urban development (UNIDO/FCSSC, 2019[21]). The policy section spells out the roadmap and rules in place as well as the objectives and the commitment of the political leaders. The procedures section addresses how to best achieve the tasks within the mandate and competencies of the local government, provides a set of guidelines for effective policies and outlines an implementation plan. Lastly, the evaluation section outlines the evaluation criteria as well as reporting and communication on the work undertaken, which is further explained in the section below on data and information (UCLG, 2019[20]). This can be followed by an additional analysis of the potential replicability in other city-to-city partnerships and the development of strategies to mainstream the results of the partnership to promote wider city objectives (UNIDO/FCSSC, 2019[21]; Boulanger and Nagorny, 2018[22]). In addition, it is important to define a timeframe for the partnership agreements, which should include periodical review processes to assess if the partnership is leading to the desired outcomes. To do so, the agreement should also allow for possible adjustments of actions and policies undertaken in the framework of the partnership (Gootman, Barker and Bouchet, 2019[23]).
Multi-level governance
With an increasing number of actors involved in city-to-city partnerships, the co‑ordination of actions, roles and responsibilities becomes more challenging. The lack of clarity regarding the competency for DDC between local, regional and national levels can cause some additional multi-level governance challenges and complicate co‑ordination between actors. Existing co‑ordination mechanisms can also be challenged if there are multiple LRGs active in DDC (e.g. Spain) (OECD, 2018[1]). Another challenge is related to silos across departments and agencies involved in the partnership. Common goals for development projects between actors are key to the sustainability of city-to-city partnerships. However, if there is a divergence in local and regional development priorities and the relevance of solutions between partners in the Global North and the Global South, the governance of the partnership can become challenging (OECD, 2018[1]).
Legal and institutional frameworks are therefore important conditions for effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships. Legal and institutional frameworks for DDC in OECD countries take different forms. As shown above, DDC activities vary considerably in terms of scope and size between countries. The same is the case for the institutional frameworks for DDC. Some countries such as Belgium, France and Italy clearly define DDC parameters. Their legal frameworks operate on a national level, recognising the competencies of decentralised bodies to conduct DDC (e.g. through specific laws or decrees for municipal development co‑operation) (OECD, 2018[1]). Another group of countries, including Austria, Germany and the Netherlands for instance, does not have a specific legal framework for DDC but relies on local and/or decentralisation regulations to carry out DDC activities. In most cases, DDC is considered a part of and embedded in the national development co‑operation, as well as a tool for the implementation of the national development co‑operation strategy (OECD, 2018[1]). For example, Germany has established a conducive institutional framework for DDC, which considers all levels of government (federal, state and municipal). Through its federal government and federal states programme called Bund-Länder-Programm (BLP), which integrates the federal state level competencies of the public administration, private sector and academic institutions into German development co‑operation, Germany links regional expertise in the federal states with technical co‑operation projects initiated by the federal government and implemented by the German development agency GIZ (GIZ, 2022[24]). Furthermore, a dedicated agency (Service Agency Communities in One World, SKEW) promotes national and international exchange and joint learning between municipalities, notably in the framework of city-to-city partnerships, including through financial and skills support (SKEW, 2022[25]).
Guidelines for DDC can help better support and frame city-to-city partnerships. Several members of the OECD DAC (e.g. Austria, Belgium, France) have such guidelines in place at the national level. They also exist at regional levels (e.g. in Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium and the Basque Country in Spain) and local levels (e.g. in Barcelona, Spain). Such legal frameworks and guidelines can have an even greater impact on DDC practices if LRGs and their territorial stakeholders are engaged in their elaboration and the actual implementation of DDC projects.
