This chapter presents an analysis of local and regional perspectives on the effectiveness of decentralised development co-operation (DDC), drawing on 2 OECD DDC impact surveys collecting responses from 102 cities and regions across 10 OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries and 79 partner cities and regions across 33 official development assistance-eligible countries, complemented by 16 in-depth case studies. A central finding is the prominence and value of non-financial DDC. Nearly 75% of DDC projects include activities such as peer-to-peer learning, capacity building, staff exchanges and study visits, generating substantial benefits on both sides of partnerships. These include access to new knowledge and innovation, strengthened institutional capacity and improved service delivery in partner territories, and enhanced multi-level co‑ordination and participatory governance in DAC cities and regions. The chapter also finds that monitoring and evaluation remains uneven, and that limited financial and human resources are the principal barriers to more impactful and sustainable DDC.
The Impact of Decentralised Development Co‑operation
Abstract
This chapter presents an analysis of local and regional perspectives on decentralised development co‑operation (DDC), based on 2 OECD surveys on the impact of DDC (hereafter “DDC impact surveys”) and 16 case studies. The first was conducted between 14 June 2025 and 2 January 20261 and collected responses from 102 cities and regions from across 10 OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries (Table 3.1), covering mostly municipalities (76) but also large (TL2) regions (17) and represent small (TL3) regions (9).2 Most responses (45%) came from German local and regional governments (LRGs), followed by Italy (14%), France (11%) and Spain (11%).
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
The second survey targeted official development assistance (ODA)-eligible partner cities and regions of first-survey respondents. Conducted between 4 September 2025 and 2 January 2026, it gathered 79 responses from cities and regions from across 33 countries, notably Ukraine (30%), Morocco (8%), Senegal (5%) and Benin (5%) (Table 3.2). Considering the large number of responses from Ukraine to the partner survey and the particularities of partnerships with Ukrainian LRGs, Box 3.1 presents specific findings from the partnerships involving Ukrainian LRGs.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
In addition to looking at these two DDC impact surveys separately, the analysis also uses a matched-partnership sample linking responses from both questionnaires. This subset includes 65 partnerships for which responses were available from both the DAC and partner side. This analysis leverages the matched sample to compare perspectives within specific partnerships and to highlight similarities and differences. This sample includes partnerships involving in particular German (31), French (9) and Swiss (8) LRGs on the DAC side, and cities and regions from Ukraine (11), Morocco (5), Senegal and Benin (4 each) on the partner side.
Based on the DDC impact surveys and the interviews conducted with the 16 case studies, this chapter presents key insights into the characteristics of DDC across countries, including typologies, thematic focus areas and funding mechanisms. It also highlights the non-financial contributions of DDC activities, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices, barriers and enabling factors for DDC. It provides a complementary and qualitative perspective that adds depth to the quantitative analysis of OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) data. Together, these findings shed light on how DDC is perceived and practiced by local actors, the mechanisms through which it contributes to local governance and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) localisation, and the contextual factors influencing its effectiveness.
It should be noted that some of the findings presented in this chapter, including related to DDC typologies and characteristics, key thematic areas and SDG focus, may differ from the results of the DDC ODA flows analysis based on CRS data (Chapter 2). This is likely due to differences in the composition of the two samples, which are not directly comparable. Some survey respondents may not report to the CRS, while not all LRGs included in the CRS dataset completed the OECD DDC impact surveys. As such, it cannot be assumed that survey respondents are representative of the CRS sample. In addition, the surveys collect information on 2025, whereas the most recent CRS data cover disbursements up to 2024, further limiting comparability between the two sources. Furthermore, the 102 responses reflect a limited sample of LRGs in DAC countries active in DDC, and entail a relatively high share of responses from Germany (46 out of 102 responses), which may affect the overall results. Moving forward, the localisation of CRS data (see Chapter 5) allows for a more detailed comparative analysis across both data sources.
OECD DDC impact survey results suggest that DDC activities involving Ukrainian LRGs share many characteristics with other international local government partnerships. However, in the context of Russia’s large-scale aggression against Ukraine, these activities also display several distinctive patterns in terms of motivations, thematic priorities, partnership modalities and perceived impacts.
Strengthening international co‑operation and solidarity is the main motivation for Ukrainian LRGs DDC engagement
Ukrainian LRGs engaging in DDC are strongly motivated by the objective of strengthening international co‑operation and solidarity (96%). At the same time, as in other DDC partnerships, access to knowledge, peer learning and capacity building remains a key driver of engagement.
Education, health, mobility and public safety are the key thematic areas of partnerships with Ukraine
Thematic priorities also differ between partnerships involving Ukrainian LRGs and other DDC partnerships. Ukrainian partnerships more frequently focus on sectors such as education and skills development, health and well-being, transport and mobility, public safety and security, and social inclusion, several of which relate to the ongoing war. By contrast, partnerships not involving Ukraine place greater emphasis on environmental and resource-related policy areas, including water and waste management, climate action and disaster risk reduction, and biodiversity protection.
Direct local government co‑operation and non-financial activities are key characteristics of partnerships with Ukraine
Partnerships involving Ukrainian LRGs are frequently characterised by direct co‑operation between local governments and a strong emphasis on non-financial forms of support. Around 30% of Ukrainian respondents reported that their partnerships involve only non-financial activities, such as knowledge exchange, training and technical assistance, compared with 13% in other partnerships. Access to new knowledge and greater recognition of the value of international co-operation were the main benefits reported. Both were observed more strongly in partnerships involving Ukrainian partners than in those that did not. This indicates that peer-to-peer exchanges, technical advice and administrative co‑operation among public authorities play a particularly important role in partnerships with Ukraine. International organisations and multilateral actors are the main source of external funding (52% compared to 33% for other partnerships), complementing non-financial forms of co‑operation.
Local governance impacts are perceived to be strongest on accountability, public management and innovation
Respondents involved in partnerships with Ukrainian LRGs reported the strongest impacts on the local governance areas of accountability and transparency, management and innovation, and inclusiveness and participation (e.g. civic engagement and public participation in decision making). In terms of SDG outcomes, respondents perceived partnerships with Ukraine as having contributed particularly strongly to SDG 16 “Peace, justice and strong institutions”, in line with the above-mentioned thematic priority, while impacts on environmental goals such as SDG 13 “Climate action”, SDG 6 “Clean water and sanitation” and SDG 15 “Life on land” were rated lower compared with other partnerships.
