4. Testing the self-assessment framework in pilot city-to-city partnerships

Abstract

This chapter draws lessons from the pilot testing of the self-assessment framework in 27 city-to-city partnerships supported by the European Commission. Findings show that peer-to-peer learning and a territorial approach are the two G20 Rome High-level principles on city-to-city partnerships for localising the SDGs (G20 Principles) in which surveyed city-to-city partnerships score the highest, while the G20 financing principle is where they score the lowest. In most cases, city-to-city partnerships address concrete local challenges such as urban mobility, affordable housing and gender equality.

Results from the pilot self-assessment of city-to-city partnerships

Between 21 October and 18 November 2022, the self-assessment framework was pilot tested in 27 of the 57 partnerships participating in the EC programme Partnerships for Sustainable Cities (Box 4.1). Results show that:

The G20 principle of peer-to-peer learning scores the highest. The 27 partnerships rated the implementation of the principle with an average score of 3.70 on a scale from 1 to 5 (see Figure 4.1 for an overview of the results). Overall, partnerships consider peer-to-peer learning to be a key component of their activities. Most of them include knowledge-sharing activities with city representatives and territorial stakeholders to exchange and learn from each other’s experiences and engage in international networks and fora to share best practices and learn from peer cities.
The promotion of city-to-city partnerships as a means to enhance the implementation of a territorial approach is the second highest-rated G20 principle with an average score of 3.44 on a scale from 1 to 5. the majority of surveyed city-to-city partnerships use their partnerships to address concrete local challenges such as urban mobility, affordable housing and gender equality and have established partnerships in policy areas that can help exploit the territorial development potential of the city.
Stakeholder engagement is the third G20 principle for which the average score of partnerships’ self-assessment is higher than 3 (3.12). Many partnerships identify place-based priorities through a participatory and multi-stakeholder approach, although the objectives of stakeholder engagement and the expected use of their inputs in the city-to-city partnerships are not always clearly defined. Furthermore, the majority of partnerships have not put in place regular assessments of stakeholder engagement costs or obstacles at large.
The other G20 principles on capacity development, multi-level governance, digitalisation, data and indicators, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and rural-urban connectivity all received scores between 3 and 2.7 on a scale from 1 to 5.
Financing is the G20 principle which received the lowest score, averaging 2.38. Several partnerships are facing challenges to mobilise sufficient funding to shape their activities according to the needs of the local stakeholders and project partners. They often also lack access to economic instruments such as taxes or fees to catalyse needed revenues as well as to (innovative) financing tools such as green bonds, land value capture mechanisms or infrastructure funds.

Box 4.1. The pilot-testing process

To create incentives for pilot testing the self-assessment framework for city-to-city partnerships to localise the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the OECD organised a webinar on 21 October 2022 gathering more than 50 participants from interested city-to-city partnerships participating in the European Commission (EC) Partnerships for Sustainable Cities programme, the EC and its co-ordination facility. The goal of the webinar was to familiarise the stakeholders engaged in the city-to-city partnerships with the proposed self-assessment framework and the 10 underlying G20 Principles. Furthermore, it focused on the methodology, questions and process for carrying out the self-assessment framework.

Building on the webinar, the 57 partnerships supported by the EC were invited to pilot test the self-assessment framework between 21 October 2022 and 18 November 2022 based on the methodology and questions presented in Chapter 3. Twenty-seven of the partnerships did so by responding to an online survey. Twenty-three of the respondents were from local governments, one from another public sector entity and three belonged to the category “Other”. The main objective of the pilot testing was to test the applicability and robustness of the checklist and receive additional feedback on the questions.

To that end, the different partnerships provided a score for each question of the checklist assessing their compliance with the G20 Principles through an online survey. In all cases, the self-assessment was carried out by the partnerships using the five-step scoreboard described in Table 3.1. The average score of all partnerships for each individual question of the checklist was calculated as the unweighted average of the scores provided by each partnership. Based on that, the overall score per each of the G20 Principles is the unweighted average of the average score for each question.

