from idea to partnership - netherlands · 10/23/2008 · from idea to partnership: reviewing the...

Rob van Tulder and Stella Pfisterer23 October 2008

This report has been based on the input of the following field researchers: Ken Caplan Tom

Harrison, David Schaub Jones, Alinani Simukonda and Santiago Porto (of BPD) and Willem

Würdemann. The project was coordinated and supervised by Gemma Crijns (Ecsad). We

gratefully acknowledge their invaluable support, solid reporting and critical comments to the

analytical framework. Further support for the desk research and the organization of the field

research was provided by the staff of DGIS in The Hague and at the various Embassies.

Feedback was received from DGIS staff and the embassy of Ghana.

From Idea to Partnership:

Reviewing the Effectiveness of Development Partnerships in

Zambia, Columbia and Ghana

Findings from a

Review of six Partnerships from a ‘Call for Ideas’ by DGIS

1

Table of Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................3

1. INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND OF THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACH .........7

2. ASSESSING PARTNERSHIPS: METHODOLOGY AND CASE BACKGROUND ...92.1 Framework of analysis for partnerships...............................................................................................................92.2 Review process ............................................................................................................................................10

3. PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNERING PATTERNS ..............................................13

[A] INPUT ....................................................................................................................................................13A.1 Individual drivers.......................................................................................................................................13A.2 Resources .................................................................................................................................................13

[B] THROUGHPUT.....................................................................................................................................14B.1 Roles .......................................................................................................................................................14B.2 Typology of partnerships ...............................................................................................................................15B.3 Stakeholder management ..............................................................................................................................16B.4 Brokerage .................................................................................................................................................16B.5 Partnering governance ..................................................................................................................................16

[C] OUTPUT.................................................................................................................................................19C.1 Results and successful goal alignment ...............................................................................................................19C.2 Sustainability............................................................................................................................................20

[D] OUTCOME ............................................................................................................................................21D.1 Contribution to MDGs...............................................................................................................................21D.2 Impact on value chain upgrading ....................................................................................................................22

[E] EFFICIENCY.........................................................................................................................................23E.1 Cost-benefit ratio........................................................................................................................................23E.2 Critical success factors..................................................................................................................................23

[F] EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................................................24F.1 Was a partnership necessary?.........................................................................................................................24F.2 Value-added .............................................................................................................................................25F.3 Individual objectives achieved? ........................................................................................................................25F.4 Partnership identity.....................................................................................................................................25

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................264.1 Addressing the sources of failure......................................................................................................................264.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................................274.2.1 Recommendations for partnerships.................................................................................................................274.2.2 Recommendations for DGIS and RNE.........................................................................................................274.2.3 Recommendations for further research and assessments on partnerships ....................................................................28

5. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................30

6. APPENDICES........................................................................................................32Appendix 1: Resources brought in by sectors............................................................................................................32Appendix 2: Role scheme ...................................................................................................................................33Appendix 3: Transaction and additional costs .........................................................................................................34

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 7

Deleted: 8

Deleted: 9

Deleted: 10

Deleted: 9

Deleted: 10

Deleted: 10

Deleted: 11

Deleted: 13

Deleted: 14

Deleted: 13

Deleted: 14

Deleted: 13

Deleted: 14

Deleted: 13

Deleted: 14

Deleted: 14

Deleted: 15

Deleted: 14

Deleted: 15

Deleted: 15

Deleted: 16

Deleted: 16

Deleted: 17

Deleted: 16

Deleted: 17

Deleted: 16

Deleted: 17

Deleted: 19

Deleted: 20

Deleted: 19

Deleted: 20

Deleted: 20

Deleted: 21

Deleted: 21

Deleted: 22

Deleted: 21

Deleted: 22

Deleted: 22

Deleted: 23

Deleted: 23

Deleted: 24

Deleted: 23

Deleted: 24

Deleted: 23

Deleted: 24

Deleted: 24

Deleted: 25

Deleted: 24

Deleted: 25

Deleted: 25

Deleted: 26

Deleted: 25

Deleted: 26

Deleted: 25

2

Appendix 4: Reviewed critical success factors ...........................................................................................................35Appendix 5: Overview covered indicators in interview protocol ......................................................................................37

Table of FiguresFigure 1: Framework of analysis for partnershipsFigure 2: Partnership assessment phases Figure 3: Ambitions of partnerships reviewed

Table 1: Overview of reviewed partnershipsTable 2: Drivers to partner (top three per sector)Table 3: Role scheme per partnership Table 4: Typology of partnershipsTable 5: Partnership goal-alignmentTable 6: Partnership contribution to MDGsTable 7: Effectiveness in addressing the source of failure

Acronyms and Abbreviations:DGIS – Department of Development Cooperation at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign AffairsECSAD – Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development CooperationJV – Joint VentureMDG – Millennium Development GoalsMoU – Memorandum of UnderstandingNGO – Non-Governmental OrganizationPPP – Public Private PartnershipRNE – Royal Netherlands EmbassyZAMAC – Zambian Agricultural Marketing CompanyWSSD – World Summit on Sustainable Development

Deleted: 35

Deleted: 36

Deleted: 37

Deleted: 38

3

Executive SummaryThis is the synthesis report for the Directorate for Development Cooperation (DGIS) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a Review of the effectiveness of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in development. This Review was executed by a team consisting of experts from Bussiness partners for Development (BPD) headed by Mr. Ken Caplan and Mr. Willem Würdemann. The project was coordinated by the Expert Centre of Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation1 (ECSAD). The findings presented in this report are based on desk research as well as on three field review missions in Zambia, Columbia and Ghana, covering a total of six partnerships.

In 2002, the Dutch minister for development cooperation stated that a good way to discover whether partnerships could deliver on their promise was to “learn by doing”. Through a ‘Call for Ideas’ issued in late 2003, the minister invited private companies to submit ideas for PPP’s that could contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development. Early in 2007,DGIS started to reflect on the results of the ‘learning by doing’ approach. Reviewing partnerships in the course of their execution, however, is a new and challenging task that requires rather novelmethods which cover a large number of dimensions of the partnering process as well as requirebroad assessments of outcomes. ECSAD, which had already been involved in several project phases of the set-up of the partnership programme and provided ongoing policy recommendations on partnerships to DGIS, developed a framework for analyzing the effectiveness of development partnerships and organized this first in-situ review of the project resulting from the ‘Call for Ideas’. The leading research question was: do/can partnerships between public, civic and private parties (PPP’s) and supported by the Dutch Government contribute efficiently and effectively to achieving Millenium Development Goals ?

This synthesis report provides the following key messages for research, policy and the practice of partnerships:

1. Relevance of Partnerships. Partnerships are a novel and relevant strategy towards achieving the goals of development cooperation. Not only donors are focusing on partnerships as new instrument to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, but they are also becoming more relevant in developing countries themselves. Partnerships feed well into the increased desire of developing countries’ governments for a constant dialogue with relevant stakeholders as well as the need for capacity building.

2. Value of Partnerships. The review demonstrates that partnerships, indeed, can play a useful role in addressing development goals and in leveraging funds both in the development of value chain processes as well as in the delivery of public goods and services. Partnerships have the potential to effectively address the ‘source of failure in society’ and thus, they can be a solution to some development problems. Moreover, the review demonstrated that partnerships are increasingly viewed as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for achieving the individual objectives of participants. The success of partnerships thereby depends on whether capacity building has been ‘built in’ the original partnership agreement. Partnerships contribute to process upgrading (investments in technology and infrastructure). Effective

1 The Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation (ECSAD) is a network of institutions: Sustainable Development Centre (Maastricht School of Management); Amsterdam Graduate Business School (University of Amsterdam); Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University Rotterdam); European Institute for Business Ethics (Nyenrode University) and Wageningen University and Research Centre. The complementary skills and expertises of the network increase the knowledge of the role and functioning of international and local business in promoting economic growth and sustainable development in countries in transition. For more information see: http://www.ecsad.nl/

4

partnerships are a mechanism to include social activities in a private company’s core business.Present partnerships managed to effectively address market and civic sources of failure, but have difficulties in addressing governance failure.

3. Relevance of the evaluation framework. The analytical framework – including the detailed interview protocol - contains the most relevant dimensions of the partnership project; it adequately covers the dynamism of the actual partnership and provides relevant evaluation questions for efficiency and effectiveness even when the projects are still underway. The review included four ‘finished’ partnerships and two projects which are still underway. The framework addresses the challenges of integrating collaboration process into performance measurement systems, thus contributing to relationship performance as well as to program outcomes.

