building capacity with demand-driven partnerships

7/24/2019 Building Capacity With Demand-driven Partnerships

1/15

Building capacity with demand-driven partnerships:

a case study of Partners for Water and Sanitation

Brett A. Wertz Aylara Odekova Mike Seaman

Received: 13 January 2010 / Accepted: 22 April 2010 / Published online: 9 May 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Multi-stakeholder partnerships emerged from the 2002 Johannesburg World

Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) as a new vehicle for progressing toward the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by aligning the interests of businesses, govern-

ments and civil society to leverage the impact of their interventions. The water and san-

itation sector boasts the largest number of such partnerships, including the demand-driven

capacity-building partnership Partners for Water and Sanitation (PAWS), a product of the

WSSD and a premier UK partnership for sustainable development. Through its partnershipnetwork, PAWS has access to the entire UK water industry, which they assign to capacity-

building projects in Africa on a demand-driven basis. Though the supply of partners is

generally strong, the demand for their assistance is variable. This paper examines the

efficacy of demand-driven capacity building partnerships at achieving the water and san-

itation MDGs, presenting a case study of the PAWS partnership and using it as a frame-

work for discussion of the supplydemand dynamics that influence the scope, scale and

ultimate impact of such partnerships.

Keywords Publicprivate partnerships Sustainable development PAWS

Water

Sanitation

Africa

Capacity building

Knowledge transfer

MDGs Demand-driven WSSD Multi-stakeholder Tri-sector Partnership

Readers should send their comments on this paper to [email protected] within 3-months of publicationof this issue.

B. A. Wertz (&)The Monterey Institute of International Studies, 727 Spencer St. Apt 2, Monterey, CA 93940, USAe-mail: [email protected]

A. OdekovaThe Monterey Institute of International Studies, 3412 Terrace Dr. Apt 1732, Alexandria, VA 22302,USAe-mail: [email protected]

M. SeamanThe Monterey Institute of International Studies, 1141 Lighthouse Ave, Pacific Grove, CA 93940, USAe-mail: [email protected]

1 3

Environ Dev Sustain (2011) 13:1933DOI 10.1007/s10668-010-9245-9


2/15

1 Introduction

Securing an adequate water supply is one of the first steps out of the poverty trap (Sachs

2005). Access to an improved water source can decrease illness, reduce inequality and

hasten economic development. The sentiment that water is life remains remarkably con-sistent across continents. Governments, development banks and the United Nations agree

that increasing access to water and improving its quality is a top priority. Unfortunately,

progress toward water and sanitation goals has been slow and painful. During the past three

decades, sundry strategies have been applied with only marginal success. Now, in the

second decade of a new millennium, we can reflect on publicprivate partnerships, which

were promoted at the turn of the century as a mechanism for addressing the seemingly

intractable problem of water provisioning in the developing world.

In this paper, we explore the added value of demand-driven capacity-building part-

nerships in the water sector and with regard to meeting the UN Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs). To achieve this, we present a case study of Partners for Water and Sani-tation (PAWS) that emerged from the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD). The data we use come from a series of interviews with people

involved in the partnership as well as an examination of relevant academic literature and

partnership documents such as annual reports and newsletters. The first section of this

article untangles the terms used in partnership and capacity-building discourse. Part two

presents the case study explaining the partnerships history, operational model and supply

demand framework. The third and final section presents a discussion of the case study and

trisector partnerships more generally, examining their value added to meeting the MDGs,

their operational framework and organizational sustainability.

2 Background

2.1 Publicprivate partnerships

Partnerships are promoted as a means to address three types of deficits in sustainability

governance: regulation, implementation and participation (Biermann and Chan 2007).

Delegates to the WSSD advanced multi-stakeholder partnerships as a way for transnational

actors in the public, private and non-profit sectors to improve environmental governance byinstitutionalizing a set of norms and practices (Andonova and Levy 2003). Partnerships,

described as Type II outcomes by the United Nations, represent a move toward broader,

transnational governance networks that incorporate state and non-state actors as well as

for-profit and non-profit enterprises in a solutions-oriented process (Benner et al. 2003).

Type II partnerships differ from partnerships more generally in that their goals, formalized

by the UN under the Bali Guiding Principles, are to further the implementation of Agenda

21 and the MDGs and that such partnerships follow a set of design principles including

commitments to transparency, voluntarism and an integrated approach to sustainable

development with economic, social and environmental dimensions. Throughout this arti-cle, all references to partnerships should be understood as referring specifically to type II

partnerships.

Partnerships are understood as one part of a progression toward incentive-based,

cooperative policies, and away from government regulation as public administrations, the

private sector and civil society strengthen ties and align interests (Glasbergen 2007).

Partnerships may be but are not always market-oriented, with private sector participation

20 B. A. Wertz et al.

1 3


3/15

often hinging instead on an interest in corporate social responsibility, employee devel-

opment and relationship building.