While such a self-assessment is ideally conducted using the methodology described in Chapter 3, the respondents did not provide any explanation of whether their assessment was based on an individual scoring on behalf of the entire partnership or if the various stakeholders of the partnership were actually involved in the assessment. Participating partnerships were also invited to add suggestions to improve the framework, propose missing questions, ask for clarification regarding existing questions, share additional remarks on the framework and provide comments on the guidance to carry out the self-assessment.

The self-assessment framework received positive feedback from partnerships and was considered a relevant tool to help them reflect on their activities. Comments and suggestions on the questions, guidance and scoreboard were used to revise the self-assessment framework, in particular the questions of the checklist. The first global meeting of partnerships organised on 7-8 March 2023 in Brussels was used to present the M&E framework to those partnerships that could not attend the webinar and collect additional feedback from participants. The original list of questions used for the pilot testing can be found in Annex A. The list of respondents can be found in Annex B.

Figure 4.1. Results of the pilot testing of the self-assessment framework

Principle 1: Territorial approach

Most surveyed city-to-city partnerships use their partnerships to address concrete local challenges such as urban mobility, affordable housing and gender equality. Sixty-seven percent of respondents rated their usage of the partnership to tackle local development issues as 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5. Seven percent stated they do not use their partnership to address local challenges, while 11% do not yet do so but are developing a framework on how the partnership can address their local development challenges in the future. Most partnerships focus on policy areas that can help exploit the territorial development potential of the city. Furthermore, in around 20% of the cities, the partnerships are reported to create synergies across sectoral policies and plans. In an additional 30% of the cities, the partnerships create such synergies but stated there was potential to further exploit synergies. On the other hand, less than 20% of the partnerships do not create synergies across sectoral policies and plans through their activities. Fifteen percent of them are still assessing how synergies could be generated in the future (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. Implementation of G20 Principle 1 on a territorial approach

City-to-city partnerships are often integrated into local development strategies. Among the 27 partnerships conducting the self-assessment, 56% rated the integration of their partnership into the local development strategy as either 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5, while 11% do not and 15% are still assessing how this could be done in the future. In addition, some partnerships use their activities to foster territorial cohesion and recover from COVID-19. While 20% of partnerships do so and reported no major concerns, an additional 12% use their partnership to foster territorial cohesion and recover from COVID-19 but identified some challenges. Twenty-eight percent of partnerships rated their usage of their activities with a score of 3 out of 5, whilst 40% either do not consider territorial cohesion and COVID-19 recovery in their partnerships at all or still need to develop a respective framework.

Principle 2: Multi-level governance

Around half of the partnerships use the SDGs to provide a framework for a more holistic and bottom-up design of their activities. Eight percent of partnerships only consider their usage of the SDGs as complete and relevant in all aspects. Thirty-five percent use the SDGs to provide a framework for more holistic and bottom-up policy making but identified some challenges. Around 30% consider the SDGs as a tool to do so but do not yet use them. Another 23% still needs to consider how to use the SDGs to improve governance frameworks. Four percent do not use them yet and have no plan to do so in the future. The SDGs can also be a tool to improve multi-level governance frameworks. Close to half of the partnerships foster horizontal co-ordination and trade-off management across sectoral departments in the implementation of the SDGs. Eight percent do so with no major concerns noted, while 36% identified remaining challenges regarding horizontal co-ordination. On the other hand, there are several partnerships that either do not foster horizontal co-ordination at all (8%) or that are still developing a framework for doing so (20%) (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. Implementation of G20 Principle 2 on multi-level governance

Half of the city-to-city partnerships have governance arrangements and/or working practices that support effective communication with other levels of government. Nineteen percent of the partnerships rated these arrangements with a score of 5 out of 5. Thirty-one percent rated them as 4 out of 5. However, another 12% stated not to have such governance arrangements in place and have no plans to develop them, while 19% are starting to develop them. In terms of guidance and support from other levels of government regarding the implementation and development of city-to-city partnerships, close to 40% of partnerships rated them as 3 on a scale from 1 to 5. All other options (1, 2, 4 and 5) were selected by 15% of partnerships. These figures reveal a need for further support from other levels of government to city-to-city partnerships in most of the surveyed municipalities.