Financial constraints and external shocks are key barriers for partnerships involving Ukrainian LRGs
Across all partnerships, a lack of financial resources emerges as the most important limitation to impact. This constraint is slightly more pronounced in partnerships involving Ukrainian LRGs (3.9 on a scale of 1 to 5 compared to 3.6 among non-Ukrainian respondents). Respondents also highlighted external factors (e.g. economic downturn, global crises) as significant challenges in the Ukrainian context, a potential reflection of Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. In addition, limited technical capacity was cited more frequently as a barrier in Ukrainian partnerships than in other DDC partnerships. At the same time, limited political support is perceived as a relatively minor obstacle in Ukrainian partnerships, highlighting the strong political commitment to international co‑operation.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Cities and regions from DAC member countries have long been engaged in DDC activities, although to different degrees
Many DAC cities and regions have long-standing experience in DDC, but new ones continue to enter the field. On average, respondents from LRGs in DAC countries reported close to 22 years of involvement in DDC activities. However, engagement levels vary widely. Sixteen percent of respondents are relatively new to DDC with up to 5 years of experience, while 1 in 4 LRGs report more than 2 decades of involvement, with 10% active for over 40 years. The data highlight both the long-standing tradition of DDC among many LRGs, but also the steady entry of new actors over time. The diversity in the duration of DDC engagement is also reflected in the 16 case studies (see Box 1.4 for more information on the case studies), ranging from 5 years in the case of the county of Gießen (Germany) to more than 30 years in Berlin (Germany) and up to 50 years as in the city of Zurich (Switzerland). Partner cities and regions have, on average, been engaged in a partnership with a city or region from a DAC country for around 10 years (11.2 years for non-Ukrainian respondents, 8 years for Ukrainian respondents). About half initiated their engagement within the past five years, partly reflecting the large number of Ukrainian partner cities in the sample, whose involvement in DDC began in or after 2022 in more than 80% of cases. A further 19% have been engaged for between 5 and 10 years, while longer partnership durations are relatively evenly distributed across subsequent 5-year intervals, each accounting for between 1% and 6% of the sample.3
The majority of LRGs in DAC countries maintain a small number of partnerships. Close to 60% of them have one to three ongoing partnerships, while 22% engage with four to ten partners, and the remaining 18% with more than ten partners. The 16 case studies reflect this pattern. While the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany) and the city of Fredericton (Canada) both have 1 ongoing partnership, the number of partnerships goes up to 6 in the municipality of Lahr/Schwarzwald (Germany), 7 in the city of Zurich (Switzerland), 11 in Lublin (Poland) and up to 25 in the region of Emilia-Romagna (Italy).
International solidarity is a main motivation of LRGs from DAC countries to conduct DDC, while their partners are mostly motivated by achieving tangible sustainable development outcomes
LRGs in DAC countries engage in DDC mainly to strengthen international solidarity and co‑operation, while their partners mainly seek to improve sustainable development outcomes in their city or region. Overall, more than 90% of respondents from LRGs in DAC countries identified strengthening international co‑operation as their main motivation for engaging in DDC, followed by helping to improve living conditions in partner cities and regions (81%) and the exchange of knowledge, capacity building and peer-to-peer learning (79%) (Figure 3.1).
Share of respondents motivated by the respective objective in DAC countries and partner countries
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Around 70% are motivated by contributing to sustainable development in their partner territories, compared with 60% in their own city or region. By contrast, generating economic opportunities for the private sector in their own region (17%) plays a more limited role. The state of Bavaria (Germany) is one of the exceptions that considers the generation of economic opportunities for the private sector in the state as one of the main motivations to engage in DDC activities. In cities and regions of partner countries, the three top reasons relate to sustainable development and the achievement of the SDGs (86%), access to knowledge, capacity building and peer learning (85%), and expected improved living conditions in their own city or region (84%). Overall, while improving living conditions and knowledge exchange are shared motivations, cities and regions from DAC countries also consider DDC as an instrument of international solidarity and co-operation, while their partners approach them mainly as a means to advance tangible sustainable development outcomes.
Education, waste and climate action are the main thematic areas of respondents’ DDC activities in DAC and partner countries
Education, waste and circular economy and climate action are the three main reported thematic focus areas of DDC activities in DAC and partner countries. Among DAC respondents, 69% reported a focus on education and skills development in their DDC activities, followed by climate action, disaster risk reduction and resilience (61%) and water, waste management and circular economy (60%), highlighting the important role that the environmental dimension of sustainability plays in respondents’ DDC activities (Figure 3.2). Responses from partner cities and regions show a comparable pattern, with water, waste management and circular economy and education and skills development emerging as the most frequently reported focus areas (both 53%), followed by climate action, disaster risk reduction and resilience (48%). Social inclusion and gender equality and environmental conservation also feature prominently among LRGs in DAC countries and partner responses. The 16 case studies reflect the thematic diversity of DDC activities with projects on climate change in Dresden (Germany), Glasgow (the United Kingdom), and Fredericton (Canada), gender in the Basque Country (Spain) and Emilia‑Romagna (Italy), education and skills development (e.g. Bornem [Belgium], Lahr [Germany]), health and well-being (e.g. Rhineland-Palatinate [Germany], Emilia-Romagna [Italy]), renewable energy (e.g. Baruth/Mark [Germany], Châtellerault [France]) and mobility (e.g. Böblingen [Germany], Lublin [Poland]).4
City of Dresden, Germany: the longevity of partnerships
The partnership between Dresden in Germany and Brazzaville in the Republic of the Congo has existed for about 50 years. Since 2020, Dresden has used a thematically focused DDC approach, engaging in a climate partnership supported by the Service Agency Communities in One World (Servicestelle Kommunen in der Einen Welt, SKEW). The partnership focuses on three main areas: improving waste management through the introduction of separation systems and stakeholder training, transforming schoolyards to be more heat resilient as a response to climate change and urban adaptation needs, and promoting urban agriculture to strengthen local food systems. Beyond the climate track, in 2024, the two cities also agreed on a broader work programme during the 50th anniversary of their twinning, which includes additional areas of collaboration such as education, cultural exchange and civil society engagement.
Basque Country, Spain: mainstreaming gender, women’s empowerment and human rights in DDC
The Basque Country’s DDC is strongly rooted in values such as gender equality, women’s empowerment and human rights, which are both mainstreamed across all activities and supported through dedicated projects. Around 85% of its ODA is channelled through Basque non-governmental organisations (NGOs), many of which have long-standing experience in Africa and Latin America, traditionally focusing on basic social services (health, education, water and sanitation). Cultural co‑operation plays a particularly important role and is seen as a driver of democratic ownership, involving the local population and institutions in the partnership. The Basque approach reflects a broader view of DDC as a tool to innovate how local governments engage with citizens, drawing on culture, art and other channels to build awareness, foster a sense of belonging to a shared territorial project, and strengthen civic ownership of sustainable development processes. While NGO funding remains the main activity from a financial point of view, the Basque Country increasingly prioritises direct territorial partnerships with LRGs, aiming for more systemic, long-term co-operation, e.g. in Colombia (e.g. Buenaventura, Cali), Cuba (Havana) and Senegal (Saint-Louis), where the co-operation focuses on strengthening local governance.
Source: Bilateral interviews conducted with case study representatives.