4. Lessons learned. A conclusive cost-benefit analysis of the partnerships is not yet completely feasible in particular because none of the partners (including the embassies) have kept systematic track of the (additional) cost dedicated to the partnership. But the review provides a large number of intermediary lessons to further more effective and efficient partnership approaches.

Main lessons learnedPartnership explorationPartnerships should be relevant to key business or key organisational objectives of each stakeholderFor all partners, the closer the activity is aligned to the organizations’ key business or organisational objectives, the more likely the partnership will be successful. From a business perspective, a project seen as purely philanthropic is unlikely to gain institutional buy-in and commitment (BPD, 2002). The same is relevant for the public sector and donor: several partnerships were building up without falling under core-competence of the RNEs. In order to contribute to added-value the partnership should be in line with the sector focus of the RNE.

• Good partnerships bring together partners with complementary goals and interests;• It is important to acknowledge that not all resources for a successful partnership are material or financial.

Clear set of initial criteria Introducing the concepts, opportunities and risks of partnering to all partners at an early stage, so that partners are aware of the benefits and costs. This can extend to developing capacity of individual organizations to partner if this is required. The selection process from donors side must be transparent and comprehensive:

o Criteria concerning the desired development objectiveso Criteria defining the expected contribution of the private sectoro Eligibility criteria

Partnership BuildingSignificant time needs to be allocated to building consensusTime and effort must be dedicated to the building of mutual respect amongst partners; otherwise consensus will be difficult to build. A lack of time and attention allocated to nurturing and maintaining the relationships can be a clear indication of troubles ahead. Partners need to share an overarching realistic goalAll partners have different incentives and drivers which have to be understood and respected by the other partners. Partners need to agree on outputs and expected outcomes. The outcome must be realistic to achieve with the capability of the partners involved. It should concentrate on realistic social investments. The involvement of sector specialists can be helpful. Sector specialists could be part of an advisory group that can help the partners to review the project design as it emerges.

• A sophisticated ‘business model’ (of the outcome of the project and the way it is governed), helps to steer the partnering process in more effective directions;

• A successful partnership relationship is one that has developed its own partnership identity.Partnerships need mutual respectPartnerships can thrive in an environment where there is little direct trust between partners. This represents a large number of projects. Partnerships need not based on trust but on mutual respect for the individual motives and contributions.Partnerships are not free from internal competitionThere can be competition between the partners themselves. Partners compete amongst each other for responsibility and for reputation. Partners can indeed compete with the ‘partnership’ itself (either in its business line, for reputation or for funding). As conflicts of interest can clearly arise the ‘rule of the game’ should be clearly negotiated in advance between the various partners

5

Governance structures need to be robust and dynamicStrong focus on governance and accountability structures of the partnership and the project: when designing the accountability structure of a PPP, the primary principle must be to empower the partnership:

• Support for a more rigorous discussion upfront about partner motivations, objectives and ‘bottom-lines’ (governance modes) helps partnerships

• Including room for renegotiation at the start of the partnership is worthwhile considering in the governance structure

• The decision-making structure of a partnership should facilitate a transition from ‘governance’ to ‘action’.• An asymmetrical balance of power in the board level can influence performance (if consequences for

asymmetrical degrees of motivation are not taken seriously)• Steering Committees as appropriate governance form have been underdeveloped in almost all

partnerships.• External accountability: it proved difficult – but vital - to have a transparent selection procedure of

external beneficiaries.• Timely exit strategies are important for effective partnerships.

Involve stakeholders from the onsetEarly involvement and support of the local communities and local staff is often a requirement – also at the management level. Foreign management should have local counterparts from the start on.

• Role of Embassies throughout the whole process is vital (but contains different roles at different moments)• Donors mistakenly consider their role as rather passive; this proofs an underestimation of the actual

dynamism of the partnership and the requirements for effectiveness• Sophisticated partnership typologies help in characterizing the nature of the partnership and the actual

management of it (awareness of common facilitators and inhibitors per type of partnership). Next to a classification of the institutional background of partners, a relevant distinction was found to exist between local and international projects.

• Solid stakeholder management throughout the whole project – in particular involving local communities -is critical to the success of every project in every sector. The fewer partners are involved in the process, however, the easier it is.

Involve independent brokerIndependent brokerage plays an essential role in all phases of the development of PPPs, especially in the initial phase but also during implementation. Brokerage should be locally based; clear reporting lines have to be established.Partnership periodA project period of two years of financial support is probably too short to allow a PPP to reach sufficient maturity to continue without support. The justification for this longer “incubation” period is the relative complexity of starting a PPP the need for it to span two worlds. This is particular critical in agriculture due to its seasonal character. Building capacity to manage the complexity of partneringRelevant expertise and support may need to be sourced externally to help build partnerships, and organizations. An important part of capacity building will be to understand the different work styles, cultures, and time frames of the other partner. Contracted external assistance may be required for administrative and management issues. In addition, when designing and implementing partnerships, it should be taken into consideration to include activities that might prompt and embed learning and behavioural change.Partnership MaintenanceClearly agreed working plansDelayed release of agreed funding may seriously affect partnership functioning and lead to breach of trust between private and public partners or donors. This is especially critical in agriculture related activities where a whole season may be lost due to a minor administrative delay. Flexibility and awareness of each participant’s (dynamic) roles and responsibilitiesPartnerships are dynamic; careful analysis of the context needs to inform the division of roles and responsibilities with a certain flexibility introduced so that over time this division can shift to respond to changing contexts. Regular review the process Partnering should demonstrate value for each sector so monitoring and evaluation of partnerships is a key element of partnership maintenance. This means to have a strong monitoring system in place which can be used effectively. Regular reviews provide continuous feedback.Partnership CompletionEnd a partnership when necessaryOnce agreed upon in funding agreement criteria should be in principle be adhered to throughout a PPP project/partnership. This implies that a PPP project could be ended if a private sector partner no longer is able to meet its financial commitments.Finding linkages

6

Ensuring sustainability by finding linkages with other projects, sectors or investors.Exit strategyIn some partnerships many of the communities were expecting the project to carry on providing training and loans. Managing expectations and the exit strategy process have to be clearly defined and communicated.Consequences for main stakeholders: [1] DGIS DGIS and the embassies need to (1) broaden own role; (2) take the local context more into account when designing new projects; (3) build up in particular capacity to partner with the private sector; (4) support systematic and continuous exchange and accumulation of knowledge and experience of partnerships. Embassies might receive a monitoring role earlier in the partnering process. Building up the capacity to keep track of tangible and intangible costs and benefits during projects is a vital prerequisite for efficient partnerships.Consequences for main stakeholders: [2] CompaniesCompanies need to help build in particular a business model for the partnership project. In case companies use the partnership initiative as another possibility to receive subsidies for already existing activities, the partnership is bound to fail. Companies should chose partnerships for those circumstances where there is clear ‘market failure’ and the partners have complementry assets and skills. The partnership should help them to invest in a ‘sustainable corporate story’ that not only lowers risks, but also creates a sustainable competitive advantage.Consequences for main stakeholders: [3] NGOsNGOs have to depart from a clear recognition that they are limited in reaching specific development goals on their own. In case they are not convinced that ‘markets’ can complement their own efforts, the partnerships is doomed to fail. At the same time, one of the biggest challenges for NGOs in partnerships is on the one hand to create sufficient support for the project within the own organization (‘draagvlak’ not to frustrate the partnership), while on the other hand keeping sufficient independence of the commerical or governmental party to contribute effectively to the resilience of the partnership. Goal alignment for NGOs in particular requires that they understand the complementary logic of the market in favour of a ‘sustainable business model’ for the future of the partnership. It will help in limiting the ‘subsidy’ character of the project and create higher levels of sustainability.

7

1. INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND OF THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACHThere is an increasing recognition that sustainable economic development and sustainable societies more generally are better attainable through the combined efforts of stakeholders from different societal spheres – state, civil society and business. All actors that are active in developing countries are prone to some sort of ‘failure’ in their operations (Kolk et al., 2008):

[1] Failures of government or governance are coupled with overly bureaucratic procedures, unaccountable governments and a concentration of political power with national counterparts; as regards development aid, this factor points at the limited power of governments to support development ‘top down’ (also sometimes referred to as the ‘aid curse’).[2] Market Failure occurs in case of a concentration of wealth in a few, monopoly positions (information failure), credit rationing, the passing of costs (negative externalities of pollution or of big development projects) to others and a shortage in the production of public goods; as regards development problems, this factor points at the fact that in particular Multinational Enterprises can have positive, but also negative effects (crowding-out for instance) on local economies and that markets are not a panacea for development.