Publicprivate partnerships have been criticized on a number of grounds including

further complicating and fragmenting efforts at international cooperation around sustain-

able development; undermining existing public administration efforts by creating analo-gous or competing structures; and easing the burden on governments to follow through

with prior commitments (ECO-Equity2002). They have been called the Trojan Horse of

Neoliberal Development due to typical stakeholder asymmetry and a propensity for

inequitable outcomes (Miraftab 2004). Other criticisms point out that partnership

arrangements may serve the interests of their participants instead of the public good, such

as an interest in legitimacy, profit, the delegation of responsibility or corporate social

responsibility (Glasbergen2007).

2.2 Partnerships in the water sector

Partnerships tend to target problems selectively, clustering in sectors that have significant

and overlapping transnational interest (Andonova 2006). The water sector has by far the

largest number of partnerships registered with the UN (81), while other areas such as

biodiversity (41), gender equality (12) and air pollution/atmosphere (16) have compara-

tively few (UN2009). Interest in water at the international level is high: the UN General

Assembly designated the years 20052015 as the Water for Life decade wherein coun-

tries would strive to fulfill commitments to reaching the MDGs. Meanwhile, at the 5th

World Water Forum in Istanbul, more than 33,000 attendees from 192 countries discussed

23 specific water-related topics during 111 thematic sessions (WWF2009). Water is anarea that deserves this attention. More than 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking

water, while 2.6 billion lack access to adequate sanitation and 5 million die from water-

borne illness annually (World Water Assessment Programme2009).

Privatization became the dominant water development strategy in the 1980s and early

1990s after the perceived failure of public utilities in decades prior. Promoted by major

development banks and the UN, the strategy of relying on well-capitalized multinational

corporations to meet water and sanitation targets is now roundly regarded as insufficient

(Hall et al. 2005; Wolff and Hallstein 2005). Full government concessions to private

contractors became rarer, while partial-privatization strategies such as leases or operate

and manage contracts grew in popularity (Gleick 2006). The degree to which privatesector involvement is necessaryto provide technical, institutional and financial resour-

cesremains a contentious issue. The type of work carried out by publicprivate part-

nerships in the water sector ranges from the use and dissemination of small-scale

appropriate technologies in rural areas to sophisticated infrastructure financing schemes

(WEF2005).

2.3 Capacity building

Agenda 21a comprehensive plan of action for sustainable development adopted by 178governments at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

states that capacity building encompasses [a] countrys human, scientific, technological,

organizational, institutional and resource capabilities (UN 1992). Participants at the

UNCED, better known as the Earth Summit, recognized capacity building as a primary

pathway to implementing Agenda 21 and reaching sustainable development goals.

Capacity building can be defined as a coordinated process of deliberate interventions to

Building capacity with demand-driven partnerships 21

1 3


4/15

(1) upgrade skills (2) improve procedures and (3) strengthen organizations. Capacity

building refers to the investment in people, institutions and practices that will enable

countries to achieve their development objectives (World Bank 2009). Traditionally,

capacity building and knowledge transfer are the domain of governments and NGOs. The

private sector tends to specialize more in resource mobilization and, to a lesser extent,service delivery (Levinger 2002). In recent years, however, publicprivate partnerships

have expanded to involve the private sector directly in capacity building activities. The

next section of this article presents a case study of one such publicprivate partnership

geared for capacity building: Partners for Water and Sanitation (PAWS).

3 Case study: partners for water and sanitation in Africa (PAWS)

3.1 Background

PAWS was one of the first organizations to register as a type II partnership with the UN.

The explicit aim of the partnership is to contribute to the MDG of halving the proportion of

people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015 (PAWS2002). UK

Prime Minister Tony Blair and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(DEFRA) Margaret Beckett laid the groundwork for its formation at the 2002 WSSD. As a

UK governmentled initiative, PAWS was initially funded by DEFRA between 2002 and

2007 at which point the Department for International Development (DFID) took over.

PAWS operates by attempting to match the demand for skills and advice from African

partners with the supply of professionals in the UK water sector. UK partner organizationsprovide human resources on a voluntary basis to share knowledge and technical expertise

applicable to a variety of projects, with a focus on long-term relationship building.

Examples of PAWSs capacity-building activities include but are not limited to: institu-

tional learning, contract management, water demand management, water quality laboratory

accreditation, institutional twinning, leakage management, and institutional reform and

change management (PAWS2008).

PAWS transfers experience and knowledge from its partners in the UK water industry

and from professionals in related fields such as construction and law to specific projects in

the four African countries of South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Business

partners work on a professional voluntary basis, which means that they contribute theirtime pro bono and provide paid leave for employees who travel to Africa. During 2008

2009, partners contributed 410 days, compared with 210 in the previous year, to capacity-

building activities or approximately 410,000 worth of time (PAWS 2009).