Share of respondents focusing their DDC activities on specific policy areas in LRGs in DAC and partner countries
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Direct co-operation between LRGs is the most common modality of DDC
City-to-city and region-to-region partnerships are the most common DDC modality. Around 73% of LRGs in DAC countries and 75% of their partner LRGs responding to the DDC impact surveys reported an engagement in this type of DDC, including most of the case studies, e.g. the city of Lahr/Schwarzwald (Germany) and the city of Fredericton (Canada) (Figure 3.3). Another 44% conduct their DDC activities through NGOs or other intermediaries implementing activities on the ground. This is, for example, the case for the municipality of Baruth/Mark (Germany), the city of Dresden (Germany) and the city of Zurich (Switzerland). Forty-three percent of LRGs in DAC countries engage in territorial partnerships, where they lead DDC activities in collaboration with multiple local territorial actors (e.g. municipalities, NGOs, universities), forming direct partnerships with LRGs in partner countries. Emilia-Romagna (Italy) and Glasgow (the United Kingdom) are examples of LRGs that engage in such types of projects. Among partner LRGs, around 46% engage in such multi-actor partnerships. A rare form of DDC is one in which LRGs directly support a national government in ODA-eligible countries. This modality is only used by 13% of LRGs in DAC countries, including for instance large TL2 regions such as the state of Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany), which has a partnership with Rwanda, the state of Bavaria (Germany), which engages in a partnership with Tunisia amongst others and the Basque Country (Spain), which partners with Cuba (Box 3.3). Around 9% of respondents use other forms of DDC, such as collaboration between municipal associations in support of DDC at the local level, or co-operation with federations of NGOs rather than individual NGOs.5
DDC typologies used by LRGs in DAC and partner countries
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
State of Berlin, Germany: Leveraging dedicated institutions for DDC
The state of Berlin uses several of the DDC typologies, with its activities being co‑ordinated by the State Office for Development Cooperation. Mostly, the state office funds Berlin-based NGOs, education actors and other implementing partners that engage in development co-operation projects in the Global South. Additionally, through the Berliner Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit mbH (BGZ), a joint organisation of the state of Berlin and the Berlin Chamber of Skilled Crafts has been implementing DDC projects since 1983. The BGZ is currently designing and implementing various projects with partners in the Global South including in Gambia, Namibia, Nepal and Viet Nam. Berlin also has ongoing city-to-city partnerships with Buenos Aires (Argentina), Jakarta (Indonesia), Mexico City (Mexico), Tashkent (Uzbekistan) and Windhoek (Namibia). Last, the city of Berlin has also been engaging in the German Government and Federal States Programme (Bund-Länder-Programm, BLP) in co-operation with different territorial actors, including in the state of Karnataka (India) on user-centred, gender-responsive urban mobility start-ups; with Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Tirana (Albania) and their innovation support organisations to strengthen start-up ecosystems, digital and green innovation, and female entrepreneurship; and with Kyiv (Ukraine), to connect and scale technology start-ups.
Free State of Bavaria, Germany: A hybrid DDC model
The Bavarian Africa Package provides the strategic framework for Bavaria’s DDC activities with an annual budget of EUR 12 million, five priority countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia) and broad thematic pillars of education/science, economy and vocational training, administration and good governance, environment and agriculture. As part of its Africa package, Bavaria uses a hybrid model that combines several DDC typologies. The state engages in region-to-region partnerships, for example with the Western Cape region in South Africa, but also partners with the national level, for example with Ethiopia and Tunisia. The state operates a Bavarian Office for Africa in Ethiopia, which serves as the official interdepartmental representation of the state on the African continent. Furthermore, Bavarian DDC activities also take the form of regional government-to-NGO co‑operation, as Bavaria funds Bavarian NGOs, foundations and business associations, who run projects with local partners in the different countries prioritised under the Bavarian Africa Package.
Sources: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.; bilateral interviews conducted with case study representatives.
LRGs in DAC countries frequently draw on national government funding, while partner LRGs more often mobilise support from multilateral organisations
Most DAC LRGs fund their DDC activities through external sources rather relying primarily on their own budgets. While 83% of DAC LRGs use a combination of both own and external funding, 58% reported using less than 50% of their own resources to fund their DDC activities. On average, LRGs indicated that around 56% of their funding comes from external sources, compared to 44% from their own budget. A more detailed breakdown shows that around 24% of respondents contribute between 0% and 10% of their own resources to their overall DDC budget, highlighting the importance of co-funding and support schemes (Figure 3.4). The case studies confirm the variation in LRGs financial contributions to their DDC budgets. For example, the municipality of Lahr/Schwarzwald (Germany) funds 1% of DDC activities through its own municipal budget, while the city of Fredericton (Canada) contributes 5%. The German case studies of Baruth/Mark and Böblingen, which each contribute 10% to their DDC budget reflect the German DDC co‑financing scheme for DDC, where SKEW funds up to 90% of the total eligible expenditure of a given project (OECD, 2023[2]). Among the case studies, there are also LRGs where municipal or regional budgets account for the majority (e.g. 80% in Rhineland-Palatinate [Germany] and Glasgow [the United Kingdom], 90% in Bavaria [Germany]) or the entirety of DDC funding (e.g. in the Basque Country, Spain).
Share of respondents’ DDC activities funded by financial resources from their own municipal/regional budget versus external funding
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
While LRGs in DAC countries mainly draw on national government funding, partner LRGs more often mobilise support from international or multilateral organisations. About 70% of LRGs in DAC countries responding to the survey reported receiving funding from the national government, including 13 out of the 14 case study respondents,6 followed by NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) (32%). For municipalities, regional governments also play an important with close to 30% receiving funding from that level of government. The European Commission (26%) and private sector actors (20%) are less common, but still support a substantial share of LRG partnerships, including in Gießen (Germany), Emilia‑Romagna (Italy) and Châtellerault (France), who all receive funding from the European Union. The city of Châtellerault also leverages funds from private sector actors as does the municipality of Baruth/Mark (Germany). International or multilateral organisations (14%) and national associations of LRGs (8%) play a more limited role. The city of Glasgow (the United Kingdom) is an example that leverages funding from international organisations, while the city of Fredericton (Canada) received financial support for its DDC activities from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). Funding patterns differ among partner LRGs. Compared to DAC LRG responses, which highlight strong reliance on national government funding, partner LRGs depend more strongly on international funding sources. International and multilateral organisations are the most frequently reported source of external funding (39%), followed by national governments (37%) and regional or state governments (27%). NGOs and CSOs also support a notable share of partnerships (23%), while funding from the European Commission (15%) and national associations of LRGs (10%) is less common.
For LRGs in DAC countries leveraging national government funding, these resources represent about 44% of their overall DDC budget. Among the case studies, this share reaches up to 90% in Böblingen and Gießen and 99% in Lahr/Schwarzwald (all in Germany). National government funding represents a larger share of total resources among survey respondents than any other source, followed by regional/state government (9%), the European Commission (6%) and NGOs (5%). Other sources contribute comparatively small shares to LRGs’ DDC budgets, including national associations of LRGs (3%), private sector actors (2%) and international organisations and development banks (1%). However, there are exceptions such as the city of Fredericton in Canada whose share of financial resources provided by the FCM accounts for 95% of its DDC budget or the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany where NGOs account for 15%.
