Bjoern Rongevaer, Special Adviser, KS

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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 productwhich 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