Evaluation of the partnership between the City of Oslo and Mbombela Local Municipality (South Africa) Bjoern Rongevaer, Special Adviser, KS

Background Oslo has cooperated with Mbombela since 1997 Initially with direct support from Norad Since 2006 as part of KS’ MIC programme MIC programme goals have evolved Now read: Build capacity in selected areas of prioritised municipal tasks in order to in the longer term impact on decentralisation, in particular devolution

Purpose Evaluation commissioned by KS Gain knowledge about link between capacity building in local self-government and successful devolution Terms of reference specify Assessment of results Identification of gained capacities Effectiveness of intervention Efficiency of model Costs as compared to use of alternative models

Methodology Review of existing documents New data through web based survey Structured workshops with stakeholders

Key findings Exchange of ideas main contribution for Mbombela – if used, the power of new ideas can generate changes Contextual factors – scope, commitment and ownership – contribute to limited achievement Murky South African politics with high turnover Access to HR impeded project results Local-to-local cooperation on the raise - lacking agreement on definition of different concepts (MIC, C2C, decentralised cooperation and twinning)

Results Mbombela’s access to new ideas Unfortunately not fully embraced No result identified for Oslo Capacities built to limited degree and project little effective in this area Cooperation of limited value for both partners due to scope, commitment and contextual factors Project objectives not met due to lack of understanding of role, low capacity to perform function and high turnover Some progress on one out of two objectives Partnership not very effective

Recommendations Continue collaboration after modification (commitment, project design, clarification of goals, determination of ownership) because Mbombela apparently has nowhere else to turn for a partnership Mbombela needs to put new ideas acquired in the partnership to better use

KS thinks Report fails to identify why approach did not work and what impeded project reach objectives Basis for recommendation incorrect – unhelpful continue partnership without benefits Evaluation for knowledge on how MIC contributes to devolution – no new knowledge Analysis limited to checking out project output – not identifying and assessing outcome Terms of reference not fully understood Work approach determined by narrow understanding of development assistance – a donor by way of an intermediary delivering a product which has been predetermined -often by the donor - to be of benefit to the recipient Report fails to discuss and understand contextual issues or risks and their mitigation Not discussion of expectations and scope – runs against problems of attribution of results without attempting to find solutions Evaluation failed in gaining substantial new knowledge from an evolving programme – only confirms issues already documented and largely corrected