3.2 Past challenges and organizational change

Following the WSSD, PAWS began work in South Africa (the summits host country). There

a steering committee identified municipalities with the least capacity in water and sanitation

and advised PAWS to direct technical assistance to those communities. This ad hoc strategyproved ineffective, Amina Ismail, the South African country manager said, as municipali-

tiesdue precisely to their low level of water and sanitation expertisecould not utilize

PAWSs offering. Ismail identified a lack of absorptive capacity in existing projects as a

barrier for PAWS. Absorptive capacity is a business administration concept that was first

defined as the ability of an organization to recognize the value of new, external information,

assimilate it, and apply it (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). In international development,


1 3


5/15

absorptive capacity is understood as the quality of a countrys institutions and policies, which

bolster or diminish the impact of aid money (Burnside and Dollar2004). As explained by

interviewees, a projects absorptive capacity for technical assistance is defined by the ability

of project participants to effectively accommodate additional human resources on-the-

ground, to sufficiently understand recommendations and to be equipped to implementchanges. Thus, if projects are not designed with the potential for receiving future assistance

in mind (i.e. a lack of experts, lack of money, lack of decision-making power), they are said to

lack absorptive capacity and are unsuitable for a PAWS-style intervention.

PAWS experienced these challenges after entering Uganda in mid-2003. Ultimately,

PAWS terminated its activities there due to lack of absorptive capacity and miscommu-

nication among in-country partners. The model that PAWS offered, which Setterfield

described as skills not money, did not work due to what he characterized as a mis-

alignment of supply and demandthat is to say that there were too many partners chasing

too few projects. Many of the nationals PAWS communicated with worked full time for

charitable organizations and sought money to fund and initiate new projects rather thanadditional human resources for existing projects. PAWS was given the impression that

Uganda simply did not need any more help (Stewart and Gray 2009). Other factors that

reduced the demand for PAWSs offering in Uganda were the increased activities of other

donors in-country and advances made by the government in its own capacity-building

projects. The steering committee decided to cease operations in Uganda in December 2007

due to what PAWS described as a gradual decline in demand (PAWS 2007).

The experience from South Africa and Uganda prompted PAWS to change its strategy

and align its assistance with national-level or regional-level capacity-building priorities

that have more support, better financing and the absorptive capacity to make the processwork. As Ismail said, PAWS now only works on projects that are already capacitated

(financed and supported by government) and all of its work is demand-driven. Interviewees

stressed that demand-driven activities were an area of focus for the partnership and that this

approach, they hoped, would lead to success.

3.3 Operational model

PAWS is governed by a chair, vice chair and 11-member steering group, which meets

quarterly (PAWS2009). There is also a larger PAWS forum with one representative fromeach of the 40 partner organizations. The forum meets annually and makes decisions on

consensus. PAWS is administered by a four-person secretariat based in Loughborough

Universitys Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC). Two project managers

within the secretariat communicate directly with the four country managers to locate

potential projects. Country managers, who are all nationals, are not part of the PAWS

secretariat and work from within a host organization. Ethiopian, Nigerian and Tanzanian

country managers are hosted by the non-profit WaterAid, while the South African country

manager is hosted by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (PAWS

2008).

PAWSs recent engagement with Tanzania is exemplary of their current country-selection process. PAWS representatives (led by the chair) conducted a scoping visit in

March 2009 meeting with the non-profit WaterAid, donors, the Tanzanian government and

other sector stakeholders. After presenting their model to the Ministry of Water and

Irrigation, parties agreed that PAWS could add value to activities already underway in

Tanzania, specifically by complement[ing] the national Water Sector Development


1 3


6/15

Programme via capacity building. PAWS recruited a country manager to be based within

the WaterAid offices and scope out potential projects (PAWS2009).

PAWSs approach to sustainable development is based on what interviewees called

demand-driven activities. In a typical demand-driven approach, planners consult with

project beneficiaries (through surveys, informal/formal political processes, communitygroups, etc.) to ensure that local needs guide project design (Baietti and Abdel-Dayem

2008). More generally, the term demand-driven acts as proxy for needs-based meaning

that projects should not be undertaken without a clear request for engagement, usually in

the form of a government-backed policy. For PAWS, this means that country managers

communicate with government officials and policymakers to locate existing projects to

which PAWS can add value. The country managers develop a terms of reference (TOR) in

cooperation with the in-country partners and the secretariat, which then clarifies the scope

of work and circulates the TOR to all partners. Ismail, the South African country manager,

said that this back-and-forth between country managers and the PAWS secretariat facili-

tates a dialog between partners on different continents in order to place technical expertsprecisely where they are demanded. See Fig.1for a schematic of the project process.

A typical project is embodied by the work done in South Africas Ugu District

Municipality. UK partners assisted the municipality in identifying opportunities to recycle

sewage for reuse as part of a new water efficiency plan and then prepared an implemen-

tation plan to improve management of a new water supply control center. The Ugu District

Municipality is already supported as part of DWAFs Water Services Provider support

programme. In this case, PAWS adds value to the existing project (of upgrading the water

supply control center and improving water use efficiency) by providing targeted recom-

mendations and knowledge (PAWS2009).With each project, PAWS seeks to build what Vice Chair Graham Setterfield described

as a legacy of contact. In 2007, two UK partners went to Nigerias Bauchi state to assist

Fig. 1 A conceptual diagram illustrating the circular PAWS project process and partner interactions


1 3


7/15

with a solar-powered water supply scheme conceived by WaterAid and Dass Women

Multipurpose Cooperative Union. The partners advised on technical aspects of the project

and identified barriers to expanding the scheme (lack of data on existing infrastructure,

poor water governance). The Bauchi project team then began collecting the missing data

and implementing partner recommendations, which led to infrastructure upgrades. Thepartners have returned each year since 2007, and in 2009 prepared a final plan for

expansion of the solar-powered water supply scheme (PAWS 2009).