The engagement of cities and their partnerships in the process of Voluntary National Reviews is limited. Among the surveyed partnership, 38% stated not to be engaged in the process of VNRs and not using their partnerships to strengthen vertical co-ordination with regional and/or national levels of government. An additional 38% do not do so either but are currently developing a framework to improve vertical co-ordination. Only one partnership stated to have been engaged in a national VNR process and is using its activities to strengthen vertical co-ordination with regional and/or national levels of government. This was also the case for another three partnerships, which however identified some challenges in the process.

Principle 3: Rural-urban connectivity

The focus on rural-urban connectivity in city-to-city partnerships could be strengthened. Around 20% of partnerships do not consider rural-urban connectivity and do not facilitate territorial linkages between urban and rural areas. Another 23% do not yet take urban-rural linkages into account but are developing frameworks to do so. Around 30% of partnerships rated their consideration of urban-rural linkages with a score of 4 or 5 out of 5. Overall, the average self-assessment score of the partnerships for this question of 2.8 underlines that further efforts are needed to better connect urban and rural areas in city-to-city partnerships (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4. Implementation of G20 Principle 3 on rural-urban connectivity

Policies and strategies to achieve the SDGs are often lack co-ordination across administrative boundaries as well as follow a functional approach based on where people work and live. Only one partnership stated that its policies and strategies to achieve the SDGs are co-ordinated across administrative boundaries with no major concerns noted regarding the implementation. Around 20% have not adopted such policies and have no plan to put them in place. Another 26% have not implemented such policies but a framework to do so in the future is under development. Close to 20% have adopted policies to achieve the SDGs that are co-ordinated across administrative boundaries and cover the entire functional area 1 but their level of implementation is not complete.

Few city-to-city partnerships carry out joint strategies between urban and rural areas to promote an integrated territorial development approach. Among respondents, only 7% have put in place joint urban-rural partnerships with no major concerns noted regarding their implementation. Another 19% have put in place joint strategies between urban and rural areas but assessed their level of implementation to be incomplete. On the other hand, more than 40% either have no such strategy in place and no plan to develop one or still need to elaborate a framework to develop such a joint strategy. The average rating of 2.8 is in line with the limited consideration of rural-urban connectivity in city-to-city partnerships more broadly. Furthermore, there is space to expand the assessment of possible economic, environmental and social gains from enhanced rural-urban co-operation. Currently, 26% conduct such assessments without any major concerns noted. Another 11% do so as well but identified some challenges. However, overall, more than 40% of the partnerships rated their activities in this area with a score of either 1 or 2 out of 5, which means they do not plan to assess the gains from enhanced urban-rural co-operation or still need to develop a framework for assessment.

Principle 4: Data and indicators

City-to-city partnerships are often lacking key performance indicators that are harmonised between the two partner cities. Among the partnerships responding to the survey, 27% stated not to have agreed on key performance indicators and having no plan to put such indicators in place and harmonise with their partner city. Another 19% do not use such indicators yet but are developing a harmonised indicator framework. Overall, only 15% of the partnerships stated that they have key performance indicators in place that are harmonised across cities with no major concerns noted. In addition, around 20% have established such indicators but identified some challenges using them (Figure 4.5).

Some partnerships produce or collect data on their city-to-city partnership to assess territorial disparities and the partnerships’ contribution to the SDGs. Seven percent of the partnerships do so without any major concerns noted regarding the data collection. Another 22% also produce or collect such data but consider the level of implementation incomplete with persistent challenges to solve. At the same time, close to half of the partnerships (44%) do not produce such data and do not have the plan to do so or still need to develop a framework for the data collection. Furthermore, there is potential to expand mechanisms or incentives to encourage local and regional governments to exchange approaches and practices in mainstreaming SDG indicators into planning and policy documents. Almost 40% of partnerships rated the existing mechanisms with a score of 2 on a scale from 1 to 5. In addition, only 11% considered the existing mechanism as being relevant in all aspects with no major concerns regarding their implementation.