The existence of an enabling multi-level governance structure is crucial to facilitate successful partnerships. Co-ordination across levels of government and collaboration between LRGs and their stakeholders is key to achieving the objective and long-term impact of city-to-city partnerships. City-to-city partnerships create a space for different levels of government to participate, either by the provision of funding or a policy or regulatory framework for city partnerships at the regional or national level. The national government can also provide data and research support. However, complex interactions across levels of government and local governments involved in city-to-city partnerships can represent a burden to governance mechanisms and arrangements. It is therefore important that the partner governments involved in the partnership incentivise the application of common framework conditions such as legal frameworks and rules to secure an enabling environment for DDC projects (OECD, 2018[1]). In Spain for example, several regions and municipalities have developed policies, operational plans and strategies that made DDC a local and regional public policy priority. The OECD (2018[1]) has identified the strong involvement of multiple actors and levels of government as a success factor to maximise the impact of DDC activities such as city-to-city partnerships. At the same time, multi-level governance needs to consider the different local and regional contexts to respond to the specific needs of different geographical areas (G20 DWG, 2021[15]). Vertical co‑ordination is crucial in that context, in particular, to address potential competition or race to the bottom among territories. It can be promoted through local government associations like the Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities (VVSG) in Belgium, Cités-Unies in France or the German Association of Districts, Cities, Towns and Municipalities4 (OECD, 2018[1]).
City-to-city partnerships require common framework conditions and enabling policy environments. In city-to-city partnerships, it is important to allow for some flexibility that responds to the needs of the local project partners (Gootman, Barker and Bouchet, 2019[23]). The OECD (2018[1]) therefore recommends that DDC promoters should strive to incentivise the application of common framework conditions to secure the proper enabling environment for partnership projects to deliver intended benefits at a lower cost. Generating a governance spillover may help incline relations towards horizontal, in-country governance and collaborative exchanges across countries. Furthermore, partnerships for development can only succeed if they are co‑designed with developing countries and feature in country-specific and city-specific situations and needs (OECD, 2018[1]).
Coherence with the national and regional development co‑operation strategies is another key factor for fostering a sustainable approach to city-to-city partnerships. Building on an implementation framework that is integrated into its country’s multi-level governance system is critical to avoid a short-term and project-based approach to development co‑operation projects (OECD, 2018[1]). In this context, the G20 Principles (see above) call for stronger multi-level governance and co‑ordination for greater effectiveness of city-to-city partnerships and for more demand-based initiatives that take into account local and regional contexts.
Financing and capacity
The availability of sufficient and adequate financial resources and conditions is crucial to the success of city-to-city partnerships. Insufficient funding and the volatility of financing represent a significant burden to the long-term impact of city-to-city partnerships both in the donor and in the partner country. The OECD (2018[1]) shows that the lack of financial guarantees for DDC projects, weak prioritisation of DDC funds across levels of government and the lack of multi-annual strategic plans and budgets are among the main challenges hindering the efficiency of DDC interventions. Ensuring the long-term financial stability of city-to-city partnerships can be particularly difficult. In Germany, for example, a main obstacle for municipalities regarding their city-to-city partnerships is the annual budgeting cycle. Since public budgets, e.g. municipal and federal state budgets as well as funding from implementing agencies such as GIZ and SKEW, usually cover only one year; longer-term planning of DDC activities comes with uncertainty about the future financing of the activities (OECD, 2023[26]). LRGs, therefore, need to develop effective financing and efficient resource mobilisation strategies and instruments in co‑operation with national governments. These may include existing mechanisms to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, such as the integration of the SDGs in budgeting processes (G20 DWG, 2021[15]). One option to lower the volatility and uncertainty about DDC is the extension of budget cycles. The region of Flanders, Belgium, for example, put in place an innovative long-term DDC budgeting system, which ensures a five-year commitment cycle allowing greater predictability of aid for recipient countries (OECD, 2018[1]).
Blended finance could provide an opportunity to secure funds to implement city-to-city partnerships. Blended finance refers to the strategic use of development finance for the mobilisation of additional finance towards the SDGs, which primarily means commercial finance (OECD, 2018[27]). It presents growing opportunities to mobilise additional private finance. On average, official development finance interventions have mobilised private resources of close to USD 50 billion per year between 2018 and 2020 (OECD, 2022[28]). The OECD DAC Blended Finance Principles call on DAC members to support local development priorities and make sure that blended finance contributes to a sound local enabling environment for responsible borrowing (OECD, 2019[2]). Another tool to meet the financing demand for partnerships with local governments in developing countries is the development of subnational financing capacities to attract broader external finance. One example is that of subnational pooled financing vehicles (SPFM), such as specific municipal bonds (OECD, 2019[2]). SPFMs mobilised almost USD 3 billion in developing countries between 2000 and 2015 to finance public services such as water and sanitation, energy or transport infrastructure (FMDV/AFD, 2015[29]). In that context, linking DDC projects to the 2030 Agenda can be a powerful tool to attract funding from investors that seek to provide SDG-compatible finance (OECD, 2019[2]).