During our interviews we were repeatedly told that the four country managers are

instrumental to PAWSs success. The managers, all nationals, must operate at relatively

high level politically and have a keen understanding of the water policy landscape within

their country. Gabriel Ekanem, the Nigerian country manager, stated that having an

understanding of, and being involved in, the national water policy dialog helps ensure that

PAWSs work is in-line with a national plan and thus demand-driven. Country managers

tend to be well versed in water management, a skill that positions them to more effectively

to identify the type of capacity-building intervention that best suits a certain project.Interviewees describe the PAWS capacity-building process as longer and more complex

than a funding intervention. Ismail said PAWSs approach requires that beneficiaries

understand exactly what PAWS partners in the UK can offerand what they cannot. It

also requires that someone identify, evaluate and ultimately select projects in-country, a

responsibility that falls to a lone country manager. It has been difficult for the partnership

to clearly articulate its offering in regions that are used to traditional development models,

which emphasize money and consultancy over capacity building, knowledge transfer and

long-term relationship building. Ismail described potential beneficiaries as skeptical that

they will receive just another piece of consultancy work.PAWS differs from traditional financing or aid interventions. Traditional forms of aid

took root with the Marshall Plan, a post-World War II aid program for European recon-

struction. Such interventions consist of financial flows, technical assistance and com-

modities given by the residents of one country to the residents of another country, as either

grants or loans. Traditional forms of foreign aid are criticized by economists such as

Milton Friedman, Peter Bauer and William Easterly. Bauer, a development economist and

an ardent critic of foreign aid, views aid as a transfer of resources from the taxpayer of a

donor country to the government of a recipient country, a mere subsidy from rich

countries (Bauer1975). Friedman has argued that aid strengthens central governments,

doing more harm than good (Friedman and Friedman1982). Easterly finds that the primaryobjective of foreign aid, that of spurring economic growth, has failed (Easterly 2003).

Moreover, other critics of traditional forms of aid view it as a political tool that distorts

incentives and invites corruption. The largely ineffective policy of conditionality, or tied

aid, practiced by international donors such as the IMF and World Bank has also drawn

numerous criticisms.

3.4 Supply, demand and financing

Interviewees think of supply and demand in terms of (1) the supply of UK partners and (2)the demand for human resources from projects. From this perspective, the supply of

partners available to provide assistance is robust. There are 26 UK business partners

involved in PAWS, including 12 of the countrys largest water companies (See Table1).

The PAWS secretariat is comprised of members with strong ties to the UK water sector,

including the chair and vice chair, who can leverage their connections and call upon, as the

vice chair said, the resources of virtually every water company in the UK. However,


1 3


8/15

Setterfield noted that due to a highly variable demand for their offering, some partners

rarely get the chance to act as partner, and many have yet to send any employees to Africa.

PAWSs 20072008 Annual Report notes that only nine of the 26 UK partner organiza-

tions donated time to capacity building that year (PAWS2008).

The imbalance of supply and demand arises because it is much easier to engage UKpartners than it is to locate projects that have the absorptive capacity to benefit from

technical assistance and additional human resources. However, the supply of partners itself

is variable owing to the fact that would-be volunteers are often required to work on critical

issues in the UK, rendering them unable to travel to projects in Africa. As interviewees

noted, there are certain times of year when specific skills are unavailable since they are

demanded at home. Other explanations for this imbalance may be that partners are

involved merely for public relations purposes or that there are power imbalances within the

partnership itself. Interviewees, however, reject these notions and emphasize the demand-

side of the equation, asserting that as PAWS builds its reputation in target countries,

demand will increase rapidly and more partners will become involved.Though PAWS is currently in disequilibrium (with more supply than demand), one

interviewee felt that as the model becomes better known, other countries will generate

Table 1 PAWS partners

Private sector (26) Public/Government sector (8) Civil society/NGO (6)

Africapractice

Anglian WaterAtkinsBristol Water

British Water

Bournemouth & West

Hampshire Water

Demeter Utility SolutionsLimited

Develop Training LtdHalcrowInformation and Performance

Services Ltd

K&L GatesKelda GroupMott MacDonaldMouchelNomencaNorth Midland Construction

Northumbrian Water

Seven Trent Water

Southern Water

South East Water

South West Water

United Utilities

Water UKWessex Water

WRcYorkshire Water

Cranfield University

DEFRADFIDDrinking Water InspectorateBritish Foreign &

Commonwealth OfficeEnvironment AgencyOFWATWEDC

Building Partnerships for Development

Chartered Institution of Water andEnvironmental ManagementInternational Water AssociationTearfundUnisonWaterAida

WWF

UK water utilities are identified in italics (PAWS2009)a WaterAid is not identified as a partner on the PAWS website; however, country managers in Ethiopia andNigeria work from within WaterAid.