[3] Civil society failures occur when special interest groups or elites – either on the basis of religion or other ‘club goods’ – prevail in defining the ‘common good’; as regards development, this factor is behind the often limited effectiveness of religious or other ‘do-good’ co-financing organizations (MFS) towards establishing development ‘bottom up’.

Sustainable development to a large extent depends on the balance that can be established between the three societal spheres and the extent to which the various forms of ‘failure’ can be addressed. The notion of ‘partnerships’, therefore, can be seen as a process in which partners commit to long-term, structural interaction based on a shared analysis that every actor suffers from a number of failures, consequently a shared vision of sustainability and a shared ambition that all partners should play a role in its achievement.

The number of public-private collaboration efforts is growing and the notion of partnerships has become central part of official development policy in a growing number of countries. Following the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg where governments were encouraged to launch new partnerships, more than 300 partnerships had been registered by the UN secretariat by the end of 2006. The introduction of the eighth Millennium Development Goal (MDG) ‘global partnership for development’ strongly stimulated this evolution.

The Dutch partnership approachSince the end of the 1990s there has been significant interest in the role that PPP’s can play in contributing to poverty reduction and sustainable development in developing countries. Following the WSSD, the Dutch government put the MDGs at the centre of its policy, acknowledging that partnerships could play an important role in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the development assistance effort. The government underlined that by generating additional knowledge and resources, results can be achieved that benefit all parties and which they could not have achieved on an individual basis (Reinicke et al., 2000). In late 2003, the Dutch government launched a ‘Call for Ideas’ to “involve the private sector more actively in the development process of developing countries. Its objective was to support private sector initiatives for public-private partnerships, additional to exiting development cooperation efforts, by implementing more pro-poor activities, and generating extra funds and results” (Ministry of

8

Development Cooperation, 2003). The total amount reserved for the purpose was € 20 million. In spite of the relatively long list of requirements, over 400 ideas were submitted, of which 153 complied with minimum requirements and were judged on their relevance to the Call. In the end, however, the Ministry approved around 18 proposals of which 14 are in progress or finished. In 2006 ECSAD made a first evaluation of the process of this call (Kostwinder and Van Tulder, 2006)

The Dutch Directorate General of Development Cooperation (DGIS) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now support some 50 PPP’s. The ‘Schokland Akkoord’ in 2007 added another number of partnership initiatives that are planned to commence in the 2008-2009 period. Early 2007, a review was commissioned to ECSAD and a number of external consultants of 14 PPP’s that received DGIS support following the “Call for Ideas”. This review was intended to reflect on the role PPP’s can play as an instrument for Dutch development cooperation. By facilitating a learning process involving not only DGIS and the embassies but also the local partners the review was not intended as an solid evaluation of the results obtained in the 14 pilot PPP’s –many of them are not yet finished for instance - but as a forward looking and interactive exercise regarding the process of partnership building and with the aim to develop a good evaluation model and review method.

This report discusses the findings of this partnership review. The report is structured as follows: In section two, the methodology, the review process and the reviewed cases are outlined. In section three, the findings are presented and discussed. Section three gives special attention to roles of partners in partnerships, partnering governance systems, results and goal-alignment as well as to the contribution of partnerships to the MDGs. By focusing on the ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’ of the PPPs, the report seek to analyze in detail cost-benefit ratio, critical success factors, lessons learned and added value of the partnerships. Aim of the review is to discuss lessons learned from the reviewed partnerships and provide feed-back to partnership practitioners, policy officers, and researchers. Section four, finally, provides recommendations to each of the groups listed above. The appendices include more findings such as resources brought in by each sector, transaction and additional costs, a full list of critical success factors, role schemes and an overview of the indicators of the evaluation model as covered by the reviewers.

9

2. ASSESSING PARTNERSHIPS: METHODOLOGY AND CASE BACKGROUNDAssessing partnerships involves gaining an insight in their (1) efficiency and (2) effectiveness. Evaluative activities can take place at different stages during the design and implementation of a partnership. These activities may be formative or summative:

• Formative evaluation (review) is undertaken during the implementation phase to gain a better understanding of what is being achieved and to identify how the programme or project can be improved;

• Summative evaluation is carried out after implementation to assess effectiveness, and to determine results and overall value.

Since there is not yet much experience in the review of partnerships in development cooperation, the focus of present assessment studies on partnerships should facilitate a systematic coverage of the ‘lessons learned’ from the projects to give feed-back on how to improve the design and implementation of partnerships. The challenge of the present approach, therefore, is to combine formative and summative evaluation mechanisms.

Partnership assessments enable:• to provide evidence on how to improve partnership performance based on experiences

and lessons learned at different project stages (partnership exploration, partnership building and partnership monitoring);

• to provide for internal justification as well as for overall accountability of the partnership; • to adjust the partnership on the basis of intermediary results;• to inform decisions on future policy as well as on upscaling;• and to learn from the process of conducting partnership assessments.

2.1 Framework of analysis for partnershipsReview and evaluation research on public-private partnerships in a development context, is not yet well established. Assessment frameworks of these collaborative ventures have largely been focused on tangible project outputs rather than a review of the true effectiveness of the partnership. Given that partnerships require significant time and resources to develop and maintain, understanding how to maximize their added-value becomes critical (cf. Caplan et al.,2007; Kolk et al., 2008).

ECSAD developed an analytical framework and a detailed interview and dialogue protocol to evaluate the efficiency/effectiveness of partnerships (Van Tulder and Kostwinder, 2008). Theanalytical framework aims to measure the efficiency of the process of partnership building and the effectiveness of the PPP instrument. The analytical framework is based on the premise that most partnerships go through comparable stages. Basically the partnership process consists of four dimensions: (a) input, (b) throughput, (c) output, and (d) outcome; and has two evaluative dimensions: (e) efficiency and (f) effectiveness (Figure 1).

10

Figure 1: Framework of analysis for partnerships

Source: van Tulder and Kostwinder, 2008

2.2 Review processIn total three countries – each containing two PPPs – were selected for in-situ reviews. The selection for these six projects was based on the following criteria:

• availability of embassy staff for support activities;• reasonable spread over types of partnership: bi-partite, tri-partite;• partnerships involving local as well as international partners;• public utility partnerships as well as partnerships organised in international value chains;• two African countries as well as one Latin American country (for comparison);• partnerships in different phases of completion.

The total review consisted of desktop research of the selected PPP’s and three missions to Zambia, Ghana and Colombia executed by consultants in the period of September 2007 until February 20082. In each mission two partnerships were reviewed through a series of focused interviews with major stakeholders as well as stakeholder workshops and dialogues held during the missions. Table 1 lists the six projects, their purpose and the used methodology.

2 The missions were performed by the following consultants:

• Zambia (10-19 September 2007) : Willem Würdemann (international economist and agricultural expert), Alinani Simukonda (local consultant) and David Schaub Jones (international specialist in partnership approaches from Building partnerships for development)

• Colombia (6 day visit in January 2007): Santiago Porto (international specialist in partnership approaches from Building Partnerships for Development)

• Ghana (13-22 February 2008): Tom Harrison (international specialist in partnership approaches from Building Partnerships for Development) and Willem Würdemann (see above).

11

Table 1: Overview of reviewed partnershipsPartnership Purpose MethodologyZambiaP1. ZAMAC (market led sustainable agricultural development for small farmers)

Improve livelihood of small farmers through value addition, cost savings and increased transparency in the market chain for grain, sorghum, corn etc.