In most cases, data and information are not produced and disclosed in a shared responsibility across levels of government and key stakeholders. Fifteen percent of partnerships do not produce and disclose data in a shared responsibility across levels of government and have not yet taken any action to do so. Twenty-two percent still need to develop the mechanisms required to do so. Less than a third of partnerships produce and disclose data in a shared responsibility (rating of 4 or 5 out of 5). The self-evaluation thus emphasises the need to further engage with different levels of government and key territorial stakeholders when it comes to data and information. Consequently, data on city-to-city partnerships are often not publicly accessible and regularly updated. Only one partnership stated to regularly update and publish data on their activities. An additional 26% do publish data on their partnership but consider the level of implementation as incomplete and identified some challenges. Furthermore, more than 40% provided a score of 1 or 2, which means they do not yet make data on their partnership publicly accessible.

Figure 4.5. Implementation of G20 Principle 4 on data and indicators

Some partnerships use qualitative information to showcase their performance. Close to 40% of partnerships provided a score of 4 or 5 when being asked about the usage of qualitative data. More than a third do not yet use qualitative data but are currently developing a framework to exploit qualitative information such as storytelling. Finally,10% do not use qualitative data and have no plans and actions taken for future usage.

Most partnerships do not collect data and report on official development assistance (ODA). Forty-eight percent declared they do not report on ODA and have no actions taken to do so in the future, while 26% do not yet report on ODA but consider doing so at a later stage. The remaining 26% rate their efforts to collect data and report on ODA with a score of 3 (11%) or 4 (15%), while no partnership reports on ODA without facing major concerns in doing so.

Principle 5: Monitoring and evaluation

Several partnerships have not yet established monitoring and reporting mechanisms to assess their activities. While 33% of the partnerships use monitoring and reporting mechanisms, such as joint reviews, surveys, polls and evaluation reports, but consider their implementation to be incomplete, only 7% noted no major concerns regarding the implementation of their monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Fifteen percent have not established such mechanisms and have no plans to take action in the future. Close to 20% do not yet have them in place but are currently developing them. In terms of formal requirements such as agreements on methodologies and evaluation components, about half of the partnerships stated not to follow any or to be in the process of developing them. Only one partnership noted no concerns or challenges regarding the existence and application of formal M&E requirements. Furthermore, the sharing of results of M&E processes to the wider public is limited. On average, partnerships assessed their activities in terms of results sharing to provide transparency and accountability with a score of 2.8 on a scale from 1 to 5. Only one partnership stated to be sharing results of the M&E process and having experienced no major concerns in the process. Another 20% share their M&E results but consider the level of implementation to be incomplete (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6. Implementation of G20 Principle 5 on monitoring and evaluation

Most partnerships organise capacity-building events to strengthen data collection, management, storage and reporting processes. Fifty-two percent of the partnerships rated their activities in the area of capacity building with a score of 4 out of 5, even though some challenges have been identified regarding their implementation. Another 4% provided a score of 5 out of 5. Eleven percent of partnerships stated not to have organised any capacity-building events yet. Less than 40% stated to assess the level of dialogue and participation of the different actors involved in the city-to-city partnership, which reveals room for improvement. More than a fourth do not conduct such assessments and do not plan to do so in the future.

Few partnerships have developed quantitative tools to assess their potential contribution to the SDGs. None of the partnerships provided a score of 5 out of 5 for assessing the impact of their activities on the SDGs. Fifteen percent stated to have developed such tools but considered their level of implementation to be incomplete. Thirty-five percent have not developed quantitative tools to assess the potential impact of their city-to-city partnership on the SDGs and have no plan to do so in the future. An additional 15% have not yet established such quantitative tools but are working on a framework to develop them.