1 3


9/15

projects suited to absorb PAWSs technical assistance, potentially swinging supply and

demand out of balance in the opposite direction. PAWSs own projections suggest that this

imbalance will be corrected in 2010 when they expect partners to donate more than

680 days to capacity building (PAWS 2009). Setterfield articulated PAWSs interest in

expanding to other countries in order to reach an equilibrium and utilize more of its partnerbase, suggesting that the partnership may begin operating outside Africa.

Viewed from this supplydemand perspective, PAWS has focused its efforts on scaling

up demand. Country managers can be instrumental in building demand for PAWSs

offering. Since country managers act as the gateway for PAWS partners into a target

country and are the ones who identify target projects, they can build demand by scoping for

projects and educating potential beneficiaries about ways to gain from capacity building,

Ekanem said. He noted that the more connected a country manager is within the national

water policy network, the more effective they may be at building demand through edu-

cation. Since the partnership views its activities within a supplydemand framework and is,

as Ismail said, focused on generating demand, the question of whether this is the appro-priate approach becomes paramount. We return to questions about supply and demand in

the discussion section.

PAWS has the ability to leverage its partners in the UK to help those in need in Africa.

Despite PAWSs demand-driven model, the organization faces serious challenges due to a

lack of funding to support even a small secretariat. During the course of our interviews,

members of PAWS including the vice chair all voiced concerns over financing, which we

identify as the main challenge to the partnerships sustainability. PAWS currently receives

funding on a decreasing basis from DFID, which has agreed to fund the secretariat for

3 years during its transition out of DEFRA. DFID will offer 1.25 million in sliding-scalefunding for 3 years starting with 543,390 in 2007 (PAWS 2006).1

PAWSs current internal debate is about how to secure financing for the secretariat and

in-country operations. Though PAWS counts many large UK companies as partners,

Setterfield noted that PAWS may not be able to secure financing from them. This is

because much of the UK water industry created and financed WaterAid, a charity that is

also a partner and host of PAWSs country managers in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania.

Setterfield said that PAWS cannot be seen as competing with WaterAid for financing from

its business partners. Head of Secretariat Clare Twelvetrees said that PAWS is likely

headed for a mixed-funding future with members potentially paying subscription fees to

finance the secretariat.Financing for projects on-the-ground comes from the target government. This config-

uration stems from the fact that PAWS attempts to work within existing national initiatives

on well-supported projects to which they can add value as demanded. Ismail said that most

of the projects that PAWS participates in are national projects already supported by

government. Though project financing comes directly from the target project, that money is

often culled from pots of development aid or from the target government itself. As

Twelvetrees said, it is not straightforward. See Fig.2for an illustration. Indeed, much of

the financing for type II partnerships such as PAWS that emerged from the WSSD is not

from new sources but rather more than 80 percent is originated from governments (Hale

1 In 20082009, PAWS received 373,000, of which it allocated 27% (97 K) to South Africa, 21%(79 K) to Ethiopia, 20% (75 K) to Nigeria, 16% (61 K) to management and governance, 6% (23 K) tofundraising, 6% to communications (24 K) and 4% (14 K) to Tanzania. Funds that are allocated tospecific countries are for in-country staff salaries and related expenses and also for the flights andaccommodations of UK partners.


1 3


10/15

and Mauzerall 2004). This suggests that business and civil society partners, though par-

ticipating more in sustainable development activities, are not providing additional money.

3.5 Public relations and external communication

Setterfield told us that PAWS now recognizes public relations as an increasingly important

strategy for establishing credibility, raising awareness, attracting new sources of financial

support and ultimately scaling up demand. Each of these areas, he said, is important to

ensuring sustainability of the partnership on all levels. Country managers stressed the need

for better awareness of partnership benefits as a means to generate demand and expressed

hope that this article itself could draw attention to PAWSs approach and help with

demand. Business partners, too, are aware of the lack of demand for their assistance, and

Setterfield said they have expressed concern that they are uninvolved or under-involved in

the partnership.

PAWS now counts Africapractice, a UK-based communications consultancy promotingresponsible investment and development in Africa, as a partner. PAWS hopes to use

Africapractices network to increase visibility and enhance awareness of its offering.

Camilla Flatt, Head of Corporate Citizenship Practice for Africapractice, said that though

internal communication is a challenge with any partnership, external communication is

particularly important in a strategic sense for PAWS, both to differentiate itself in an

increasingly crowded water and sanitation arena and to set itself apart from other part-

nerships through branding and competitive positioning.