Non-financial DDC provides access to new knowledge and innovation and strengthens institutional capacity in cities and regions in DAC countries. A key feature of the non-financial component of DDC is that it generates several positive impacts in LRGs in both DAC countries and partner countries as a result of peer-to-peer learning activities, the creation of international networks and the engagement of local stakeholders. In DAC countries, the main reported tangible benefits of non-financial DDC are the access to new knowledge and innovation as well as strengthened institutional capacity and increased trust in local government. On a scale of 1 to 5, DAC respondents rated access to new knowledge or innovations with an average score of 3.4, and strengthened institutional capacity with 3.0 (Figure 3.5).
Average rating of benefits of non-financial activities in cities and regions and DAC countries
Note: Number of respondents are listed in parentheses.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Several examples from the case studies highlight the positive impacts of non-financial DDC. In Fredericton, Canada, for example, participation in international peer exchanges exposed and helped overcome silos between finance, engineering and service departments. Similarly, in Böblingen (Germany), DDC activities mobilised multiple technical departments (e.g. waste management, tourism, mobility), improving internal co‑ordination and information sharing across units that have historically worked in silos. The city of Glasgow (the United Kingdom) emphasises the bidirectional aspect of peer-to-peer learning, e.g. learning from Santiago de Chile (Chile) on the electrification of bus systems and governance models for public transport systems that align with the needs of the 21st century, while providing knowledge on climate change adaptation, flooding and drainage with partner cities in Africa, India and the Philippines. In German city of Lahr’s partnership with Alajuela (Costa Rica), three-month staff secondments facilitated practical, peer-to-peer learning on climate adaptation, particularly on how each administration organises data and addresses local challenges. At the same time, non-financial DDC activities also contribute to more intangible outcomes, notably increased recognition of the value of international co-operation and improved inter-cultural knowledge (4.1) and greater awareness of global agendas (3.7). Furthermore, it can also strengthen participatory practices and civic culture within LRGs in DAC countries themselves. By bringing local communities, CSOs and diverse stakeholders into the design and implementation of DDC projects, DAC cities and regions can deepen democratic engagement and broaden participation in local governance beyond what domestic programmes alone typically generate.
Cities and regions in partner countries perceive a range of positive effects of non-financial DDC. The main tangible benefits include access to new knowledge or innovation (4.4), as was the case for DAC LRG, and improved service delivery (4.0), as well as access to finance and funding for sustainable urban development (4.0) and strengthened institutional capacity (3.9). The main intangible benefits are notably centred around greater recognition of the value of international co-operation and improved inter-cultural knowledge (4.6) and greater awareness of global agendas (4.0) (Figure 3.6).
Average rating of benefits of non-financial activities in partner cities and regions
Note: Number of respondents are listed in parentheses.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Cities and regions in partner countries reported concrete examples of the value of non-financial DDC. Example include the reinforcement of integrated waste management through specialised training and peer exchanges in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, with Zurich, Switzerland, and the rollout of innovative joint science, technology, engineering and mathematics education programmes and contents in Lutsk, Ukraine, through study visits, workshops and knowledge transfer in the field of municipal governance in collaboration with the county of Lippe, Germany. Non-financial DDC also has particular relevance in fragile, conflict-affected or post-conflict contexts, where the enabling conditions for sustainable development including functioning institutions, rule of law and basic human rights protections are themselves fragile or under pressure. In these settings, the non-financial dimension of DDC, including governance support and institutional capacity building strengthening, can contribute to building the foundations of peace and stability that development requires.
DDC projects frequently rely on non-financial activities, often in combination with financial support. Seventy-one percent of DDC projects reported by cities and regions from DAC countries in the DDC impact surveys include non-financial activities or are entirely focused on them. More than four out of ten partnerships carried out by them use a mix of both financial contributions and non-financial activities, such as knowledge exchange and capacity building, while around 30% exclusively leverage financial contributions and 29% are non-financial type of partnerships (Figure 3.7). Case studies illustrate the diversity. In the Basque Country (Spain), all partnerships rely solely on financial contributions, whereas in Fredericton (Canada), they are exclusively non-financial. Other cases combine both approaches such as Bornem (Belgium), where 75% of partnerships are non-financial and 25% have both financial and non‑financial elements.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Smaller municipalities and regions tend to rely more on non-financial DDC than larger ones. Differences also emerge across city and region size categories. Medium-sized cities and regions in DAC countries report the highest share of partnerships combining financial and non-financial activities (48%). In contrast, large cities and regions are more likely to rely exclusively on financial contributions (46%), while small cities and regions show the highest proportion of purely non-financial partnerships (37%). The findings suggest that population size may influence the type of DDC activities LRGs engage in, with larger jurisdictions more frequently mobilising financial resources and smaller ones placing greater emphasis on knowledge exchange and capacity-building activities (Figure 3.8).
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
The majority of LRGs in partner countries report that they receive a fairly similar combination of financial and non-financial DDC. Overall, 54% indicate that they benefit from both forms of support. A further 18% report only receiving non-financial support (rising to more than 30% in partnerships involving Ukraine) and 10% mainly non-financial support, while a smaller share of 17% receives mainly or only financial support (Figure 3.9). Both types of support are highly relevant to partner cities and regions, which rate the overall value provided through the partnerships at 4.6 out of 5 for both financial and non-financial support. However, because ODA reporting frameworks focus primarily on financial flows and many regions, and particularly municipalities undertaking non-financial DDC partnerships, are not reporting on these projects, the non-financial dimension of DDC is systematically under-reported in ODA flows (OECD, 2023[3]).
Peer-to-peer learning activities, capacity building and study trips are the most common types of non‑financial DDC. A total of 81% of respondents from cities and regions in DAC countries, reported conducting mutual peer-to-peer learning activities (Figure 3.10). Furthermore, around 69% of responding LRGs in DAC countries conduct training programmes and capacity-building workshops, while 59% organise study trips and learning missions. Cultural exchanges, such as through heritage preservation projects or festivals, also play an important role among non-financial activities with 57% of respondents. Less frequently used non-financial DDC activities include technical advice and policy support (29%), institutional strengthening (29%) and staff secondments or expert deployments (20%), which are used, for example, in the cases of Lahr/Schwarzwald (Germany), Basque Country (Spain) and Glasgow (the United Kingdom) (Box 3.4). The DDC impact survey for partner cities and regions confirms similar patterns, with study trips (77%), training programmes and capacity-building workshops (66%) as well as peer-to-peer learning activities (66%) being the three most common types of non-financial DDC, followed by cultural exchanges and joint cultural activities (58%).