Principle 6: Peer-to-peer learning

Peer-to-peer learning is a key component of city-to-city partnerships. Among those partnerships responding to the survey, 85% rated their activities on peer-to-peer learning with a score of 4 or 5 out of 5. That means that they have a peer-to-peer learning component in place no major concerns noted regarding its implementation (37%) or that they have such a component in place but still face some challenges regarding its implementation (45%). The remaining 15% of partnerships provided a score of either 2 (11%) or 3 (4%), which underlines that peer-to-peer learning is widespread in those partnerships responding to the survey (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7. Implementation of G20 Principle 6 on peer-to-peer learning

Most city-to-city partnerships have put in place knowledge-sharing opportunities among the partnering cities that involve city representatives and territorial stakeholders to exchange and learn from each other’s experiences. More than three-quarters of the partnerships rated their activities in terms of knowledge sharing with a score of 4 (42%) or 5 (35%), which underlines the importance the partnerships attribute to knowledge-sharing opportunities. Twelve percent have not yet engaged in knowledge-sharing activities but are working on putting them in place, while none of the partnerships stated having no knowledge-sharing activities at all between city representatives and stakeholders such as schools, civil society, the private sector and academia in place and no plans to implement them.

In addition, many partnerships engage in international networks and fora to exchange best practices and learn from peer cities. More than 60% of partnerships rated their international engagement and peer learning with a score of 4 (41%) or 5 (22%). Furthermore, most partnerships attend events such as webinars that are relevant to the thematic areas of their city-to-city partnership to get inspiration. Thirty-seven percent evaluated their participation in such events with a score of 5 and another 26% with a score of 4. Few partnerships (7%) do not attend thematically relevant events and have no plans to change that, while 4% do not yet take part in peer-to-peer learning events but consider doing so in the future.

Actively reaching out to peer cities via email or social media to search for new practices and innovative approaches to policy making in the framework of city-to-city partnerships is less common. While around 40% of partnerships rated their outreach activities with a score of 4 (19%) or 5 (22%) out of 5, a similarly large share is not actively reaching out to peers via email or social media to search for new practices and innovative city-to-city partnership approaches. Fifteen percent stated not to do so and not having plans and actions taken related to that. Twenty-two percent do not reach out to peer cities but are developing plans and ideas to do so in the future. Good practices by peer cities and stakeholders can be inspiring for city-to-city partnerships and the majority of partnerships assess how they could be transferred to their cities. Twenty-two percent of partnerships evaluate how their peers’ good practices could be relevant to their partnership. Another 41% consider how good practices could be transferred to their city but identified some challenges in doing so.

Principle 7: Capacity development

Most partnerships offer capacity-building modules and workshops that can help address imbalances and create bridges among actors and territories with different levels of expertise. While 11% of partnerships are offering capacity-building activities and have noted no major concerns regarding the implementation, 41% use capacity-building modules and workshops but identified some challenges in doing so. On the other hand, less than 20% of partnerships do not offer any such activities or have only started developing them (Figure 4.8).

Not all partnerships review and analyse the local managerial capabilities and required skills for carrying out all of the activities associated with designing, setting, implementing and monitoring the city-to-city partnership. While the average score of the self-assessment for this aspect is 3.2 on a scale from 1 to 5, only 12% consider their review and analysis of local capabilities and skills as complete and relevant in all aspects with no major concerns noted. Thirty-five percent of partnerships review and analyse local managerial capabilities but identified some challenges in doing so. On the other hand, more than 20% of partnerships are not engaged in such reviews and have no plan to do so in the future or still need to develop a suitable analysis framework.

Figure 4.8. Implementation of G20 Principle 7 on capacity building

Capacity-building activities in the public service to collect and analyse evidence about the impacts of different policies implemented in the framework of the partnership are an exception. None of the partnerships stated to have such activities in place with no major concerns noted regarding their implementation, while 22% have put them in place but identified related challenges. However, close to 50% do not use capacity-building activities to collect evidence of the impact of the activities of the partnership or are still in the process of shaping such activities. Thirty percent have developed capacity-building activities but do not implement them.

The lack of funding is an obstacle to training relevant stakeholders in city-to-city partnership monitoring. None of the partnerships rated its mobilisation of funding with a score of 5 out of 5. Thirty percent declared to mobilise sufficient funding to train their relevant project stakeholders but identified some challenges in securing the necessary funds. The remaining 70% rated their funding mobilisation with a score of 1 (22%), 2 (26%) or 3 (22%), which emphasises that further efforts are needed to ensure that sufficient financial means are available to train and upskill relevant territorial stakeholders.