4 Discussion

PAWS is a unique vehicle for approaching sustainable development goals in the water and

sanitation sector. As a multi-stakeholder partnership, PAWS embodies the recent inter-

national shift toward cross-sector collaboration and represents the international commu-

nitys best hopesarticulated at the WSSDwith regard to the governance of sustainable

development. We find PAWS to be a pioneering organization that has proven itself nimble,

adaptable to challenges and willing to experiment with its model. More fundamentally, the

Fig. 2 A diagram showing financial flows related to the PAWS project process. Lines with arrows indicatefinancial flows while those without indicate relationships


1 3


11/15

partnership has had a positive impact in the water and sanitation arena and made progress

to reaching the MDGs.

Evaluating an organization that engages in capacity building is difficult. As an activity,

there are few a metrics by which to measure the success of capacity building initiatives.

One could quantify the number of professionals trained or the total amount of trips takenby business partners to Africa. But even with these statistics, it would be quite difficult to

say with any precision the number of people who now have improved access to water

thanks to PAWSs work. For example, policy reforms and institutional changes initiated by

PAWS at the national level may have little effect on reducing water scarcity today but may

ultimately contribute to that goal in the long run by ensuring a strong policy environment

able to facilitate progress and absorb additional external support.

Instead of evaluating PAWS against quantifiable water and sanitation metrics, we use

the case as a framework for discussing trisector capacity building partnerships in water and

sanitation more generally. What value do these types of partnerships add to concurrent

efforts toward reaching water and sanitation MDGs? How does PAWS differ from tradi-tional aid models? Is the supplydemand framework a good way to approach capacity

building from a partnership standpoint? What steps should be taken to ensure organiza-

tional sustainability?

4.1 Value added

Capacity building partnerships such as PAWS contribute to reaching water and sanitation

MDGs by building technical and managerial expertise among groups and within projects

that have both the desire and capacity to absorb assistance. Desire here means thatcapacity building takes place within a project context explicitly supported by the target

countrys policies. This ensures that projects have the financial and political wherewithal to

be sustained in the long term, that partners can return to the project in the future and that

the capacity built contributes to reaching a critical mass past which additional interventions

become unnecessary. Indeed, capacity building efforts in water and sanitation may be for

naught if government priorities shift or if beneficiaries are improperly positioned to

leverage their new training due to lack of financing, access or relationships. By avoiding

duplication of efforts and competition, PAWS achieves greater efficiency. Stewart and

Gray call this capacity building within existing governance structures which provide[s]

the necessary skills to individuals and organizations to enable them to function moreeffectively and efficiently in their given role, and to ensure that improvements are sus-

tained once donor organizations leave (Stewart and Gray2009).

PAWS also adds value by facilitating the development of international networks and

relationships among professionals in the water and sanitation sector. By treating sustain-

able development as a reciprocal process rather than a problem to be solved through

consultancy, PAWSs interventions establish a precedent for dialog and cooperation while

promoting long-term, target-led relationships among partners from government, business

and civil society that share the same goal. Considering the slow progress toward water and

sanitation goals over the past decades, cross-sector international network building may bean important first step toward future cooperation on larger and more sophisticated projects

that go beyond capacity building. In this sense, PAWS helps establish trust, align goals and

generate long-term commitments between parties that may have had trouble working

together in the pasta function that was overlooked in previous models for water and

sanitation in the developing world.


1 3


12/15

This case study shows that PAWS is also cost-effective. Increasing access to water and

sanitation is expensive due to the high capital requirements of constructing and main-

taining complex infrastructure such as dams, water-treatment facilities, pipelines, reser-

voirs, canals and pumping stations. Employing foreign staff to build and operate this

infrastructure further escalates costs. PAWS, however, has a staff of just five people withinits secretariat who act as the coordinating mechanism between partners on different con-

tinents, both of which are already financed. UK partners contribute time on a voluntary

basis to an African project with secure financing. This means that PAWS costs very little

and yet can add significant value.

4.2 Supplydemand framework

Though interviewees repeatedly termed PAWS a demand-driven partnership and cited

lack of demand and demand scalability as primary challenges, we must ask: is PAWS

not a supply-driven partnership? Indeed, there is no shortage of supply of UK partners, andit is these partners and the secretariat that created PAWS and now want to drum up demand

for their offering. This factthat supply and demand are in disequilibriumhowever, does

not make interviewees assertions that PAWS is a demand-driven partnership any less

valid. What makes an enterprise supply-driven or demand-driven is the motivations and

operational model of the enterprise itself. In PAWSs case, capacity building interventions

are not initiated unless specific demand-side criteria (project is financed, supported by

high-level policy and has expressed interest in capacity building) are met. Thus, it is

appropriate to view PAWS as a demand-driven partnership. This is how PAWS views

itself, and it has appropriately focused on generating more demand in order to expand itsreach and impact.

Generating demand essentially means locating projects with more absorptive capacity.

The more of these projects that exist, the easier it is for PAWS to come on board and add

value. Recall the situation in South Africa following the WSSD when PAWS began by

targeting municipalities with the least amount of capacity. That strategy failed because

there was no way for projects to utilize additional human resources in the form of partners.