Share of financial and non-financial DDC received by partner LRGs
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Region of Emilia-Romagna, Italy
Knowledge and experience sharing is one of the key objectives of DDC activities conducted by the region of Emilia-Romagna. The region regularly welcomes LRGs from partner countries and provides training for them to learn from Emilia-Romagna’s experience in decentralisation processes, health and education, among other areas. Emilia-Romagna has accompanied several DDC partner regions in developing legislative frameworks on the inclusion of persons with disabilities in their own jurisdiction’s labour market.
Municipality of Bornem, Belgium
As part of its non-financial DDC activities with the municipality of Nquthu (South Africa), the municipality of Bornem has started organising study visits for youth. For example, in 2024, five young people from each municipality jointly investigated relevant SDGs, focusing on sustainable agriculture, sustainable food and fair trade, first in their own municipality and then as part of a study visit in their partner municipality. By engaging with local farmers, conducting interviews and sharing their findings with peers abroad, the participants deepened their understanding of these issues in both contexts but also developed the ability to situate local challenges within an international framework. The project strengthened civic engagement by enabling young people to raise awareness among residents, schools, including through an exhibition that showcased their experiences.
State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany
The German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate uses several non-financial activities in its DDC projects with Rwanda. These include inter-cultural training for youth exchanges between Rwanda and Rhineland-Palatinate to foster mutual understanding and raise awareness around global issues. The state also conducts awareness and empowerment training in Rwanda targeting young women, often in co-operation with NGOs. This training covers practical health-related topics such as preparing young women for their first menstruation.
City of Lahr/Schwarzwald, Germany
The partnership has leveraged staff secondments as the main form of non-financial DDC. Mixed teams from Alajuela, Costa Rica, and the city of Lahr were each seconded for a period of three months to the partner city’s administration. The focus of the exchange was climate adaptation and provided an opportunity to review administrative practices, analyse local challenges and data, and provide a deeper understanding of the respective administrative structures. In the area of water treatment and sanitation, municipal staff from Lahr shared knowledge on updating wastewater treatment facilities, identifying where processes could be streamlined or adapted to local contexts. They also exposed their Costa Rican counterparts to international best practices, for example through a study visit to a leading trade fair for water, sewage, waste and raw materials management in Munich, Germany.
Sources: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris; bilateral interviews conducted with case study representatives.
Most LRGs in DAC and partner countries monitor their DDC activities to a certain extent or systematically with a strong focus on the long-term sustainability of outcomes
More than 60% of partnerships assess their DDC activities either systematically or to some extent. One in four LRGs in DAC countries reported systematically assessing all or most of their DDC activities, including the cases of Bavaria (Germany) and Zurich (Switzerland), compared to 47% among partner cities and regions. Another 36% stated they assess at least some of their DDC activities (41% in partner countries), including the region of Reggio-Emilia (Italy), the Basque Country (Spain) and the Counties of Böblingen and Gießen (Germany) (Box 3.5). A further 20% indicated that they do not assess any of their DDC activities yet (9% in partner countries), but are planning to do so in the future, such as the city of Dresden, the municipality of Baruth/Mark (both in Germany) and the city of Glasgow (the United Kingdom). Another 20% (4% in partner countries) reported not assessing their DDC activities at all. Overall, in 65% of partnerships, both sides engage in some type of monitoring activities. However, in only 17% of partnerships do both sides systematically assess DDC activities, while in 42% of partnerships, there is no systematic monitoring on either side (Figure 3.11).
Share of LRGs reporting the monitoring of their DDC activity outcomes
Note: Binary definition: monitoring = systematic or some assessment; not monitoring = planning to assess or no assessment. Unit of analysis: matched partnerships; only partnerships where both partners responded to the question were considered.
Sources: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris; bilateral interviews conducted with case study representatives
County of Böblingen, Germany
The county conducts regular monitoring as part of its sustainability strategy to systematically assess the effectiveness and progress of its sustainable development policies and measures. Its monitoring process encompasses questions on whether a measure has been completed, which factors contributed to its success, whether it was postponed or cancelled, and the reasons behind such decisions. These questions inform future planning and strategic adjustments. In addition, evaluations take place as a mandatory component of projects funded by SKEW. For example, the county’s waste management authority, together with the municipality of El Guettar (Tunisia), successfully applied for funding to build a composting facility. Documentation and evaluation are central components of the project: upon completion, evidence must be provided on whether the predefined goals and activities were achieved, and more importantly, what long-term impacts the project has generated, e.g. regarding environmental benefits, local value creation, educational work or knowledge transfer.
County of Gießen, Germany
The district of Gießen monitors its DDC primarily through results-based project reporting and structured exchanges with partner organisations. Monitoring takes place within Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development-funded programmes implemented by SKEW. These programmes require narrative and financial reports that track progress against jointly defined objectives and ensure alignment with the SDGs. To complement this evaluation, the county gathers qualitative insights from its partner municipality of Mubende (Uganda) through regular online meetings and reciprocal visits. Internally, project milestones and progress on outputs are tracked by the municipal development policy co-ordinator to provide transparency and institutional continuity.
City of Zurich, Switzerland
All DDC projects and city-to-city partnerships carried out by the city of Zurich have their own monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems, which differ depending on the typology of development co-operation categorised into three modules:
Module A (Financial support to NGOs from Zurich) uses the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation’s M&E framework.
Module B (Financial support for development projects submitted by Swiss NGOs in annual call for proposals) requires NGOs to submit results frameworks.
Module C (City-to-city partnerships) relies on implementing partners to develop logical frameworks and indicators.
Annual financial and narrative reporting is required for all modules. Each city-to-city co-operation follows structured governance mechanisms, including a steering committee with representatives from Zurich, the partner city, the partner organisation and other relevant actors which meets regularly to review progress and adjust activities. Partner organisations submit annual reports based on a results framework or log frame, share regular updates and involve the cities in strategic decisions about the partnership. The evaluation plan for each city-to-city co-operation includes a mid-term review to assess progress, effectiveness and areas requiring adjustment. At project completion, an independent external endline evaluation measures outcomes, impact and sustainability. This final evaluation also aims to provide insights to inform future city-to-city co-operation.