P2. Liuwa National Plains Park

Re-establishment of Liuwa National Plain Park as functioning eco-system for the benefit of the population and the ecosystem

Interviews (24 respondents)

Practitioner-Policymaker PPP Dialogue (10 participants)

ColombiaP3. Coffee Growing Families

Improve livelihood of coffee growing families in Nariño province


Stakeholder Dialogue Workshop (17 participants)

P4. Promigas (Fund for connecting rural people to a natural gas distribution network)

Improve livelihood for over 10,000 households though their connection to the natural gas distribution network linked with economic initiatives and support for micro-entrepreneurs


Assumed: Stakeholder Dialogue Workshop (13 participants)

GhanaP5. Knowledge and Skills Centre (KSC)

Vocational training institute established that delivers well trained technicians for companies in the agri-sector

P6. Sustainable Fisheries Establishment of a commercial and sustainable supply chain of fresh tuna loins to the EU market

Interviews (incl. groupmeetings) (20 respondents)

Interviews (incl. groupmeetings) (13 respondents)

Stakeholder Dialogue Workshop (10 participants)

In all missions the reviewers worked with the analytical framework as research tool, what enables comparison of findings. Disadvantage of this methodology is that information available may be incomplete and/or biased, while the reviewers might be less flexible in addressing local ideosyncracies. Some questions were not applicable for every partnership or proved difficult to address (see Appendix 5). Difficulties appeared because of the relatively short period of visit and the level of detail needed to consider all relevant questions. This makes generalization somewhat troublesome. Because the partnership assessments took place at different stages of the partnership, some focused more on outcomes, while others primarily on the process of the partnerships. Figure 2 specifies the approximate phase of the partnership process in which the review took place for each of the six projects.

12

It is clear that unique local features may have a substantial impact on the success of inter-sectoral collaboration. This makes it additionally difficult to generalise from individual cases. Thus, the analytical framework has been used to identify factors and circumstances in which success of partnerships is more or less likely, rather than to come up with universal lessons.

Partnership Exploration

Partnership Building

Partnership Maintaining

• P5. Knowledge and Skills Centre

• P6. Sustainable Fisheries

Partnership Phase-out

• P1. Liuwa Plain National Park(finalized Dec 2006)

• P2. ZAMAC (finalized April 2007)• P3. Coffee Growing Families (finalized

Dec 2007)• P4. Promigas (finalized Dec 2007)

Figure 2: Partnership assessment phases

Review (process oriented)Evaluation (result oriented)oriented)

13

3. PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNERING PATTERNS

[A] INPUT

A.1 Individual drivers Individual partners have specific goals and motives for joining the partnership which reflect their ambitions. These goals and motives are strongly influenced by their societal position (market, state and civil society). Partnerships are based on the premise that risks are allocated to the partner most able to manage them; where a public sector partner is unable to manage political risk (or policy failure) this can cause problems; equally where a private partner is unable to manage commercial risk (or market failure). As a result, the drivers to partner are potentially conflicting and the motivation to participate differed. This was also found in the projects. Table 2lists the top three drivers per sector (the institutional background of partner). There are substantial differences in the drivers for partnerships, but they are more or less what could be expected from each participant: (1) firms seek for markets and legitimacy, (2) governments search for investments and support for public goods, (3) societal organizations search for raising the effectiveness of their development efforts. In principle these drivers can be considered complementary, which is a vital precondition for the success of PPPs.

Table 2: Drivers to partner (top three per sector)Private Sector State Civil SocietyMarket expansion/new investment opportunities/vast markets

Stimulating local investments Contribution to realizing development issue

Higher worker productivity Provision of private goods: enabling environment for private sector development

Influencing core business of companies

Social license to operate Enhanced environmental and social compliance standards

Raising awareness for development issue

A.2 ResourcesThe success of the partnership also relies on the competencies and resources that are brought in by each partner. It proved important to recognize that not all resources are material. Contributions can entail the hard resources of money and materials, as well as important soft resources, such as managerial and technical skills, information, contacts, and credibility/legitimacy. Mutuality in a partnership implies mutual dependence among partners due to the unique and indispensable contributions each of them makes. The review missions (see Appendix 1) showed that private companies generally brought in financial resources and project/management skills. Governments in the respective countries contributed with regulatory powers and a holistic vision of the project, within the context of community and country-wide development goals. The review also demonstrated that the participation of civil society organizations was particularly important, because they bring in local knowledge, commitment to the communities and training and capacity building. Donor organizations in practice providedmainly funding in form of grants and additional financing of services and project supervision.

14

[B] THROUGHPUT

B.1 Roles Depending on their societal background, partners play different roles that indirectly reflect their level of involvement. The review demonstrated that each sector can play a variety of roles (see Table 3; for a definition of these roles see Appendix 2). The roles of the partners are strongly contingent upon the type of partnership and organization of the project (e.g. joint venture).

Table 3: Role scheme per partnershipP1. ZAMAC

P2. Liuwa Park

P3. Coffee Growing Families

P4. Promigas

P5. Knowledge and Skills Centre

P6. Sustainable Fisheries

Role private sectorImplementer (incl. investments)

X X X X X X

Investor (excl. implementation)

X X X

Consultant X XRole (local) public sectorFormal active partner X XPassive partner/ facilitating role

X X X

Secondary stakeholder X XRole civil society organizations/NGOsImplementer X X XCapacity building and or technical assistance

X

Broker X XRole donorFunder and Broker/ Facilitator

X X X X X X

Passive Funder X XActive involvement

The private sector was in all projects responsible for implementation and coordination. In some PPPs (Liuwa Plain National Park; Coffee Growing Families and Promigas) also an NGO becameinvolved in implementation. It proved a success to involve an experienced civil society organization in the project management, process monitoring and capacity building. NGOs can build up trust between communities and private sector

In most projects, the local authorities acted as ‘sleeping partners’; they signed the initial partnership agreement but they became not actively involved, despite the fact that some business models required government support to some extent for building an enabling environment (role as external regulators).

The role of DGIS and the RNEs changed in many partnerships during the various partnership phases:

o In the partnership exploration and building phase, DGIS built a gateway to its public funding by encouraging and assisting but also moulding the PPP to suit its own objectives.

Partnership

Role

15

o In the partnership maintaining phase, DGIS and RNEs are more controlling the funding. RNEs supervised the partnerships; in cases where Steering Committees were set up the donor had a broker role.

There is a tendency for donors to view their role in partnerships as identical to their role in normal projects i.e. primarily as “funder”. In reality, however, roles are more complex and the internal dynamics of the relationships greatly impact the achievement of the donor’s development goals.

B.2 Typology of partnershipsDepending on the role that the different partners play, different forms of partnerships arise (Kostwinder, 2006). All partnerships reviewed are oriented at the participating company’s core activities at a particular country or specific project (so-called micro-partnerships). The strategic dimension of the partnership is relevant for assessing its efficiency. Three types of partnerships exist: (1) private-non profit; (2) public-private; (3) tripartite. The first type of partnership includes firms and NGOs. A major challenge for these partnerships is how to align the non-profit aims of the NGO with the profit aim of the private firm. The second type of partnership includes governments and firms. The major challenge for these partnerships is aligning the provision of public and private goods at the same time. The third type of partnership include all three actors. The major challenge is here primarily how to prevent ‘free-riders’ from developing.

Table 4 clusters the reviewed partnerships along these three strategic dimensions. It distinguishesbetween ‘partnership level’ and ‘project level’ (see also B.5). On the partnership level, the donoris automatically a ‘non-local, public’ signatory of the partnership agreement. The donor exerts influence on the partnership, but plays different roles in the partnership and the donor role is often shifting (as discussed in B.1).

Table 4: Typology of partnership Private- non profit(firm-NGO)

Public-private(government-firm)

Tripartite(government-firm-NGO)

Local § P1. ZAMAC § P4. Promigas

-- --

Local-non-local § P3. Coffee Growing Families

§ P2. Liuwa Plain National Park§ P2. Liuwa National

Park§ P5. Knowledge and

Skills Centre§ P5. Knowledge and

Skills Centre

§ P1. ZAMAC § P4. Promigas§ P3. Coffee Growing Families§ P6. Sustainable Fisheries

Development Ghana§ P6. Sustainable Fisheries

Development Ghana

International -- -- --

This typology proved relevant, but in some missions additional operational classifications were considered equally helpful:

a. local PPP’s, in which purely local public, civic and private partners are involved (e.g. the ZAMAC case) ;

b. local / non-local PPP’s, in which local parties combine with partners from outside the specific country (e.g. the African Parks Zambia case where a “Dutch” private partner cooperates with the local public partner ZAWA);

16

c. international PPP’s, which do not focus on any specific country but cross borders both in area of activity and in origin of the partners, (e.g. the Sustainable Agriculture Guarantee Fund and Fair Flowers Fair Plants cases from the 2003 Call for Ideas).