Governance models that entail co‑financing schemes and the pooling of financial resources can help facilitate access to funding for DDC projects. As mentioned above, a conducive multi-level governance framework entails DDC funding support for development co‑operation activities at the regional and local levels, e.g. through co‑financing schemes. In Germany, for example, funding schemes from SKEW, the country’s focal point for municipal development policy, can cover up to 90% of the total eligible expenditure of municipal development co‑operation projects (OECD, 2023[26]). Furthermore, the lack of critical mass at the subnational level due to territorial fragmentation can be a challenge for design, implementation and reporting. Small municipalities engaged in city-to-city partnerships with the Global South in particular might not have sufficient financial resources and human capacity to design, co‑ordinate and evaluate their activities. Implementing DDC activities through networks of municipalities can help address the lack of financial resources to manage a partnership with another peer in a developing country, especially in small municipalities. In the Italian region of Tuscany, the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) is promoting an initiative to support local municipalities to engage in DDC through the territorial partnership model adopted by the region. In Spain, municipalities have created joint funds to address the issue of scale (OECD, 2018[1]).
Improving the accountability and transparency of financing are key to contributing to successful city-to-city partnerships. Transparency and accountability of financing are longstanding barriers to effective DDC and city-to-city partnerships. The reputation of some local governments as engaging in corrupt activities is often due to weak financial transparency and insufficient national fiscal rules and frameworks (OECD, 2019[2]). A growing number of countries have therefore established mechanisms to safeguard against corruption that go hand in hand with financing procedures for DDC projects. Improving the accountability and transparency of financing is the first step towards ensuring that resources are used rationally, reliably, consistently and with high-quality standards. Sharing best practices and strategies to incentivise reporting by local governments on their ODA (also in the framework of city-to-city partnerships) can contribute to that objective (OECD, 2019[2]).
Local capacity and technical skills are a prerequisite for the successful governance of city-to-city partnerships but can be a challenging factor. Local and regional actors might have the insufficient scientific, technical and infrastructural capacity to conduct a sustainable city-to-city partnership (OECD, 2018[1]). Such obstacles often negatively impact project management and implementation of DDC projects at the local level, as does the turnover of staff in local administrations engaged in a partnership. Capacity-building training modules and workshops can contribute to bridging potential gaps in terms of expertise and technical skills as well as knowledge of the SDGs (OECD, 2018[1]). Local NGOs or research centres can provide needed knowledge and legal, financial or other for development co‑operation projects. Direct assistance, advice and support are the most common forms of capacity building for governments (used for example by the Barcelona Provincial Council in Spain or SKEW in Germany) (OECD, 2018[1]). Another tool is peer learning activities between city administrations or across levels of government. They allow for drawing lessons from past successes and failures and thus improve existing partnerships. For example, the partnership between the city of Zoersel in Belgium and the city of Bohicon in Benin focused on peer learning and exchange to strengthen the local capacity in local governance, technology transfer, service delivery and waste management (OECD, 2018[1]). The SDGs can play a key role in supporting such peer learning activities as they provide a global framework with common goals, orientation and policy guidelines to both parties of the city-to-city partnership.