Among LRGs with an M&E system in place, the main focus is on assessing the efficiency of DDC projects and the long-term sustainability of outcomes. Around 77% of LRGs in DAC countries with an M&E system in place reported assessing the efficiency of DDC activities and 73% analyse the long-term sustainability of DDC outcomes and 52% of respondents with an M&E system in place monitor and evaluate the impact of their DDC projects on SDG outcomes in their partner city or region (Figure 3.12). About half monitor the impact of DDC projects on SDG outcomes (52%) and local governance (50%) in their partner city or region, while 50% assess stakeholder engagement (e.g. the breadth, quality and inclusiveness of participation in DDC activities). Assessing the impact of DDC in their own city or region is less common, with 32% evaluating SDG outcomes (e.g. Böblingen and Bornem) and 24% local governance impacts (e.g. Châtellerault, Baruth/Mark and Emilia-Romagna). For example, Châtellerault’s partnership with Kaya (Burkina Faso) includes some proxy indicators that measure process and governance aspects, such as quality of co-ordination, existence of strategic plans and frequency of stakeholder meetings. In contrast, partner LRGs’ M&E systems place stronger emphasis on the long-term sustainability of outcomes and the level and quality of stakeholder engagement in the partnership. Among partner respondents, 71% reported monitoring the long-term sustainability of partnership outcomes and 64% assess stakeholder engagement in DDC projects, while around 60.9% monitor project efficiency (Figure 3.13). Partner LRGs also frequently assess the impact of DDC on SDG outcomes in their own city or region (58%) and on local governance (55%). The findings suggest that partner LRGs’ M&E systems tend to focus more strongly on implementation processes, local ownership and long-term results, reflecting their role as primary beneficiaries of DDC activities.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
DDC M&E often relies on qualitative methods, with LRGs in DAC countries focusing on accountability and partners using M&E more for strategic planning and stakeholder engagement
Qualitative evidence such as activity reports and documentation of lessons learned is the most common source of information used by DAC and partner LRGs for DDC M&E. Around 65% of LRGs in DAC countries and 84% of partner LRGs who responded to the DDC impact survey rely on these sources. Surveys, interviews and feedback sessions are also widely used by around 42% of DAC respondents (e.g. Bavaria and Bornem) and 62% of partner LRGs. These findings highlight the predominance of qualitative approaches in DDC M&E. Quantitative data sources are less common. Around 23% of LRGs in DAC countries and 33% of partner LRGs use local or regional databases, while 9% of LRGs in DAC countries and 6% of partner LRGs draw on national or international databases. The usage of innovative data sources is rare among both LRGs in DAC countries (2%) and partner LRGs (9%). Outsourcing of M&E is relatively common. Around 41% of LRGs in DAC countries and 34% of partner LRGs use third‑party evaluations as part of their M&E. Among the case studies, all international LRGs leverage third-party evaluations, while among German case studies only Bavaria does so. In Bavaria, external independent evaluations are mandatory for larger DDC projects from the second round of funding onwards to provide lessons for future initiatives.
LRGs in DAC countries mostly conduct evaluations at the end of a project or funding period, while yearly evaluations are most common among their partners. Around 44% of LRGs in DAC countries follow an end-of-project evaluation approach, including the majority of case studies, compared to 26% of partner LRGs. By contrast, 24% of LRGs in DAC countries conduct yearly evaluations (e.g. Fredericton and Châtellerault) whereas this is the most common evaluation frequency among partner LRGs (41%). More frequent evaluations, conducted every six months or more often, are less common, reported by 16% of LRGs in DAC countries and 29% of partner LRGs. Biennial evaluations are rare, used by only around 7% of LRGs in DAC countries, for example in the case studies of Baruth/Mark, Germany, and Emilia‑Romagna, Italy, and 1% of partner LRGs that conduct evaluations.
While LRGs in DAC countries mostly use M&E for accountability and transparency purposes, partner LRGs focus more on stakeholder engagement and strategic planning. Around 63% of LRGs in DAC countries leverage M&E as a justification for the use of funds and to report to donors, including in the vast majority of case studies (Figure 3.14). Slightly less than half (45%) of LRGs use M&E findings to inform the strategic planning and budgeting of their DDC activities, as seen in the case studies of Châtellerault (France), Zurich (Switzerland), Bavaria (Germany) and Baruth/Mark (Germany). For example, Châtellerault uses indicators in its M&E framework to highlight which of its activities worked and which did not, adjusting their implementation strategy accordingly. Monitoring data also feed internal reporting to elected officials and departments to inform decisions on the continuation and design of the co‑operation and strengthen their buy-in. For around 42% of LRGs, M&E is a tool through which they engage stakeholders and communicate the results of their DDC activities while 30% use it to assess impact in their own city or region, e.g. the case studies of Böblingen, Lahr/Schwarzwald (both Germany), Emilia-Romagna (Italy) and Châtellerault (France). The pattern in partner LRGs is different. Their M&E is mostly used for stakeholder engagement and communication (68%) and strategic planning (61%), slightly less so for accountability (56%) and justification for the use of funds and reporting to donors (53%). Using the results of M&E for impact assessment is also common (51%). The contrast indicates that LRGs in DAC countries adopt a more accountability-driven approach to M&E, while partner LRGs use M&E more as a strategic tool for planning, communication and impact assessment.
Share of different types of M&E uses among LRGs in DAC and partner countries
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
The lack of financial resources is the main M&E challenge
The lack of financial resources is the main challenge related to M&E for both DAC and partner LRGs. More than half of responding LRGs in DAC countries (53%) and partner LRGs (60%) report insufficient financial resources to conduct M&E of their DDC activities. For LRGs in DAC countries, other common barriers include institutional, legal or administrative constraints (37%), limited technical capacity or expertise (36%), and external factors (30%). These also rank among the four main challenges reported by partner LRGs, with external factors affecting around 50% of them. While LRGs in DAC countries also reported facing poor communication and co-ordination challenges between partners (28%), this was mentioned by only 6% of partner LRGs. Limited support from political leadership (21% among LRGs in DAC countries, 10% among partner LRGs) and stakeholders and local community (17% among LRGs in DAC countries, 6% among partner LRGs) is less common. Other challenges mentioned include limited human resources, a lack of time to engage in M&E and the fact that monitoring might be restricted to the duration of the funding period, as reported in the case of Lahr/Schwarzwald (Germany).
Limited financial resources are the main barrier to achieving DDC outcomes
A lack of financial resources is the main barrier preventing DAC and partner LRGs from achieving intended local governance and SDG outcomes of their DDC activities. While LRGs in DAC countries ranked the lack of financial resources with an average score of 3.5, the challenges in terms of financial resources are even more pronounced among their partners (4.1) (Figure 3.15). This confirms the findings from a previous OECD study focused on DDC in Germany, which highlighted short-term one-year funding arrangements as a major obstacle for the medium- and long-term sustainability of DDC programmes (OECD, 2023[2]). It reflects findings from another recent OECD study on SDG localisation (OECD, 2024[4]), which had found that more than 60% of LRGs indicated the lack of financial resources as the main obstacle for the implementation of the SDGs at large.
One challenge that municipalities and regions without a dedicated DDC or international affairs department face is that their work on DDC is often an additional task. Limited personnel resources often mean that partnership activities are conducted on top of regular responsibilities, a challenge that was for example reported by the county of Böblingen, Germany. The municipality of Bornem, Belgium, also faces challenges due to its reliance on few staff in the administration on both sides of the partnership and growing financial and human resource constraints, with the dedicated global policy staff reduced from a full-time to a 0.75 full-time equivalent position.