B.3 Stakeholder managementThe role of the individual partners in the partnership is strongly influenced by their strategic position in the supply/value chain as either primary or secondary stakeholder. Stakeholder management is critical to the success of every project in every sector. Both partnerships in Colombia demonstrated success through a harmonious and good communication between not more than five partners involved in the partnership. The management of the sustainable fisheries development partnership in Ghana demonstrated to be more cumbersome; the involvement of more than ten stakeholders in the partnership makes the design complex and challenging. It can be concluded that for the process management it is in general easier when less partners are involved. Moreover, both partnerships in Colombia are built upon existing bilateral relations between the private partner and the civil society partner, what demonstrated to be a critical success factor.

By correctly engaging the most relevant organizations in a project its success can be seriously enhanced. Sustainability is not feasible without the participation of primary as well as secondary stakeholders in the various phases of the value chain (El-Gohary et al, 2006). In the partnerships under review, communities (often the beneficiaries of projects) were often not directly consulted in the negotiation process. In the partnership on livelihood improvement of coffee growing families in Colombia, some primary stakeholder communities were consulted during the base line study, but did not participate in project design, decision-making or identification of priorities.

B.4 BrokerageAn independent broker (whether informal or formal – but in any case active in organizing regular informal gatherings) demonstrated to be of vital importance to the development of the partnership. He/she can play a very useful role in promoting shared understanding between the partners and in developing a common ‘language’. The reviews demonstrated that a brokerage skill set should include:

o Experience and a successful track record in working with private- as well as public sector and civil society organizations;

o Understanding the local legal framework under which a PPP would have to operate;o Expertise in business-planning;o Understanding of, and expertise in, the role and functioning of credit schemes;o Local presence;o An independent position combined with a good local network of contacts in both the

private and public and civic sectors;o A highly developed skill set in areas such as negotiation skills, meeting facilitation,

drafting of partnering arrangements, and monitoring review.

B.5 Partnering governanceGovernance is a process by which a partnership is managed and regulated. Partners who seek to collaborate must understand how to jointly make decisions about the rules that will govern their behavior and relationships; they also need to create structures for reaching agreement on collaborative activities and goals through shared power arrangements. These ideas are at the heart

17

of collaboration and encompass both the negotiation and commitment processes (Thomson and Perry, 2006). The challenge for this review study is to try to capture the partnership’s evolving working arrangements, while at the same time looking at how partner relationships might be optimized in order to enhance participation and thus improve performance. An understanding of the processes involved is required in order to understand to what extent a partnership is living up its potential, or what factors are causing success or failure (Caplan et al., 2007).

NegotiationPartnership building involves an interaction between formal bargaining and informal sense making. The consensus building takes place amongst partners to develop mutual respect and agree on specific commitments, roles and responsibilities. The partnerships under review demonstrated that support for a more rigorous discussion upfront about partner motivations, objectives and ‘bottom-lines’ helps partnerships. Partners need to share an overarching partnership goal, which may be the means by which different partners will achieve their own institutional objectives. For some partnerships the timetable for negations was compressed by the desire to get up and running for the funding deadline. Facilitate the negotiation process by a broker and providing assistance to partners in negotiation process (e.g. support in proposal writing) demonstrated to be helpful.

Partnerships are dynamic and also their environments (such as political or economic conditions) are changing. Several partnerships demonstrated that they were facing challenges based on tensions between individual goals and partnership goal or external environment. In some cases, renegotiation of roles and responsibilities were required or would have been a good option. In the course of the Zambian Liuwa National Park partnership, some partners have suggested that the original agreement should be renegotiated and that a contract period of more than 20 years is too long. Including room for renegotiation at the start of the partnership seems particularly relevant for PPPs including a co-management structure (e.g. infrastructure projects).

Decision-makingWhen parties come together to partner, they make choices that govern a variety of collective action problems implicit in joint decision making: (1) how to collectively develop sets of working rules to determine who will be eligible to make decisions; (2) which actions will be allowed orconstrained; (3) what information needs to be provided, and (4) how costs and benefits will be distributed (Ostrom, 1990). Organizations collaborate because they intend to achieve a particular purpose. To achieve the purpose that brought the organizations to the table in the first place, some kind of administrative structures must exist that moves from governance to action. In this context, it has to be differentiated between:

Partnership level Contractual level of PPP agreement; decision-making by a partnership committee.

Project level Operational level; decision-making by a board.

In almost all reviewed partnerships the projects and their design determined the partnership. In case of the ZAMAC partnership, the joint venture structure of the project clearly confirms the secondary status of other signing parties such as civil society organization or public partners involved. The second Zambian partnership under review (Liuwa Plain National Parkpartnership) demonstrated how an asymmetrical balance of power in the board level can influence performance. If there is no real participation in decision-making, commitment to deliver can become less. Almost all partnership agreements defined and designed a Steering Committee or Partnership Committee for decision-making over strategic partnership issues such as monitoring, evaluation,

18

identification of constraints and problems in relation of the partnership. It became obvious that Steering Committees as governance form have been underdeveloped in almost all partnerships (where information was available); either their set ups were delayed, they met only once or they were not set up at all. Partnership Committees are an important governance instrument; they canaddress strategic issues and serve as a platform for the partners to hold each other accountable for delivery of their respective responsibilities. In the Colombian Coffee Growing Families partnershipthe good functioning partnership committee managed through ongoing communication and existing trust to smooth the way when needed.

Internal accountabilityLack of effective governance structures and mechanisms at the partnership level can be assumed to be directly correlated to the mutual accountability of the partners, communities and otherexternal stakeholders. Asymmetrical power structures in boards and unbalanced ideas what the partnership is about, made it difficult to hold each other accountable (e.g in the Liuwa Plain ParkPartnership or the ZAMAC partnership). Compliance suggests that there is a sense ofpredictability, that partners know and have documented what is required to get the job done (Caplan, 2002). Unclear definition of responsibilities for each partner, no agreement on sanctions mechanisms and no clear procedures for decision-making resulted in the dilemma that e.g. the Knowledge and Skills Center partnership in Ghana could not be held accountable to the organizations and individuals undertaking the project. The partnerships in Colombia revealed that good communication processes, well defined tasks and governance systems are required for successfulpartnership outcomes.

Transparency requires that partners have made documentation available on the decisions they have taken and the related actions, performance and outcomes. The review missionsdemonstrated that formal structures, inherent conflict of interests or the unwillingness to give an account to other partners stirred discussions about transparency in partnership practice. Transparency can become especially challenging when partners are also competitors: partners will try to hold back some information, or strategically choose when to reveal certain information(Caplan, 2005). In countries such as Ghana, where the RNEs have been inexperienced withcollaboration with the private sector, more rigorous reporting lines should lead to more transparency about the activities of the project and control the profit-making aspect of the partnership. The private sector however, was not used to these strict reporting procedures; they experienced it as rather time-consuming and challenging to cope with these additional requirements. Here the idealized models of business and civil/public governance systems clashes; and the need arises for an own governance system (Zadek et al., 2008). The partnership should be responsive enough to demonstrate resilience when difficulties due to differences in organizational cultures (e.g. regarding procurement procedures) occur. Openness, awareness about the possible risks and flexibility to take the partner into account have been demonstrated crucial criteria for partnership performance. Successful partnerships show that partners fulfilled their obligations and often went beyond what was expected of them. Ongoing communication between all partnership partners is required and forms a basis for fostering mutual obligations and commitments. The partners need to stay committed throughout the whole process; only then is a partnership responsive enough to find alternatives if needed.

External accountabilityPartnerships should be accountable to external stakeholders. The specific political, economic and social context in which the partnership operates as well as the culture of the participating organizations, will indeed have implications for how a partnership addresses issues of accountability (Caplan, 2005). All partnerships under review aimed to contribute to poverty reduction. In first instance, partnerships are accountable to their beneficiaries. It demonstrated to be difficult to have a transparent selection procedure of beneficiaries. Some partnerships (e.g. the Promigas partnership) had no clear selection criteria of its beneficiaries. In engaging with the

19

communities issues such as external responsiveness seemed to be questionable. In thepartnership focusing on improving the livelihood of coffee growing families, primary stakeholder communities were consulted during the baseline study prior the selection of beneficiaries. They were, anyhow, not involved in the design of the project, the identification of priorities or the selection of beneficiaries. The willingness to actively involve public bodies in the partnership process tended also to be low in some partnerships (e.g. Coffee Growing Families and Promigaspartnerships).