Engagement
Stakeholder engagement is a mechanism to secure greater social and political acceptance or co‑design of partnerships and improve the representation of various actors therein. One of the main framework conditions that make city-to-city partnerships work is the engagement of territorial stakeholders in the partnership. The Busan Partnership highlighted that openness, trust, mutual respect and learning lie at the core of effective partnerships in support of development goals (OECD, 2011[30]). It is therefore important to recognise the different and complementary roles of all actors involved in development co‑operation projects. This is particularly relevant since traditional bilateral partnerships are increasingly replaced by multi-level and multi-stakeholder partnerships from across scales and sectors. One of the advantages of DDC, and in particular city-to-city partnerships, is the proximity of actions to and possible collaboration with civil society and those directly affected by public policies (Vital, 2013[31]). Local-based partnerships represent a platform to involve and gather the support of various stakeholders around SDG-related city-to-city partnerships (de Losada Passols, 2017[32]). These stakeholders can include the local government, private sector, academia and civil society amongst others. By engaging various territorial stakeholders from different sectors and building stakeholder relationships between territories, city-to-city partnerships are a particular promoter of innovation and co‑operation that can contribute to SDG 17 (UCLG, 2019[20]). For example, CSOs are often important partners for cities in developing and developed countries and key implementing agents in local service delivery and the assessment of local communities’ needs (UN-Habitat/UNO/FMCU, 2001[33]). In the Basque Country, for instance, 90% of ODA is channelled through CSOs (OECD, 2018[1]).
Stakeholder engagement creates ownership of DDC and city-to-city partnerships’ activities. The engagement of territorial actors such as CSOs, NGOs, the private sector, research centres and universities allows to empower communities and generate ownership and long-term sustainability of partnerships. At the same time, stakeholder engagement enables the development of place-based knowledge, expertise and good practices (OECD, 2018[1]). It can furthermore lead to collective learning, which has the potential to raise the capacity for collective problem-solving among diverse groups (Gerlak and Heikkila, 2011[34]). Generally, three main types of learning are most relevant for city-to-city partnerships: i) technical learning (learning about certain policy instruments and their improvement to achieve a goal); ii) conceptual learning (exploring the bigger picture and taking new perspectives); and iii) social learning (learning about values, norms and responsibilities) (Kemp and Weehuizen, 2005[35]). It is therefore important to identify the most relevant potential stakeholders for city-to-city partnerships, map their core motivations and actions, and regularly assess their engagement. Furthermore, it is beneficial to provide adequate legal and institutional frameworks that encourage engagement processes, as well as to offer the necessary platforms for dialogue between project partners (OECD, 2018[1]). Participation in international city networks and fora can be a tool to create links with other city governments, CSOs or businesses working on the SDGs.
The private sector and academia are key actors that can support city-to-city partnerships. The contribution of the private sector to local sustainable development is crucial as it represents a main driver of productivity, inclusive economic growth and employment opportunities. Engaging the private sector in city-to-city partnerships for the SDGs can bring domestic firms and industries closer, expertise and best practices as well as shift their focus toward sustainability while expanding their international network. Such a knowledge gain has the potential to strengthen the local economy (Gootman, Barker and Bouchet, 2019[23]). Partnerships with the private sector also allow city governments to exploit business opportunities for integrated urban development. In addition, the private sector is a key actor engaging with local communities and other local stakeholders, boosting innovation and producing useful data and information that contribute to a successful city-to-city partnership. Using the 2030 Agenda to further engage the private sector in such partnerships can also represent a powerful tool to attract investors who seek to provide SDG-compatible finance (OECD, 2019[2]). Academia can also play a key role in development co‑operation projects. The integration of universities into city-to-city partnerships allows for tapping into the knowledge and scientific expertise held by these institutions. In particular, it allows for the application of scientific research and expertise at the local level, for example through data and the development of indicator frameworks as well as evaluation and reporting frameworks. Finally, city-to-city partnerships can actively contribute to the exchange of knowledge between academic institutions in the two partner cities thereby generating new research synergies.