Other main barriers reported by LRGs include institutional, legal or administrative challenges, limited political support and leadership as well as external factors. While institutional, legal or administrative challenges are slightly more pronounced in LRGs in DAC countries (3.4) compared to their partners (3.2), external factors impact both to the same extent (3.3). Limited political support and leadership also emerge as a relatively significant barrier, particularly for LRGs in DAC countries (3.4) compared with partner LRGs (2.9). By contrast, constraints related to limited technical capacity or expertise are perceived as somewhat less severe, with similar scores reported by LRGs in DAC countries (2.5) and partner LRGs (2.4). Challenges related to poor communication and co‑ordination between partners, including cultural or language differences, as well as lack of stakeholder engagement or community support, appear to play a comparatively smaller role, both scoring slightly above 2 on average. However, cities and regions may face public scrutiny and need to justify international activities to the local population. This was reported by the city of Glasgow, the United Kingdom, underscoring the particular need for this in times of public budget constraints. Other challenges mentioned by LRGs in DAC countries include the lack of co-ordination at the regional or state level and the absence of an explicit SDG strategy in place at the local level. Overall, the results suggest that structural and resource-related constraints, such as the availability of financial resources and institutional settings and frameworks, represent larger barriers for delivering effective DDC than relational or participatory challenges, such as stakeholder engagement and the co-ordination between partners engaged in DDC projects.
Weighted ranking score of main barriers that have affected LRGs ability to achieve the intended local governance and SDG outcomes of their DDC activities
Note: Unit of analysis: matched partnerships; only partnerships where both partners responded to the question were considered.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
LRGs consider political leadership, collaboration with CSOs, long-term programming and improved access to funding as key enablers to strengthen DDC impact
Support for DDC activities from the administration and local political leadership is high among responding LRGs on both sides of the partnerships. Team leaders’ and project managers’ support received the highest ratings, with 84% of LRGs reporting a score above 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, followed by support from heads of department (76%). LRGs also report strong support from their mayor or governor, with 72% of respondents across DAC and partner LRGs indicating that mayors take an active role in supporting their city’s or region’s DDC activities.
Political leadership is essential because DDC requires municipalities and regions to commit scarce resources, such as staff time, public funds and political capital, to global issues whose local relevance may not be immediately visible to voters. In practice, strong political leadership:
Legitimises DDC as a core local policy field rather than an optional add-on.
Ensures that available funding streams and legal tools are fully understood and utilised.
Enables the LRG to invest in long-term staff expertise and partnerships.
Positions DDC as part of a wider vision of the municipality’s or region’s global role and responsibility.
Concrete examples of transformative local leadership around DDC abound. Across different institutional and funding contexts, political leadership emerges as one of the key cross-cutting factors in making DDC effective. In Spain, autonomous regions such as Catalonia and the Basque Country have embedded DDC in their statutes and annual budgets, sustained by long-standing cross-party political leadership. The creation of dedicated, professionalised co-operation agencies, such as the Basque Catalan, Asturian or Andalusian Development Co-operation Agencies, was the direct result of political will to institutionalise international solidarity at the regional level. This political will ensures that even when national strategic priorities shift, DDC endures. It can in particular help to address some of the institutional, legal and administrative challenges that survey respondents highlighted as main barriers by providing clear responsibilities, leadership and administrative structures to organise DDC activities. Global citizenship education, which “aims to empower learners of all ages to assume active roles, both locally and globally, in building more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure societies” (UNESCO-UNEVOC, 2025[5]) can further support this by fostering informed, engaged citizens and nurturing political leadership that recognises the value of international co-operation at the local level (PLATFORMA, 2020[6]).
In terms of resources, LRGs consider themselves best equipped with technical resources, such as knowledge, expertise and technology. Overall, 51% of respondents on both sides of the partnership perceived the allocation of technical resources as adequate.7 Financial resources were viewed less favourably, with only around 26% of partnerships reporting that they were adequately equipped. In 39% of partnerships, both sides reported insufficient financial resources, while in the remaining 35% only one partner considered the available funding to be adequate. Respondents identified human resources as the most significant constraint. Only 19% of partnerships reported that both partners considered their staffing levels adequate. However, partner LRGs appear to view their human resource situation as less challenging than LRGs in DAC countries, with 37% of partner LRGs reporting adequate staffing compared to 21% among LRGs in DAC countries. Overall, these findings point to a relative imbalance, with LRGs reporting stronger access to technical capabilities than to the financial and human resources needed to operationalise them effectively.
Horizontal collaboration and engagement with civil society are key enablers for DDC activities. Both DAC and partner LRGs rate the contribution of other municipal departments or teams as high (scores of 4 or more on a scale of 1 to 5), highlighting the importance of cross-departmental co-ordination (Figure 3.16). Civil society also plays a key role, with both partners reporting a strong contribution in 57% of partnerships. By drawing on the expertise of civil society, LRGs can engage a wider group of stakeholders in their DDC activities. Beyond their role as implementing partners, CSOs can strengthen the democratic legitimacy and sustainability of DDC by fostering accountability, civic participation and transnational solidarity. Furthermore, leveraging civil society actors can also help respond to the earlier barrier of limited personnel resources. DDC also helps to foster collaboration within administrations. In Böblingen, Germany, for example, the policy officer for DDC has an internal co-ordination role, pulling thematic units into DDC activities, e.g. experts working on waste management or tourism. National governments are also important contributors, with both partners reporting high involvement in 53% of partnerships, followed by academia (44%). For example, the city of Zurich, Switzerland, works together with the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich to train NGOs on the usage of M&E frameworks. By contrast, the private sector plays a more limited role in both DAC and partner LRGs. Only 15% of partnerships report a strong contribution from private actors on both sides, although their involvement is more frequently highlighted by partner LRGs (28%) than by LRGs in DAC countries (10%). In this context, DDC can help catalyse private investment beyond the immediate scope of a partnership. For example, a DDC project on urban revitalisation between Alba Iulia (Romania) and Edinet (Moldova), supported by the European Commission, attracted over EUR 1 million in local private investment alongside EUR 3 million in public infrastructure spending, and led to the opening of five new cafés and shops in the town centre (OECD, 2025[7]). Finally, national and international associations and networks of LRGs may also play an enabling role by consolidating knowledge from DDC partnerships and supporting its dissemination and replication (OECD, 2023[3]).