PAWS has since refined its strategy, but locating projects with appropriate absorptive

capacity has not become easier since this capacity must be built into a project from its

outset. The situation is akin to utilizing volunteers: there is an initial investment required to

even work with them.Thus, PAWS should work with governments to craft policies that ensure those projects

that stand to benefit from additional human resources and technical assistance have

absorptive capacity built-in. This might take the form of an increased project budget or of

additional skilled personnel, but the goal, for PAWS, is to encourage governments to

design projects with an eye toward incorporating outside professionals in the future. The

ultimate result of efforts to increase absorptive capacity among projects is that a new

pathway opens for those with water and sanitation skills to interface with projects in the

developing world.

The supplydemand framework is an appropriate way for PAWS to view its activities.This framework emphasizes deficiencies in projects and a lack of appropriate projects as

limiting factors. Thus, PAWS focuses its attention on locating projectswherever they

may be foundby utilizing its country managers and better communicating its offering.

The partnership has not yet focused on building-in absorptive capacitywhich may

require an advocacy role with both donor and recipient governmentsthough this is a

logical next step given the supplydemand framework. The result is that PAWS now


1 3


13/15

operates in four countries (not counting Uganda, which it left) and is interested in further

expansion. Were PAWS to focus more on convincing governments and donors to build-in

absorptive capacity expansion to new countries might become unnecessary.

4.3 Organizational sustainability

In order to increase funding, PAWS can create a partnership fund, a for-profit subsidiary or

impose membership or subscription fees on partners. In other words, PAWS needs to

capitalize on its members and use existing partners to expand resources. Recently,

donorsindividual and institutionalare thinking more like investors and expecting

higher returns on their social investments (Austin 2007). We recommended that PAWS

shift to this new mind-set and treat its donors and partners as investors. As such, they will

need to learn how to value their activities and assess the financial benefit they bring to an

existing project. One way to do this is to enhance the monitoring and evaluation function of

the partnership.As a partnership, PAWS should view impactrather than organizational growth or

revenue increasesas the primary metric of success. This is the metric that outsiders and

potential financiers will judge the partnership by. But as Vice Chair Setterfield noted, it can

be difficult to create any key performance indicators for quantitatively measuring

capacity building impact, since much of the work is qualitative and rooted in relationships,

training and knowledge transfer. Though the partnership does measure days worked (an

input), Setterfield noted that the partnership should focus more on outputs. He said that

presently the steering committee has simply review[ed] each project [to] see whether we

are fulfilling the needs of the country we are in. Many discussions within PAWS havefocused on how to generate more revenue to sustain the partnership, and which countries

the partnership should expand to, rather than on how to create concrete evaluation metrics.

PAWS should develop ways to document the results of their most concrete objectives

by implementing a systematic monitoring and evaluation function within the partnership.

There are quick and low-cost ways to measure impact without compromising the value of

an evaluation, such as the rapid appraisal method. This action will contribute to

accountability, serve as a learning tool and help attract more robust financing from both

internal and external parties.

4.4 Strengthening the partner network

In addition to developing ways to document results of their work, PAWS needs to find

ways to showcase that work. The first step is to develop a branding strategy. This action

will force PAWS to focus on the clarity of their identity, values and message.

PAWS may need to focus less on expanding into new countries and more on cultivating

its existing network. We recommend that PAWS concentrate on enhancing the value and

influence of each partners experience. Partners in the UK water sector benefit from

working in Africa, and this volunteer work is considered part of their own organizational

capacity building. One challenge will be to identify whether the experience gained isadding real value to partners in the UK water sector, not just in Africa. When companies

evaluate the performance of a project, they need not only question Is this project doing

something good for others? but also Is this project doing something good for us? There

is great potential in this line of reasoning. If a company wants their employees to gain

valuable experience, they will want them to work on challenging and diverse projects and

gain skills to bring back to the company. This may help justify the expense incurred by UK


1 3


14/15

partners, may encourage those partners to contribute to a partnership fund or pay a sub-

scription fee and may also have the added benefit of enhancing projects themselves.

PAWS needs to strengthen existing contacts as well as engage and diversify new

audiences. In order to achieve ambitious goals such as diversification of audiences, PAWS

may need to have a more equal balance of partners, which could aid in generating addi-tional demand and ensuring legitimacy. We recommended PAWS partner with more

community-based organizations that have on-the-ground knowledge and deep relationships

in Africa, particularly with regional and national governments. This network approach will

forge long-term partnerships with project-oriented organizations that can benefit from the

robust supply of UK partners.

5 Conclusion

As noted above, the two greatest challenges for PAWS in the future are securing fundingand utilizing their entire partner base. Uncertain as it may be, the future holds promise for

PAWS. Current projects seem successful, and the challenges mentioned by the country

managers related primarily to demand, exposure and scaling. Funding is nearly always a

challenge in multi-stakeholder partnerships, and recent fluctuations in the global financial

system only complicate matters. Our interviews and research were conducted in the spring

of 2009 during the depths of the economic crisis, and its implications were rarely far from

the conversation.