[C] OUTPUT

C.1 Results and successful goal alignmentThe activities undertaken by the partners result in a variety of project outputs such as products and services, but also in redefined goals for the partners due to their accumulated experiences. One obvious output criterion is the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved. The finalized partnerships under review (P1-P4) have largely met their original objectives. Table 5summarizes this, by distinguishing between economic, social and environmental goals. Delaysappeared under the influence of environment factors. Quantifiable results in economic and social development are easier to achieve and to measure, compared to environmental development. For ongoing projects (P5-P6) is it yet too early to evaluate to what extent the expected/planned results are achieved.

Table 5: Partnership goal-alignmentPartnership Goal Results achieved (selected examples)

P1. ZAMAC Enable small-scale farmers to access markets with improved prices, leading to increased on-farm income. (innovation-task oriented)

o Economic development: access to ZAMAC marketing services by small-scale farmers (14.5000 farmers) and increased turn over (√)

o Social development: capacity building activities (?)

o Environmental development: not applicable

P2. Liuwa National Park

Re-establishment of Liuwa National Plain Park as functioning eco-system for the benefit of people and nature, which can then be leveraged for sustainable use, socio-economic development and poverty reduction (task- innovation oriented)

o Economic development: Uplifting of local communities by increasedemployment and development of potential for key tourist destination (?)

o Social development: development of local communities by e.g. reduce impacts of wildlife on communities (√)

o Environmental development: Restoration and maintaining of natural resources delayed (√)


Improve livelihood of Coffee Growing Families by involving them as active members in the supply chain (task-innovation oriented)

o Economic development: Process of organizing coffee growers started (√)

o Social development: Capacity of coffee grower families built up (√)o Environmental development: Clean

agricultural practices introduced to 1610 families (√)

P4. Promigas Improved livelihood for over 10,000 households though their connection to the natural gas distribution

o Economic development: Access of natural gas service to low-income families (9.223 households) (√)

20

network linked with support for economic-entrepreneurs (accountability-task oriented)

o Social development: Families (1.500) are trained on family finances (√)

- Small business (543) received loans and coaching (√)

o Environmental development: no information


Increase local employment on a vocational level by develop sustainable local vocational training institute that delivers well trained technicians to the Ghanaian private sector (innovation-task oriented)

o Economic development: Some first process results (e.g. formal structures established)

o Social development: Results not yet feasible

o Environmental development: not applicable


Enhancing the livelihood of poor artisanal fisher communities by establishment of a commercial and sustainable supply chain of fresh tuna loins to the EU market (innovation – policy oriented)

o Economic development: Little tangible results have so far been achieved (implementation of project components has met with seriously delays)

o Social development: no informationo Environmental development: So far, no

institutional or policy changes

Partnerships aimed at sustainability may have a wide variety of objectives following the BPD (2006) framework: ranging from task-orientation (like the implementation of concrete infrastructure) to policy-orientation aimed at changing rules (i.e. the development of new regulatory standards) or behaviors. Furthermore, partnership can be defensively aimed at accountability or more offensively aimed at innovation. The partnerships under review proved mainly purpose-built around the delivery of a specific set of tasks (e.g. connecting people to natural gas; re-establishment of a National Park), while focusing on introducing innovations such as vocational training program that serves business purposes (Knowledge and Skills Centre partnership) or improving the management of a National Park (Liuwa National Park partnership).

When comparing goal-alignment with the achieved results from the reviewed cases it can be concluded that (finalized) partnerships which were task oriented and aimed at introducing new innovations or accountability mechanisms (such as e.g. accountable natural gas connection) achieved their results. It can also be postulated that the ambition to change policies and include innovative initiatives in the value chain at the same time within one partnership is an ambiguous challenge.

C.2 SustainabilityThe need for an exit strategy that is thoughtful and well crafted is an element in the partnership building process that deserves closer scrutiny. The exit strategy of founding partners will have to meet the expectations of the partners involved and will ideally result in a sustainable ‘maintenance programme’ as a delivery of the partnership. ‘Expectations’ and exit strategy have to be managed wisely. One important element for sustainability is the degree of capacity building in the partnership. The review demonstrated that some capacity building has been achieved; the degree to which this has been achieved strongly depends on whether capacity building has been ‘built in’ the original partnership agreement. Instruments and personal for capacity building has to be a serious point of attention from the onset of the partnership development.

21

What consequences did the partnership have on institutionalization? The review showed that partnerships offer a possibility to influence core business of companies, to test new business models and to stimulate inter-organizational learning. It demonstrated that institutional change should be included at the heart of the partnership through governance and operation of project outcome. Too high expectations should be avoided. To start with, it can be good to focus on building ‘positive experiences’ of partnership engagement between private sector and local authorities as well as between private sector and communities. Several projects under review were focusing directly on business engagement with communities (e.g. both PPPs in Colombia). Such ‘positive experiences’ and getting familiar to work with the other sector can be the start for organizational change. In order to support this, all actors should receive some sort of ‘partnering’ support. It might be good to explore possibilities for unilateral support (e.g. business to community-based organizations) after the partnership has officially been terminated.

[D] OUTCOME

D.1 Contribution to MDGsThe contributions of partnerships to MDGs are difficult to measure, especially for ongoing projects. The review missions not only asked for objective criteria, but also for the impression of the participants. It made a distinction between direct and indirect contributions. The first results of this exercise are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Partnership contribution to MDGsPartnership MD-Goal to contribute to …. Impact P1. ZAMAC (Zambia)

# 1 : eradication of poverty and hunger§ by stimulating local entrepreneurships § by stimulating local agricultural production

# 3: promotion of gender equality and women empowerment# 8: developing a global partnership for development§ by creating local capacity§ by improving infrastructure

(Assumed)DirectIndirectIndirect

DirectIndirect

P2. Liuwa Plains National Park (Zambia)

# 1 : eradication of poverty and hunger§ by stimulating local entrepreneurships

# 2: the achievement of universal primary education§ by stimulating primary education

# 5: the improvement of maternal health§ by building strong health systems

# 7: ensuring environmental sustainability§ by protecting ecosystems and biodiversity§ by improving living conditions

Direct

Indirect

Indirect

DirectDirect

P3. Coffee Growing Families (Colombia)

# 1 : eradication of poverty and hunger§ by stimulating local entrepreneurships § by stimulating local agricultural production

# 7: ensuring environmental sustainability§ by protecting ecosystems and biodiversity§ by improving living conditions

# 8: developing a global partnership for development§ by creating local capacity§ by making available science and new

technologies§ by improving infrastructure

IndirectDirect

IndirectDirect

DirectDirect

DirectP4. Promigas # 1 : eradication of poverty and hunger

22

(Colombia) § by stimulating local entrepreneurships § by providing affordable products and services

# 2: the achievement of universal primary education§ by stimulating primary education

# 3: promotion of gender equality and women empowerment# 4/5: the improvement of maternal health§ by building strong health systems

# 7: ensuring environmental sustainability# 8: developing a global partnership for development§ by creating local capacity

IndirectDirect

Indirect

Indirect

DirectIndirect

DirectP5. Knowledge and skills centre (Ghana)

# 1 : eradication of poverty and hunger§ by improved productivity of the large corporate

production sector and economic benefits derived from that

# 7: ensuring environmental sustainability

not yet measurableindirect (assumed)not feasible

P6. Sustainable Fisheries (Ghana)

# 1 : eradication of poverty and hunger§ by stimulating local agricultural production

# 7: ensuring environmental sustainability§ by protecting ecosystems and biodiversity

not yet measurableDirect Indirect (assumed)

The impact of the reviewed partnerships on MDGs reveals the following patterns:• Partnerships involving the private sector focus to contribute to MDG 1. Stimulating local

entrepreneurship or stimulating agricultural production are intended objectives of these partnerships, so an direct impact can be assumed.

• Interactions between the partners (especially when communities are involved) can be considered to have the potential to improve economic positions and to create local capacity (MDG 8). The reviewed cases demonstrated a direct impact on local capacity building.

• Contributions to MDGs 3, 4 and 5 are often outcomes of the “social activities” of partnerships. The reviews showed that the impact on these goals is often indirect. Contributions to building health systems or stimulating education does not fall under the core competencies of the private partners involved in the particular projects under review. The impact of social activities within a partnership is often indirect (but nevertheless noticeable).

