Presentation on emerging paradigms in Decentralised Development Cooperation, made at the Committee of the Regions, Belgium, Brussels on 9 June 2017. More information: http://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/OECD-project-on-decentralised-development-co-operation.htm

1. Brussels, 9 June 2017
DDC 1ST CONSULTATION WORKSHOP
EMERGING PARADIGMS IN DDC: GOING BEYOND
FINANCIAL FLOWS
Supported by

2. Structure
Section 1: Legal and institutional frameworks for DC;
Section 2: Key actors and strategic partners of DC in your country;
Section 3: Core motivations and priorities of DC in your country;
Section 4: Multilevel governance;
Section 5: Evaluation of DC results;
Section 6: Examples of DC best practices and challenging cases;
Section 7: Collection of CRS data on DC activities
Target respondents
DAC Members (+ Estonia and Croatia)
- reporting on DDC
- Not reporting on DDC
OECD Survey to DAC Members
(14 March – 5 June 2017)

3. Not all the responses consolidated at national level
SNG responses: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain and Netherlands
Responses on DDC survey
Countries Consolidated response from
DAC National Level
Various subnational responses
Austria Vienna, Tyrol, Lower Austria, Styria
Belgium Flanders and Wallonia
Greece x
Italy x
Germany German Association of LRGs
Spain Catalunia and Madrid
Portugal x
Switzerland x
Netherlands x Association of Municipalities
Association of Dutch Water Authorities
Hungary x

4. • Only Italy and Portugal have a standard definition of DDC:
 In Italy, DDC is defined as “development cooperation initiatives performed by local authorities in the
framework of territorial partnerships with local institutions of partner countries”
 In Portugal it is refers “in a narrow sense to the cooperation carried out by the sub-national governments
(municipalities, regions, etc.)”
 A broader approach in Portugal refers to “cooperation characterised by the decentralisation of initiatives
and relations with developing countries, the inclusion of a wide range of new actors and civil society in
their own development”.
• Most countries report the existence of legal or institutional
frameworks for DDC activities
 Specific laws mentioning LRGs for development cooperation
 Strategic frameworks
 Decrees
Legal and institutional frameworks for DDC

5. Guidelines for DCC
Countries Yes No No
Answer
Austria x
Belgium x
Greece x
Italy x
Germany x
Spain x
Portugal x
Switzerland x
Netherlands x
Hungary x
• Five countries have guidelines for DDC at national level : Italy, Germany,
Belgium (both Flanders and Wallonia), Austria, and Netherlands

6. DCC Modalities
• Partnership modality is the most commonly used for DDC
• Network modality is the second most commonly used (e.g. UCLG, Platforma,
ORU Fogar, etc).
• Agency modality mentioned by five countries
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Partnership modality
Agency modality
Network modality
Number of countries using the modality
DDC Modalities

7. Key DDC actors
• Regional/provincial level is most commonly active in DDC (46.7%)
• Local level is also an active DDC player with 541 municipalities/local entities
• In Italy almost 50% of ministries/national bodies are DDC actors, while only
0.5% of institutions at the local level are involved in DDC.
• Belgium and Austria present the most decentralised DDC model, while in
Switzerland the regional level is the most active one
Involved on DDC over total, in 2015
Central
government/
ministries
Numbers of
regions/provinces
Number of
municipalities/
local entities
Other
DAC members reporting on DDC
Where EU countries
Austria 9 / 9 74 / 74
Belgium .. 10 / 13 211 / 591
Germany .. .. ..
Greece .. 5 / 67 2 / 900 ..
Italy 9 / 20 14 / 22 30 / 6000
Public
universities: 38
/ 66
Portugal 2 / 17 .. 16 / 308 ..
Spain .. .. ..
Where non-EU countries
Switzerland 1 / 2 26 / 26 208 / 2324 ..

8. Distinctive roles of Regions and Municipalities
• Regions: ensure coordination and monitoring of DDC activities
implemented by LRGs to avoid duplication and overlaps. Also involved in bilateral
and multilateral cooperation activities and partnerships with other countries;
• Municipalities: provide know how, expertise and technology transfer,
local governance, peer to peer exchanges of best practices and mutual learning
on issues of governance, direct partnerships arrangements, twinning, etc.

9. Level of interaction with partner countries
Highest level of interaction is between local actors
At the national level, DAC countries mostly interact with national governments
Region to region collaboration is the most frequent partnership typology at the
intermediate level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
National Regional Local
Provider country
Main counterpart in the partner
country
Local
Regional
National
Note: 7 countries replied to this question (N/A in Greece, Spain, Switzerland and Netherlands).

10. Core motivations, sectoral and
geographical priorities for DDC
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2005 2010 2015
Main Kind of DDC Technical Assistance
Others
Cultural co-operation
Students exchange/ research
Peer to peer learning
Transfer of technology and know
how
Note : 6 countries responded to this question (N/A for Germany, Greece, Hungary and Switzerland)
• DDC activities : mainly peer to peer learning activities and transfer of
technology and know-how
• Others: capacity building, infrastructure, social welfare services, national
policy dialogue, training and professional exchange

11. Core motivations, sectoral and
geographical priorities for DDC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2010 2015
Criteria for Defining the Geographical
Focus
Other criteria
Ad hoc
Priority countries identified by partner
International Organisations
Proximity
Cultural
Economic/commercial
Historical
Political
Addressing global priorities
Priority countries defined by central aid
authority
Extreme poverty
Note: 7 countries responded to this question (N/A for Germany, Hungary and Switzerland)
• Main criterion: level of poverty, and in particular extreme poverty
• Addressing global priorities, such as SDGs, G7, G20, COP, as well as
priority countries defined by central aid authorities also key

12. Core motivations, sectoral and
geographical priorities for DDC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2010 2015
DDC Policy and Service AreasOther, specify
Land use
Transport and mobility
Urban development
Gender
Water
Environment/Climate change
Agriculture
Culture
Food security
Migration
Humanitarian assistance
Economic development
Education
Local governance/ democracy/
decentralisation
Social inclusion
Health
Note : 7 countries responded to this question (N/A for Germany, Hungary and Switzerland)
• Health and Social inclusion: two main policy and service areas in 2015,
followed by local governance/democracy and decentralisation

13. Multi-level governance
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Rankingfrom7to1(inorderof
importance)
Note: 6 countries replied to this question (NA/ for Hungary, Greece, Netherlands and Switzerland). For Spain and Belgium, only
Catalonia and Flanders responded.
• Main challenge: lack of critical scale at local and regional level
• Institutional fragmentation due to silos across ministries and public agencies
• Unstable or insufficient funding of LRGs are also key issues

14. Evaluation mechanisms
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Monitoring and Evaluation system
Evaluation reports
Ex-post analysis
Surveys, (recipients’ satisfaction, etc.)
Indicators system
Other – please specify
7 countries replied to this question (N/A for Hungary, Greece, and Switzerland). For Spain only Catalonia.
• All DAC surveyed countries reported the existence of evaluation
mechanisms to assess the impact, costs and benefits of DDC projects
• Mainly monitoring and evaluation systems or reports, while quantitative
methods are less used

15. Questions for discussion
• Are these features consistent with your experience
in DDC?
• Which other / different paradigm do you see
emerging from your work or activities?
• Is there a need to rejuvenate the terminology /
practices around DDC?

16. Thank you
Stefano.Marta@oecd.org