Monitoring PAWS financial situation will be fairly straightforward, as will monitoring

the demand for PAWS projects and partners. No one knows how the financial crisis willaffect aid and development, but financing will surely remain difficult. There may be

months of lag or even years before the trickle down effects of the crisis are felt, especially

as related to water and infrastructure. A new or revised model may be called for, but

continued monitoring and evaluation, enhanced branding and external communication, and

strengthening of the partner network will guide continued success.

Acknowledgments This article grew out of research conducted for a course titled PublicPrivate Part-nerships for Sustainable Development taught by Dr. Lyuba Zarsky at the Monterey Institute of Interna-tional Studies. Amer Barghouth provided extraordinary assistance during the initial stages of research thatcontributed significantly to this article. Our many thanks to both Dr. Zarsky and Mr. Barghouth as well as

the PAWS staff who facilitated this research, particularly Ms. Clare Twelvetrees.

References

Andonova, L. B. (2006). Globalization, agency, and Institutional Innovation: The Rise of Public-PrivatePartnerships in Global Governance. Goldfarb Working Paper Series, Waterville, ME, Colby College.

Andonova, L. B., & Levy, M. A. (2003). Franchising governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg type IIpartnerships. In O. S. Stokke & . B. Thommessen (Eds.), Yearbook of international co-operation onenvironment and development 2003/2004 (pp. 1931). London: Earthscan Publications.

Austin, J. E., Gutierrez, E. O. et al. (2007). Capitalizing on convergence.Stanford Social Innovation Review.Baietti, A., & Abdel-Dayem, S. (2008). A demand-driven design for irrigation and Egypt. Gridlines.Washington: The World Bank.

Bauer, P. T. (1975). N.H. Stern on substance and method in development economics. Journal of Devel-opment Economics, 2, 387405.

Benner, T., Streck, C., et al. (2003). Networks and partnerships in global environmental governance.Progress or Peril?. Washington: Global Public Policy Institute.


1 3


15/15

Biermann, F., & Chan, M.-s. (2007). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: does thepromise hold? In P. Glasbergen, F. Biermann, A. P. J. Mol, et al. (Eds.),Partnerships, governance andsustainable development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2004). Aid, policies, and growth: revisiting the evidence. Policy ResearchWorking Paper Series. Washington, DC, World Bank.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and inno-vation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 24.

Easterly, W. (2003). Can foreign aid buy growth? Journal of Economic Perspective, 17, 2348.ECO-Equity. (2002). Critical considerations about Type 2 partnerships. World summit on sustainable

development. Johannesburg: ECO-Equity.Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Glasbergen, P. (2007). Setting the scene: The partnership paradigm in the making. In P. Glasbergen, F.

Biermann, & A. P. J. Mol (Eds.), Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflectionson theory and practice (p. 328). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Gleick, P. (2006). Key trends in PPPs and drivers for change in the future . Paris: OECD Global Forum onSustainable Development.

Hale, T. N., & Mauzerall, D. L. (2004). Thinking globally and acting locally: Can the Johannesburg

partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? Journal of Environment & Development,13(3), 19.

Hall, D., Lobina, E., et al. (2005). Public resistance to privatisation in water and energy. Development inPractice, 15(3), 15.

Levinger, B. (2002). Togetherness: How governments, corporations and NGOs partner to support sus-tainable development in Latin America. Arlington, VA: Inter-American Foundation.

Miraftab, F. (2004). Publicprivate partnerships: The Trojan horse of neoliberal development? Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 24(1), 12.

PAWS (2002). Annual Report 20012002, Partners for Water and Sanitation.PAWS (2006). Annual Report 20052006, Parnters for Water and Sanitation.PAWS (2007). Annual Report 20062007, Partners for Water and Sanitation.PAWS (2008). Annual Report 20072008, Partners for Water and Sanitation.

PAWS (2009). Annual Report 20082009, Partners for Water and Sanitation.Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. New York: Penguin Press.Stewart, A., & Gray, T. S. (2009). The Governance of Water and Sanitation in Africa. London: Tauris

Academic Studies.UN. (1992). Agenda 21 (p. 350). Rio de Janerio: United Nations.UN (2009). CSD partnerships database. Retrieved 1 November, 2009, from http://webapps01.un.org/

dsd/partnerships/public/statisticsResults.do.WEF. (2005). Development-driven public-private partnerships in water. Financing for development ini-

tiative (p. 10). Geneva: World Economic Forum.Wolff, G., & Hallstein, E. (2005). Beyond privatization: Restructuring water systems to improve perfor-

mance. Oakland: The Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.World Bank (2009). Poverty and social impact analysisGlossary. Retrieved 12 Nov 2009, from

http://go.worldbank.org/7BKU4R5560.World Water Assessment Programme (2009). The United Nations World Water Development Report 3:

Water in a Changing World. Paris.WWF (2009). 5th World Water Forum Final Report. Istanbul, World Water Forum: 190.


1 3
http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/statisticsResults.dohttp://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/statisticsResults.dohttp://go.worldbank.org/7BKU4R5560http://go.worldbank.org/7BKU4R5560http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/statisticsResults.dohttp://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/statisticsResults.do

building capacity with demand-driven partnerships

Documents