Contribution of different stakeholders to DDC activities on a scale of 1 to 5
Note: Binary classification based on scale: High = 4-5; Low/medium = 1-3. Unit of analysis: matched partnerships; only partnerships where both partners responded to the question were considered. Number of partnerships in parentheses.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
Overall, LRGs consider promoting collaboration between CSOs and LRGs as the most promising way to enhance the local governance impact of their DDC activities. Considering responses from both DAC and partner LRGs, this action received the highest average score (4.3 on a scale of 1 to 5), ranking as the top priority for partner LRGs and the second priority for LRGs in DAC countries. They also emphasised the value of strengthening legal and institutional frameworks (4.2), particularly among partner LRGs, followed by conducive legal and institutional frameworks, regulations and incentives (4.1). Another key action is fostering capacity and training for DDC projects (4.1 across all partners), which was the highest rated option among partner LRGs (4.6). Overall, all proposed actions received average scores above 4 out of 5 and show a high degree of alignment between DAC and partner LRGs, indicating that they view a broad range of complementary measures as relevant for strengthening DDC’s contribution to local governance (Figure 3.17). These actions could help address several of the barriers identified in the previous section. For example, stronger multi-level co-operation and institutional frameworks could help overcome legal and administrative challenges, while training can target the capacity gaps that can hinder the desired outcomes of DDC activities.
Alignment of responses about potential actions to improve the impact of DDC activities on local governance between LRGs in DAC and partner countries
Notes: Unit of analysis: matched partnerships; only partnerships where both partners responded to the question were considered. The figures compare DAC and partner LRGs assessments of the importance of different actions to improve local governance outcomes (1 = low priority, 5 = high priority). Each bubble represents the number of matched partnerships reporting a given combination of scores, with larger bubbles indicating more frequent responses. The dashed diagonal line indicates equal assessments between DAC and partner LRGs; points above the line reflect higher ratings by LRGs in DAC countries, while points below indicate higher ratings by partner LRGs.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
LRGs view long-term DDC programming and improving access to funding as essential for strengthening the impact of their activities on the SDGs. Improving access to funding, such as international grants, received the highest level of support, particularly among partner LRGs (4.9) and also strongly among LRGs in DAC countries (4.3) (Figure 3.18). Promoting long-term DDC programming to strengthen the stability of partnerships is another top priority, with similarly high ratings from both partner LRGs and LRGs in DAC countries (4.5). These actions directly address financial barriers and short-term funding cycles identified earlier as key challenges. Other highly rated actions include strengthening multi‑stakeholder and territorial approaches that leverage the knowledge and comparative advantages of actors such as the private sector, civil society and academia (4.4 among partner LRGs and 4.1 among LRGs in DAC countries), and focusing DDC activities on policy areas where cities or regions have specific expertise to share (around 4 among both groups). Respondents also highlighted the importance of institutional and strategic measures, including designing multi-level governance and legal frameworks to clarify the role of subnational governments in external action (4.3 and 4.1), developing strategies that link DDC activities to specific SDGs (4.4 and 3.7), and enhancing training and capacity building on SDG localisation (4.7 and 3.8). Strengthening M&E systems receives the lowest score among LRGs in DAC countries (3.9), although it is rated more highly by partner LRGs (4.5). The findings show the structural and resource-related barriers they face (e.g. funding, institutional fragmentation and limited human resources) and that LRGs emphasise the respective enabling conditions such as more stable financing, longer-term programming, stronger partnerships and clearer governance frameworks to enhance the impact of their DDC activities on the SDGs.
Alignment of responses about potential actions to improve the impact of DDC activities on SDG outcomes between LRGs in DAC and partner countries
Note: Unit of analysis: matched partnerships; only partnerships where both partners responded to the question were considered. The figures compare DAC and partner LRGs assessments of the importance of different actions to improve SDG outcomes (1 = low priority, 5 = high priority). Each bubble represents the number of matched partnerships reporting a given combination of scores, with larger bubbles indicating more frequent responses. The dashed diagonal line indicates equal assessments between DAC and partner LRGs; points above the line reflect higher ratings by LRGs in DAC countries, while points below indicate higher ratings by partner LRGs.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
References
[7] OECD (2025), “Harnessing city-to-city partnerships to finance urban development”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d782d57d-en.
[1] OECD (2025), “OECD Surveys on the Impact of Decentralised Development Co-operation on Local Governance and Sustainable Development Goal Outcomes”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[4] OECD (2024), “Localising the SDGs in a changing landscape”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 68, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a76810d7-en.
[3] OECD (2023), “Decentralised development co-operation: A global policy toolkit and guidance for practitioners”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 46, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3cb22851-en.
[2] OECD (2023), Reshaping Decentralised Development Co-operation in Germany, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/afedb776-en.
[6] PLATFORMA (2020), Localizing the 2030 Agenda and Global Citizen Education, https://www.diba.cat/documents/228621/293147161/Agenda+2030+and+GCE+%28English%29.pdf/79565b25-50c1-4fb4-a95c-7a8e8a2bdb01.
[5] UNESCO-UNEVOC (2025), “TVETipedia glossary - Global citizenship education (GCED)”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization International Centre for TVET, https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/TVETipedia%2BGlossary/lang%3Den/show%3Dterm/term%3DGlobal%2Bcitizenship%2Beducation (accessed on 5 November 2025).
← 1. For the purpose of this study, cities and regions are grouped into those located in OECD DAC countries and those located in countries eligible for ODA. Four OECD members (Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Türkiye) are currently included in the OECD DAC list of ODA recipients. They are counted among the ODA-eligible countries in this study. The terminology used in the survey reflects this simplified analytical distinction.
← 2. Regions within the 38 OECD countries are classified on two territorial levels - large (TL2) and small (TL3) - reflecting the administrative organisation of countries. This classification facilitates greater comparability of geographic units at the same territorial level. The two territorial levels, which are officially established and relatively stable in all member countries, are used as a framework for implementing regional policies in most countries. The 435 OECD large (TL2) regions represent the first administrative tier of subnational government, for example, Texas in the United States. The 2 420 OECD small (TL3) regions correspond to administrative regions, except in Australia, Canada, Latvia and the United States. For European countries, TL regions are largely consistent with the Eurostat NUTS2 and NUTS3 2024 classification. TL3 regions are contained in a TL2 region, except in the United States. For Costa Rica, Israel and New Zealand, the TL3 level is equivalent to the TL2 level. All the regions are defined within national borders. See Table 1 for map sources and Table 2 for the regional classification of each country.
← 3. It should be noted that the number of years indicates the duration of a specific partnership with an OECD city or region, not the overall period of engagement in DDC.
← 4. The results differ slightly from the data available in the OECD CRS, where the most common thematic areas of cross-border DDC flows in 2023 included multi-sector activities, support to government, civil society and peace-related activities (18%), health (16%), emergency response (12%) and education (8%), which can be explained by the different samples and the fact that the survey responses capture both the financial and non-financial components of DDC, while the CRS focuses on the financial component (see respective section for details).
← 5. The results differ from the CRS, which shows that most cross-border DDC ODA is channelled through NGOs and civil society (see respective section for details). The difference may result from both the different sample of LRGs captured by the DDC impact surveys and from the fact that the non-financial component of DDC, which is underreported in the CRS, is mainly present in the typology of direct co-operation between LRGs.
← 6. Fourteen out of 16 case studies have responded to the DDC impact surveys.
← 7. The allocation of resources is considered adequate if the rating of both of the partners is at least 4 out of 5.