• Ensuring environmental sustainability (MDG 7) has been an intended objective of many of the partnerships reviewed. The outcome of the review demonstrates that the impact on MDG 7 is often indirect (except by P2). Measuring the impact on environmental sustainability proved to be difficult (see also Table 5), not only because it needs quite some time to ‘realize’ environmental impacts, but also because intervening variables such as external factors (in particular changing legislation) are very common in this area.

D.2 Impact on value chain upgradingPartnerships can play a useful role in addressing development goals and in leveraging funds both in the development of value chain processes as well as in the delivery of public goods and services. The review demonstrated some evidence that partnerships contribute to process upgrading (investments in technology and infrastructure). One can expect that partnerships could contribute to functional upgrading of the chain due to more efficient relationships of the actors involved.

23

[E] EFFICIENCY“Partnership efficiency is the ability to make good use of members’ financial resources, non-financial resources and time” (Caplan et al, 2007). Assessing the efficiency of a partnership is primarily based on the cost (actual or opportunity costs) of achieving results. However, since the achievement of results is also affected by the external environment in which the partnership operates, efficiency can also be viewed in terms of the partnership’s capacity to influence positively and strategically those external factors that affect its ability to perform (Caplan et al,2007).

E.1 Cost-benefit ratioEfficiency represents the ratio of benefits to costs: an increase in efficiency therefore involves increasing benefits relative to costs. It can be assumed that costs are often far easier to itemalize and measure than benefits – particularly less tangible benefits like increasing choice and independence, or improving the quality of life. However, some costs are more apparent than others: a comprehensive audit would need to include costs such as the development of compatible information management between partners, or investments in joint training(Glendinning, 2002). The review demonstrated that a conclusive cost-benefit analysis of the partnerships is not yet completely feasible because:§ none of the partners (including the embassy) have kept systematic track of the

(additional) cost dedicated to the partnership;§ For some projects it seems to be difficult to draw the line between partnership and

business activities due to overlaps in implementation processes.

The transaction costs for starting partnerships are always relatively high since partners from different worlds have to negotiate agreements. In the review it was mentioned that the start up of the partnership for instance in Zambia required initially about 2.5 times the transaction costs (in terms of time devoted to the project) than ‘normally’. But this figure has also been influenced by the general unfamiliarity with this type of projects. It seems, however, that higher start up costs can be outweigh by cost efficiency in the implementation phase and the internal efficiency gains due to shared goals and a steeper learning curve of a larger number of partners. Inputs from donor side were in some projects beyond normal inputs in programme development, monitoring and administration. It happened that a disproportional amount of time had to be spent on e.g. crisis management in critical project phases. Also the contraction of outside services from consultants amounted to higher additional costs. One important lesson for future partnerships is to build up the capacity to keep track of tangible and intangible costs and benefits (see Appendix 3).

Costs and benefits may not be equally apportioned between partners. Indeed, major inequalities in the distribution of gains and losses between partners can threaten the strength of the partnership – unless these inequalities have been anticipated and already agreed between the partners (Glendinning, 2002). All partnerships reviewed have proven robust enough to survive serious disagreements between the principal partners. Sometimes significant restructuring was required in order to bring gains and losses in a sort of balance (e.g. ZAMAC partnership).

E.2 Critical success factorsAssessing the efficiency of partnership relationships implies considering strategic indicators. All organizations and programmes face varying degrees of environmental ‘hostility’, both internally and externally. So an important dimension of the partnership assessment needs to address the extent to which there is environmental hostility toward the partnership programme and approach, and the extent to which the hostility is proactively managed. The review demonstrated that (see Appendix 4 for the full list of critical success factors):

24

• It is most important that partners have the expertise, capacity and commitment to contribute to the partnership. A clear vision of the objectives residing over the partnership is required to which all involved parties are committed. In order to avoid conflict, the drivers of individual partners should be understood by all partners involved in the partnership.

• In several partnerships, participants, broader stakeholders and donors alike were woefully unprepared to design and implement the governance systems partnerships need. It is vital to support knowledge and capacity development of the partners from the onset. In this context the involvement of brokers is desired.

• Partnerships lacking good governance systems with key characteristics such as clear roles and responsibilities, the capacity to set boundaries and good communication had/have difficulties in achieving their objectives (e.g. Liuwa National Park partnership and Knowledge and Skills Centre partnership). Internal accountability such as compliance, transparency and responsiveness are necessary but not sufficient dimension for effective partnerships.

• Active involvement of all primary stakeholders (such as local public bodies or communities) is a clear asset to the partnership. Especially early involvement of communities is necessary to accountably identify beneficiaries. Some of the reviewed partnerships suggested involving communities and local authorities more actively in project design and implementation. The active involvement of primary stakeholder is not always a sufficient dimension for effectiveness. For instance in both successful partnerships in Colombia, neither the local authority nor communities were actively involved in the projects involved. From the perspective to effectively “addressing the source of failure” (see introduction), however, the question should be kept in mind.

• For sustaining the quality of the partnership, constantly monitoring and documentation activities are a prerequisite.

[F] EFFECTIVENESSWhat was the partnership’s added-value? The search after the added-value of partnership seeks to confirm and articulate that the partnership as a whole yields more than what would have resulted from the partners operating independently.

F.1 Was a partnership necessary?All reviewed partnerships demonstrated that some sort of collaboration was needed because neither private sector organizations nor public sector organizations alone could solve the problem. In some cases (e.g. Knowledge and Skills Centre partnership) alternative partnering forms could have achieved the same results. In many cases, without a PPP the number of beneficiaries would have been smaller, or the private sector would have invested in infrastructure or capacity transfer with lesser impact. The presence of public money and the pressure from donor side to concentrate on social investments which are closely interlinked to core-business made the private partner more accountable. Partnerships are an instrument to influence business interaction with society. Its potential can be used more actively by promoting organizational change and learning.Successful PPPs (e.g. Promigas partnership and Coffee Growing Families partnership) demonstrated that partnerships are an instrument to stimulate modifications in the way private partners conduct their business (increasing effectiveness of its social investment and working towards sustainable business models). It can be concluded that effective partnerships are a mechanism to includesocial activities in a private company’s core business. Private sector investment and development aid often are aimed at different places, so the partnership also leads to a geographical alignment. Social investment takes longer to deliver and requires more of a sustained effort.

25

F.2 Value-added Because each partnership is unique in its composition and programmatic aims, it is difficult to identify specific common value-added indicators. Furthermore, as partnerships are dynamic and many are experimental, it remains difficult to specify value-added indicators a priori. However, evidence of value added, whether aspired or identified after the fact may include: qualitative or quantitative synergistic outcomes of the program itself (i.e. aspects of program performance that relate to advantages beyond what the actors could have independently produced), linkages with other programs and actors, enhanced capacity and influence of individual partners, and other multiplier effects such as program extension and replication, new programs etc. (Brinkerhoff, 2002). It was clear that the partnerships under review did make the allocation of additional resources possible. Other partnership forms, however, remain possible, so some sort of flexibility in the actual operation of the partnership can be functional. Partnerships can play a useful role in addressing development goals and in leveraging funds both in the development of value chain processes as well as in the delivery of public goods and services. The experience of (some) partnerships is reproducible (e.g. stakeholders demonstrated interest in invest in similar projects as can be seen in the Sustainable Fisheries partnership). The partnerships under review missed the possibility to identify more synergies on local level by involvingmore stakeholders or linking up with other sectors (e.g. in the case of the Promigas partnership the involvement of other utility companies such as water distribution).

F.3 Individual objectives achieved?Another element of the effectiveness of the partnership is the extent to which individual partners meet their own objectives through the partnership. Since partnerships require extra efforts and are based on the will of the partners to engage as partners, the degree of satisfaction of individual partners with obtaining goals need to be identified. The reviewed cases demonstrate that partnerships are increasingly viewed as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for achieving the individual objectives of participants. In many areas there are no alternatives or alternatives where at best opaque. Other options (without a joint-venture construction) for instance would have lacked the clear advantages of the partnership.

F.4 Partnership identityFinally, a successful partnership relationship is one that has developed an own partnership identity. This identity is the glue that holds the partners together and forms the basis for legitimacy and value identification of the major stakeholders. Partnership identity entails(Brinkerhoff, 2002):

• an identifiable organizational culture, completed with processes and mechanisms reflective of the partnerships underlying values;

• a unique, and identifiable mission, with associated comparative advantages and value-added;

• a set of constituencies that may go beyond the constituencies of individual partners.

