Last ned som PDF

64 sider

0.29 MB

Forsiden av dokumentet Municipal International Co-operation Kristiansand (Norway) and Walvis Bay (Namibia)


Municipal International Co-operation Kristiansand (Norway) and Walvis Bay (Namibia)

Background:In the context of Norwegian Municipal International Co-operation Walvis Bay and Kristiansand are pioneers.Cooperation between those two municipalities was initiated during a time when most Norwegian municipalitieswith an international commitment were engaged in activities limited to people-to-people co-operation or twinning.MIC is concerned with municipal tasks in co-operation with explicit development objectives. Purpose/objective: Co-operation between Walvis Bay and Kristiansand is an integral part of a larger programme which seeks tobuild capacity in selected areas in a limited number of municipalities in a few developing countries in order forthose to deliver better services to their citizens that in the longer term can lead to MDG attainment and poverty reduction.The programme goal is to establish good governance processes in municipal governance and municipal services as part of the global fight for poverty reduction and sustainable development in line with the MDGs. Methodology: MIC methodology is based on capacity building and transfer of competency between units at the same administrativelevel and with similar tasks in developed and developing countries. The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) helps structure co-operation in identifying desired output and outcome linking those to available resources. Also, LFA helps documenting and measuring results. Key findings:Project activities have produce outcomes of clear benefit to the population in Walvis Bay, to a lesser degree of benefit in Kristiansand. KS’ assistance and facilitation of the co-operation seems to be little acknowledged. Although weak KS involvement might benefit sustainability, it is problematic inasmuch as this co-operation to a large degree is out of line with current Norway developmental policies. A tendency is observed to perceive in the two municipalities task to be limited to facilitation of contacts between local actors irrespective of those actors being municipal or not. Some co-operation activities are more appropriate for partnerships between non municipal actors such as professionalassociations or educational institutions. Others, however, are clearly municipal in nature and appropriate within the MICframework. KS is expected to perform functions of MIC concept development, co-ordination of MIC activities, quality assurance and donor contact. Evaluation findings indicate KS has kept distance and to a degree is perceived as being passive. Considerable structural asymmetry exists between northern and southern MIC partners as much as the Norwegianmunicipalities are better resourced and have stronger capacity. Also, Norwegian municipalities hold overall responsibility whereas the Southern partners are responsible for implementation on the ground. Results: The Kristiansand – Walvis Bay partnership is probably closer to MIC then most. Similarities between partner municipalities are stronger then in most MIC partnerships.  Walvis Bay has benefitted from co-operation with Kristiansand in areas of municipal responsibility. The strongest benefits are, however, in areas outside of municipal responsibility. There is remarkable lack of benefits from this co-operation on the Norwegian side. Co-operation of mutual municipal benefitdoes not seem to occur and activities have taken place within a “north helps south” way of thinking. KS’ role in MIC has been little understood and acknowledged resulting in KS not being perceived as a very useful partner for the northern municipality. Recommendations:Co-operation between municipalities should be limited to municipal activities, thus MIC can cultivate distinct municipalcomparative advantage to developmental. A stricter limitation to municipal core activities in selected policy areas combined with realistic performance indicatorswould contribute to simplifying KS’ role and strengthening the value added by KS. In spite of clear LFA advantages and repeated trainings, the MIC programme does not acknowledge the fact that theelected or appointed municipal representatives are non-professional developmental workers. The use of performance indicators is positive if adapted to needs in a simple way. Co-operating municipalities must identify what both parties seek to gain from partnering. Structural asymmetry requirescareful selection of issues for co-operation and the role of KS must be strengthened in this respect. Comments from the organisation, if any: Many findings are in line with issues identified through Peer Reviews and have led to revision of MIC Guidelines in 2009. Opinions on how KS fulfils its role in the MIC programme indicate lack of understanding of this role, in particular in the Norwegian municipality. There is need to again clarify KS’ added value in the MIC programme and better defineexpectations for KS’ contributions.



KS Kommunesektorens organisasjon


OsloMet - storbyuniversitetet