Can city-to-city cooperation facilitate sustainable development governance in the Global South? Lessons gleaned from seven North-South partnerships in Latin America

Figures & data

Figure 1. C2C Focus Areas

Table 1. Case overviews

Southern city	Northern city	Time-range	Cooperation activities in the Global South	Active partners (identified by respective authors)	Outcomes/conclusions (according to respective authors)
León (Nicaragua)	Utrecht (Netherlands)	1983 – unknown but program has closed.	Strategic development planning; Community building for municipal representatives and citizens; Training on leadership, time management, and decision-making; Establishment of a rotating fund.	Officials and administrative staff from both municipalities; Civil society partners, e.g. Asociacion Communitaria de Poetas (ACOPOE); Neighbourhood committees; Auditing organisations, e.g. the Municipal Development Committee (CDM).^2	Only positive observations: Stronger organisational capacity; Enhanced civil society capacity; Enhanced participatory systems.
Cajamarca (Peru)	Treptow-Köpenick (Germany)	1998 – unknown but program has closed.	Workshops and internships (e.g. courses on urban environmental management); Capacity building on water and waste management.	Officials and administrative staff from both municipalities; The Cajamarca water company (SEDACAJ)^3; Berlin’s Water Treatment Plant; Local NGOs.	Only positive observations: Strengthened local officials’ capacity for urban environmental management, Improved capacity for ecological efficiency, public participation, and consensus building.
Villa El Salvador (Peru)	Amstelveen (Netherlands)	2004–2007	Administrative reforms; Updating municipal financial regulations; Technical training; Environmental management and planning; Launched waste recycling and separation incentive program.	Officials and administrative staff from both municipalities; Villa El Salvador’s Environmental Services Department; Neighbourhood committees; Private waste collectors in Villa El Salvador.	Positive observations: Stronger local officials’ organisational capacity. Negative observations: Lack of funding and of professional knowledge
Ovalle (Chile)	Charlesbourg (Canada)	1994 –	Pilot projects on transportation, urban planning, welfare programmes, and administrative procedures; Creation of a Charlesbourg/Ovalle citizens’ association; Housing; Strategic development planning.	Officials and administrative staff from both municipalities; Local actors like a social worker from Ovalle and an architect from Charlesbourg; Neighbourhood Centres	Positive observations: Created an urban master plan while accounting for public sensibilities and concerns. Negative observations: Lack of financial resources.
São Paulo (Brazil)	Toronto (Canada)	1987–2000	Property information and mapping systems; Public health (e.g. campaign against communicable disease, ambulance response strategy); Parks and recreation facilities: Trade intensification between the cities; Decentralisation of power and public participation in government; Access to international financing for infrastructural projects; Other specific pilot projects (in transportation, public services, public shelters, libraries, garbage collection, policing, human resources, and culture).	Exclusively officials and administrative staff from both municipalities.	Positive observations: Knowledge transfer; Enhanced civic participation; Improved services. Negative observations: Lack of transparency; Corruption; Use of program for political ends.
Riobamba (Ecuador)	Kitimat (Canada)	1995–1996	Developing a new purchasing records system; Training on a software to track the purchasing and dispensation of municipal supplies and equipment.	Exclusively officials and administrative staff from both municipalities.	Only negative observations: Limited scope.
Ica (Peru)	Lethbridge (Canada)	1990–1995	Re-designing the tax billing system; Management of waste, transportation and water systems.	Exclusively partner municipality’s administrative staff from both municipalities.	Only negative observations: Mismanagement and implementation failure: Poor conflict management; Corruption scandals.