Data and information
Reporting on development co‑operation activities and the collection of data can improve transparency and accountability. The lack of quality data and accessibility of information is considered one of the most common explanations for a low awareness of DDC and city-to-city partnerships (OECD, 2018[1]). It can prevent an open and transparent exchange and a better understanding of the importance of DDC among territorial stakeholders and lead to the duplication of efforts, fragmentation of actions and lack of co‑ordination (OECD, 2018[1]). Harmonised reporting on DDC activities, including city-to-city partnerships and in co‑ordination with the national level, e.g. by using common and harmonised indicator frameworks, is important to ensure consistency and comparability between different DDC projects. Data on DDC and city-to-city partnerships are often scattered and fragmented due to the number of actors involved, such as local governments, implementing agencies, NGOs and other territorial stakeholders. For example, less than half of DAC members report on DDC activities, and only 4 out of 30 DAC members report on DDC disaggregated at the regional and municipal levels (OECD, 2018[1]).
Sharing best practices on how to better incentivise reporting by subnational governments on ODA can help increase its uptake. The multiplicity of subnational actors can be a major obstacle to setting up, governing and co‑ordinating partnerships. It can also impact data collection, notably due to due cost of co‑ordination (OECD, 2018[1]). Tracking and reporting relevant data about the partnership might then be considered not worth the effort (see above). In the Netherlands, for example, the International Cooperation Agency of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) is involved in capacity building and technical assistance for local governments in more than 30 countries (EUR 30 million in 2021) but its activities are considered too small to be worth reporting (VNG International, 2022[36]). The OECD (2018[1]) therefore points out the need to set incentives to improve the reporting on DDC financial flows, priorities and practices. Sharing best practices on how to better incentivise reporting by subnational governments on ODA, e.g. by promoting mechanisms for dialogue among DAC members with institutions dedicated to DDC, can play an important role in that respect (OECD, 2019[2]). In that context, it is also important to raise awareness about the concept of ODA more broadly, the eligibility criteria of activities and the reporting possibilities at the subnational level, including in municipalities. In France for example, the National Commission for Decentralised Co-operation (Commission nationale de la coopération décentralisée, CNCD) hosts a web-based reporting platform, including an Atlas of Decentralised Co-operation that maps the international actions of all French local and regional authorities (OECD, 2019[2]).
Data are an important factor to assess the performance of city-to-city partnerships. There are several challenges related to the accountability and transparency of DDC projects, in particular when it comes to M&E. Even if a M&E system is in place for a specific project, different standards of city-to-city partnerships, in particular regarding the usage of qualitative data, can hamper comparability and replicability. In most EU countries, where M&E frameworks are used, the activities are mostly focused on the monitoring and assessment of input and some limited output results. They barely take into account the outcome or impact of DDC actions (OECD, 2018[1]). Without the relevant data and evaluation schemes, deriving potentially replicable good practices and quantifying the outcomes of the partnerships can be challenging. To measure and incentivise progress and allow for course correction, city partnerships need to be assessed by performance metrics. To that end, Gootman, Barker and Bouchet (2019[23]) propose the application of a SMART (specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-bound) model, which includes process metrics (number of missions, events, workshops, resources), outcome metrics and a timetable with specific deadlines and roles. Providing disaggregated data can also help avoid distorted analysis, priority setting and statistical development efforts (OECD, 2018[1]). Technology and innovation can be major drivers in that context, allowing for data measurement and sharing between data producers and users as well as between partnering cities (OECD, 2018[1]). They can also feed into the development of M&E frameworks (see the section on using data and indicators in monitoring and evaluation in Chapter 2).
Sharing information is a vital factor to guide and improve partnerships. Successful city-to-city partnerships require reliable and regular communication with all territorial stakeholders, including a mutual understanding of their objectives and commitment between partners. The sharing of information between partners is crucial to guiding and improving partnerships on a long-term basis (OECD, 2018[1]). A transparent and effective communication plan upfront on what information should be communicated, to whom, by whom and when, is a helpful tool in that regard (UCLG, 2019[20]).