More than half of the respondents collaborate with local government associations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or research centres to consolidate and expand skills and competencies for effective city-to-city partnerships. More than 20% of the partnerships answering the survey use such collaboration and noted no major concerns regarding the implementation. Another 30% do collaborate with partners but identified some challenges in the implementation. While 7% have no intention to work together with regional, national or global associations of local governments, NGOs or research centres, 26% have not yet started a collaboration but are developing a framework to do so.

Principle 8: Stakeholder engagement

Most partnerships do not use the SDGs to engage territorial stakeholders. Indeed, only 7% of partnerships consider their usage of the SDGs as a stakeholder engagement tool as complete and relevant in all aspects with no major concerns noted, while 30% identified some challenges in using the SDGs to engage territorial stakeholders. On the other hand, more than 50% of partnerships rated their usage of the SDGs as a vehicle to enhance accountability and transparency of the city-to-city partnership through engaging all territorial stakeholders in the policy-making process with a score of 1 (26%) or 2 (26%).

Many partnerships identify place-based priorities through a participatory and multi-stakeholder approach. While 11% of the partnerships stated doing so with no major concerns noted, the majority (52%) have identified place-based priorities in collaboration with stakeholders but faced some challenges in the process. Only a few partnerships (15%) do not use participatory and multi-stakeholder approaches and have no plans for developing them, while 7% do not yet do so but have a dedicated framework under development. Carrying out a stakeholder mapping is a tool often used by partnerships to identify key stakeholders, responsibilities and core motivations. More than 60% rated their stakeholder mapping activities with a score of 5 (26%) or 4 (37%), while only 1 in 5 partnerships do not map its stakeholders and has no actions taken to do so (7%) or still needs to develop a respective framework (15%) (Figure 4.9).

The majority of partnerships have defined the objectives of their stakeholder engagement process. Nineteen percent of them stated to have done so with no major concerns noted, while 33% identified some challenges in the process. However, several partnerships have not set the objectives of how and why they want to engage their stakeholders and how the expected outcomes should be used. Seven percent have no plans and actions for developing stakeholder engagement objectives, while another 22% have started to develop a framework to define the objectives at a later stage. In line with that, not all partnerships facilitate a dialogue between stakeholders on policy incoherencies or areas of disagreement regarding the city-to-city partnership. While 19% and 27% respectively rate their efforts to facilitate a dialogue between stakeholders with a score of 4 or 5, more than 20% stated not to be engaged in such efforts or still developing a framework to do so.

Figure 4.9. Implementation of G20 Principle 8 on stakeholder engagement

The majority of partnerships have not put in place regular assessments of stakeholder engagement costs or obstacles at large. While 30% do not conduct such assessments and have no plans to put them in place, another 30% do not yet assess stakeholder engagement but started developing a framework to do so. On the other hand, only one partnership regularly assesses stakeholder engagement costs and obstacles without facing any concerns regarding the implementation. Furthermore, there is space for improvement concerning tailored communication strategies for relevant stakeholders. Close to 40% of partnerships rated their communication strategies for relevant stakeholders with a score of 1 or 2 out of 5. Nevertheless, more than half of the partnerships have put such tailored communication strategies for stakeholders in place, 19% of them without facing any major concerns regarding their implementation.

Principle 9: Financing

Several partnerships are facing challenges to mobilise sufficient funding to shape their activities according to the needs of the local stakeholders and project partners. More than 20% of the partnerships rated the availability of such funding with a score of 1 or 2 out of 5 with an additional 27% providing a score of 3. On the other hand, 38% stated to have sufficient funding available to shape the partnership according to the needs of the local stakeholders and project partners but faced some challenges in acquiring this funding. Twelve percent noted that sufficient funding is available and identified no major concerns. However, there is not much leeway for local governments to adjust and manage revenues to respond to the needs of their city-to-city partnerships. On average, the partnerships rated the possibilities to adjust and manage resources accordingly with a score of 2.4. None of the partnerships stated having sufficient leeway to manage resources without any obstacles. Eleven percent stated that there is a certain leeway but with some challenges to using it (Figure 4.10).

Financial instruments such as taxes or fees are barely used to catalyse revenues needed to implement city-to-city partnerships. Most partnerships (56%) stated not to use such financial instruments to access funding and have no plans to do so in the future. Furthermore, more than 80% of partnerships do not have access to innovative financing tools such as green bonds, land value capture mechanisms, infrastructure funds or pooled financing to re-risk investments. Moreover, 74% have no plans and actions taken for using such tools in the future. The average scores of 1.8 for the usage of financial instruments and 1.5 for the access to innovative financing tools emphasise their sporadic use.

Public-private partnerships, the engagement of private companies and the use of SDGs for budget allocations are limited in city-to-city partnerships. Close to 30% do not incentivise public-private partnerships and the engagement of private companies. Another 12% have not yet done so but a framework to do so is under development. At the same time, more than 50% of partnerships rate their support for private sector contributions to the SDGs with a score of 3 (27%) or 4 (27%) out of 5. A small share of 8% of the partnerships is incentivising public-private partnerships as well as the engagement of private companies in city-to-city partnerships and noted no concerns regarding its implementation. Furthermore, more than half rate usage of the SDGs to allocate budget across the identified priorities in their partnerships with a score of 1 (22%) or 2 (30%). Only 11% are using the SDGs in budgeting processes with no major concerns noted.

Figure 4.10. Implementation of G20 Principle 9 on financing

Principle 10: Digitalisation

There are disparities regarding the development of strategies to build human, technological and infrastructural capacities of local governments to make use of digitalisation best practices. While about 50% of partnerships rate their development of such strategies with a score of 4 (30%) or 5 (19%) out of 5, more than 30% have not developed strategies to incorporate digitalisation best practices in their city-to-city partnerships and 15% are still working on a framework to do so. Similarly, in terms of the usage of digital technologies to encourage stakeholders to exchange information with each other, there are few frontrunners (7%) that face no major obstacles in using digital tools. At the same time, 33% are using tools such as interactive online platforms but identified some challenges linked to their application. More than a third of partnerships do not use such digital technologies for knowledge exchange or are still in the elaboration phase (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11. Implementation of G20 Principle 10 on digitalisation

Some partnerships have integrated specific objectives related to digitalisation in their city-to-city partnership. Twelve percent successfully use such digitalisation objectives without facing any major obstacles, while 23% use them with challenges remaining to be solved. On the other hand, more than 40% have not or have not yet set specific targets related to digitalisation in their city-to-city partnerships. Furthermore, some partnerships collaborate with stakeholders such as entrepreneurs, start-ups and innovative civil society organisations to find smart and digital solutions for urban development problems. Eleven percent of partnerships rate their collaboration activities with a score of 5 out of 5, followed by 19% with a score of 4 and 26% with a score of 3. However, there are also 22% stated that they do not collaborate with stakeholders on smart and digital solutions and have taken no action for doing so in the future.

There is potential to expand the usage of initiatives and approaches that effectively leverage digitalisation to boost citizen well-being and improve urban services. Out of the 27 partnerships responding to the survey, only 3 (11%) use such initiatives without facing any major challenges. Five partnerships (19%) have put in place initiatives or approaches that effectively leverage digitalisation but consider its level of implementation as not yet complete. On the other hand, close to 40% do not use such initiatives or are still developing a framework to put them in place.

Note

← 1. The OECD and the EC have jointly developed a methodology to define functional urban areas (FUAs) in a consistent way across countries. Using population density and travel-to-work flows, an FUA consists of a densely inhabited city and of a surrounding area (commuting zone) whose labour market is highly integrated with the city. The ultimate aim of the EU-OECD approach to FUAs is to create a harmonised definition of cities and their areas of influence for international comparisons as well as for policy analysis on topics related to urban development.

╳

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/d2fe7530-en

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.