Figure 1.8. Overview of framework conditions for effective and sustainable city-to-city partnerships
Reporting and the accessibility of project results to the general public are crucial to raising awareness about partnerships. To better understand DDC results and the contribution of DDC projects to their intended goals, governments need to report comprehensively on their financial flows. Improved reporting across donors is critical to foster transparency and better capture the richness and impact of DDC. In addition to the financial component of DDC, reporting on the non-financial component is crucial as well. To make partnership results more accessible to the general public, the reporting on city-to-city partnerships needs to consider several elements. These include the purpose of the reporting itself, the target audience, the thematic priorities, the way data and findings are presented, the frequency, the resources and the capacities available for the reporting. Effective reporting and open data accessibility represent an accountability mechanism for the local governments involved in the partnership as they provide an incentive for effective project performance and usage of resources (SDSN, 2016[14]). For this purpose, M&E findings can also be distributed through online tools such as websites, newsletters, press releases and social media. Remedial measures are a way to enhance accountability when programme outcomes are not achieved (UCLG, 2019[20]).
References
[12] Bontenbal, M. (2009), “Strengthening urban governance in the South through city-to-city cooperation: Towards an analytical framework”, Habitat International 33, pp. 181-189.
[22] Boulanger, S. and N. Nagorny (2018), “Replication vs. mentoring: Accelerating the spread of good practices for the low-carbon transition”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 13/2, pp. 316-328, https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-316-328.
[3] CoE (2015), City-to-city Cooperation Toolkit, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/c2c-city-to-city-cooperation/1680747067.
[32] de Losada Passols, A. (2017), Shaping a New Generation of Decentralised Cooperation - For Enhanced Effectiveness and Accountability, Platforma, CPMR, https://cpmr.org/wpdm-package/cpmrplatforma-study-shaping-a-new-generation-of-decentralised-cooperation-for-enhanced-effectiveness-and-accountability/?wpdmdl=15687&ind=1512992269841.
[18] de Villiers, J. (2009), “Success factors and the city-to-city partnership management process - From strategy to alliance capability”, Habitat International 33, pp. 149-156.
[16] EC (2022), Partnerships for Sustainable Cities, European Commission, https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/programming/programmes/partnerships-sustainable-cities_en (accessed on 12 September 2022).
[29] FMDV/AFD (2015), Creating the Local Financing Framework for Sustainable Development Goals: The Potential Catalytic Role of Subnational Pooled Financing Mechanisms, FMVD/French Development Agency, https://fmdv.net/admin/Images/Publications/41/FMDV_Policy%20Paper_%20SPFM%20ENG.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
[15] G20 DWG (2021), Territorial Development and SDGs Localisation, Final DWG Outcome Document on Territorial Development and SDGs Localisation, G20 Development Working Group, https://dwgg20.org/app/uploads/2021/10/Territorial-Development-SDGs-Localisation.pdf.
[34] Gerlak, A. and T. Heikkila (2011), “Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the everglades restoration program”, Environmental Science & Policy 21, pp. 619-644, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq089.
[24] GIZ (2022), German Government and Federal States Cooperate in Development Cooperation, https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/91262.html (accessed on 23 August 2022).
[23] Gootman, M., R. Barker and M. Bouchet (2019), Metro-to-Metro Economic Partnerships: How to Network Global Assets to Fuel Regional Growth, Global Cities Initiative - A Joint Project of Brookings and JPMorgan Chase, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190731_metro_Metro-to-metro-economic-partnerships_Gootman-Barker-Bouchet.pdf.
[35] Kemp, R. and R. Weehuizen (2005), Policy Learning, What Does It Mean and How Can We Study It?, NIFU STEP, Oslo, https://aviana.com/step/publin/reports/d15policylearning.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2021).
[26] OECD (2023), Reshaping Decentralised Development Co-operation in Cities and Regions: Lessons from Germany for a Global Policy Toolkit, OECD, Paris.
[11] OECD (2022), Development Assistance Committee (DAC), OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/development-assistance-committee/ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
[28] OECD (2022), Financing for Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/mobilisation.htm#:~:text=Insights%20from%20latest%20data&text=In%202018%2D20%2C%20close%20to,development%20finance%20interventions%20for%20development (accessed on 13 October 2022).
[13] OECD (2022), “OECD toolkit for a territorial approach to the SDGs”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 33, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2913bae2-en.
[10] OECD (2022), Official Development Assistance – Definition and Coverage, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/officialdevelopmentassistancedefinitionandcoverage.htm (accessed on 12 September 2022).
[19] OECD (2022), “The Sustainable Development Goals as a framework for COVID-19 recovery in cities and regions”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6d25b59b-en.
[9] OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis Report, OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en.
[2] OECD (2019), “Decentralised development co-operation: Unlocking the potential of cities and regions”, OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9703003-en.
[27] OECD (2018), OECD DAC Blended Finance Principles for Unlocking Commercial Finance for the Sustainable Development Goals, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/OECD-Blended-Finance-Principles.pdf.
[1] OECD (2018), Reshaping Decentralised Development Co-operation: The Key Role of Cities and Regions for the 2030 Agenda, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302914-en.
[30] OECD (2011), Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation: Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November - 1 December 2011, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54de7baa-en.
[5] OECD (2007), Reaching Our Development Goals: Why Does Aid Effectiveness Matter?, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/40987004.pdf.
[6] Pipa, A. and M. Bouchet (2020), “How to make the most of city diplomacy in the COVID-19 era”, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/06/how-to-make-the-most-of-city-diplomacy-in-the-covid-19-era/ (accessed on 21 July 2021).
[14] SDSN (2016), Getting Started with the SDGs in Cities: A Guide for Stakeholders, United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/be6d1d56/files/uploaded/9.1.8.-Cities-SDG-Guide.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
[7] SKEW (2022), Partnerschaften mit Kommunen in der Ukraine [Partnerships with Municipalities in Ukraine], https://skew.engagement-global.de/partnerschaften-mit-kommunen-in-der-ukraine.html (accessed on 20 October 2022).
[25] SKEW (2022), SKEW - Servicestelle Kommunen in der Einen Welt [SKEW - Service Agency Municipalities in One World), https://www.engagement-global.de/skew-servicestelle-kommunen-in-der-einen-welt.html (accessed on 1 September 2022).
[8] SKEW (2022), “Städtepartnerschaften mit der Ukraine für eine strategische nachhaltige Entwicklung [Town twinning with Ukraine for strategic sustainable development]”, https://skew.engagement-global.de/im-fokus-detail/staedtepartnerschaften-mit-der-ukraine-fuer-eine-strategische-nachhaltige-entwicklung.html (accessed on 11 October 2022).
[17] Tjandradewi, B. and P. Marcotullio (2009), “City-to-city networks: Asian perspectives on key elements and areas for success”, Habitat International 33, pp. 165-172.
[20] UCLG (2019), Learning Module 4: Localising the SDGs Through Decentralized Cooperation, United Cities and Local Governments Capacity and Institution Building Working Group, https://www.cglu.org/sites/default/files/module4.pdf.
[4] UCLG (2016), Local and Regional Governments Partners for the Global Agenda, United Cities and Local Governments, https://www.uclg-cisdp.org/sites/default/files/folleto%20UN%20final%20web_1.pdf.
[33] UN-Habitat/UNO/FMCU (2001), City-to-City Cooperation: Issues Arising from Experience.
[21] UNIDO/FCSSC (2019), BRIDGE for Cities 4.0: Connecting cities through the new industrial revolution - Rethinking City-to-City Partnerships under the 4th Industrial Revolution, United Nations Industrial Development Organization and Finance Center for South-South Cooperation, https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/files/2019-09/Bridge4Cities%20Issue%20Paper_Final.pdf.
[31] Vital, G. (2013), “The Role of Subnational Governments in Strengthening the Importance of Global Public Goods”, ECPR General Conference Bordeaux, 04-07 September 2013, https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/1690.
[36] VNG International (2022), Annual Update 2022 VNG International - Finances, https://annual-update-2022.vng-international.nl/our-finances.html (accessed on 15 September 2022).
Notes
← 1. Imputed student costs are defined as indirect or “imputed” costs of tuition in donor countries.
← 2. OECD DAC members can count the costs of assisting refugees in donor countries as ODA.
← 3. Health summarises data reported under the labels I.2.b. Basic Health and I.2.a. Health, General.
← 4. In Germany, there are different associations representing districts, towns, cities and municipalities: i) the Association of German Cities; ii) the German Association of Towns and Municipalities; and iii) the German Association of Districts.