In order to achieve this partnership level, a project period of two years of financial support (as utilized in the PPP pilot and in the PSOM "private-private partnership" programme) seems probably too short to allow a PPP to reach sufficient maturity to continue without support. The justification for this longer "incubation" period is the relative complexity of starting a PPP the need for it to span “two worlds”. However partnerships should not be meant to be permanent. They are transitional mechanism for which it is important that participants agree on clear ‘exit’ conditions.

26

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Addressing the sources of failureIn the introduction of this report the sources of failures as main reason why actors from different societal spheres (state, market, civil society) are collaborating in development were described. The underlying realization is that partnerships are an instrument to ‘balance’ the interests of three societal spheres and by doing so proof a more effective approach towards development than any of the autonomous efforts. So, did the reviewed partnerships effectively address these sources of failure? Table 8 tries to summarize the experience of the six projects in addressing these sources of failure. It shows that on the whole partnerships managed to effectively address the market source of failure. By bringing in additional resources and innovative management or agricultural techniques the private sector effectively contributed to increase local capacity or innovative technologies. Vice versa, the partnerships addressed some of the sources of civic failure by increasing the effectiveness of NGO induced projects. Most partnerships did not (yet) manage to address all existing failures of government or governance. It provesdifficult for partnerships to address inefficient policies. Partnership outcomes and business models still need an adequate enabling environment to be sustainable. Clear policy frameworks are often still lacking in developing countries and thus contribute to uncertainty amongst participants and a bigger need for government and donor support. An involvement of the local community can mitigate the political risk. Further research on all three sources of failure remains necessary.

Table 7: Effectiveness in Addressing the Source of FailureSource of Failure Strategic

DimensionPartnership Type

Assumption

P1. ZAMAC Government/GovernanceFailure:• Inefficient policies

Market failure:• Information

asymmetries• Lack of local

capacity and innovative Technologies

innovation-task oriented

Partnership level: Tripartite

Project Level: Private-non-profit

Effective in addressing the market failure source;

no influence on governance can be foreseen due to partnership design.


Government/GovernanceFailure:Inefficient management and insufficient resources

Task-innovation oriented

Partnership and project level:Public-private

Effective in brining in resources and management skills from the private sector; no capacity building elements for public sector included, therefore addressing only partly the government failure.


Government failure:• Not securing

vulnerable groups from armed conflict;

• Not providing basic public services

Market failure: lack of local capacity

Task-innovation

Partnership level:Tripartite

Project level:Private-non-private

Effective in addressing market failure.

Effective in addressing some government failures in the short run by providing environmental friendly water recycling tanks (for

27

and innovative technologies

protection of water resources).

P4. Promigas

Market failure:Monopoly position but not providing all areas with a public good

Account-ability-task oriented

Partnership level:

TripartiteProject level:Private-non-profit

Effective addressing the source of failure.


Government failure:Ineffective policies; no adequate vocational and training systemMarket failure:Lack of local capacity

Innovation –task oriented

Partnership and project level:Public-private

Outcomes not yet feasible.


Market failure:Lack of local capacity and innovative technologiesGovernance failure:Ineffective policies

Innovation-policy oriented

Partnership and project level: tripartite

Outcomes not yet feasible; assumed to address the market failure (delayed) but difficulties in addressing the governance failure

4.2 Recommendations

4.2.1 Recommendations for partnershipsSupport partnership development. Development of PPPs is time consuming, relatively costly and requires specific expertise, in particular brokerage and scenario planning in particular during the initial start up phase of the partnership. Furthermore, specific expertise in the appraisal and monitoring of PPPs is required. The reviews show that continuous (local) support could be helpful. Key elements of such support programmes that were suggested are: § Providing/funding technical assistance to local PPP support programmes for the

brokerage of PPPs§ Providing/funding technical assistance to local PPP financing programmes on PPP

appraisal and monitoring; § Financial backing for the formation and development of PPPs.

Continuous feedback. Governing partnerships proves a very challenging task: partnerships are very dynamic including shifts in roles and changing external environment and conditions. Regular reviews help to give continuous feedback to all partners involved on how to steer the partnership in the right direction.

4.2.2 Recommendations for DGIS and RNEBroaden the own role. There is a tendency for donors to view their role in partnerships as identical to their role in normal projects (i.e. primarily as funder). In reality, necessary roles are much more complex and require sophisticated action (see B.1). The internal dynamics of the relationship greatly impacts the achievement of the ultimate goals. The donor can have significant influence on that relationship. Rethinking the role of a narrow ‘project funding approach’ is required. Organisations as the RNEs have a wealth of experience in human development issues and a good network of local contacts. Apart from its influential role in the project design, a

28

greater involvement from RNEs in the actual management of the project could have added value on the ground.

Taking the local context into account. The ‘Call for Ideas’ has insufficiently taken into account the local context of countries. Several partnerships were not aligned with other policies followed by the RNE in the respective countries. It might be more effective for the partnership and its outcome if the RNE supports partnerships which are falling under their expertise and policy area. The primary responsibility for gateway partnering and gatekeeper monitoring of the public sector partner/donor should preferably be at the local level. In retrospect, some embassies argue that it would have been better to delegate the responsibility for the PPPs to them from the onset. This should be re-inforced by a more clearly formulated monitoring role. This would have prevented embassies the surprise of insufficient reporting when the PPPs were handed to them (by January 2008). Furthermore local ownership of the public sector remains vital – although difficult to achieve. The ambition should always be to involve the local government and match the projects with the wider Paris-agenda.

Building up DGIS and RNEs capacity to partner with the private sector. In Zambia and Ghana, the RNE staff has been given relatively limited guidance by DGIS headquarters on how to deal with PPP initiatives in practice. Since the RNE staff had little experience in particular with dealing with corporations, it was felt necessary to introduce and adhere to strict conditionality, benchmarks and reporting requirements in order to mitigate perceived risks. This contributed to higher transaction costs in terms of time spent. More flexible mechanisms and institutional capacity (such as reporting requirements) of partnership governance issues might be helpful for DGIS and RNE. It would be helpful to provide the RNEs with workshops and trainings in how to ‘govern’ partnerships. One part of this learning process should be also to build up the capacity to keep track of the tangible and intangible costs and benefits of partnerships.

Should a policy framework for PPPs be in place? Some of the embassies find that they were reinventing the wheel as regards PPPs. It proved a struggle to design appropriate (legal) frameworks for each project. This points at least at the need for a more systematic ‘governance’ framework for PPPs and/or continuous support with setting up PPPs. Whether a more solid policy framework is appropriate remains to be seen. Partnerships are primarily a very adequate means for effectively addressing the development agenda, not necessarily an aim in themselves. As such a monitoring and support facility for partnerships might proof more functional than a specific policy framework. A policy framework, however, might proof usefull for instance for dealing with the following questions: how to distinguish beforehand between different partnership initiatives (for instance a Schokland Agreement with party A and another project iniated by party B); how to design appropriate governance frameworks that allow (or not) for partners to take different roles during the partnership (monitoring as well as execution); can a public procurement activity be framed in a partnership agreement; should the ministry formulate absolute or relative preconditions for companies and NGOs that propose a partnership?

4.2.3 Recommendations for further research and assessments on partnerships[a] Manage partnership knowledge and learning more systematically. The reviewsunderline the need to systematically bundle, accumulate and communicate about the experiences of partnerships. The existing knowledge on partnership assessments can be managed much more professionally and lessons learned need to be used on a continuous basis for giving assistance to ongoing and new partnership initiatives. Furthermore, the effectiveness of other partnerships and the ‘lessons learned’ there need to be the aim of systematic monitoring. This could also result in linking up with other relevant projects in the same value chain, region or type of project. Skilled and independent partnership advisors, who are experienced in all partnership issues around

29

assessing partnerships and guiding partnerships, would greatly facilitate this process. Through workshops and courses, knowledge sharing and learning issues on partnerships could be organized.

[b] Understanding the national context better. Further research could assess in more detail the extent to which national institutions and regulation hamper or favour partnerships. This evaluation suggests that the Zambian context is perhaps more indusive for partnerships, because of supportive laws. Furthermore, the legal aspects of specific partnership constructions need to be elaborated in much more detail. Both in general and per specific country.

[c] Academic research. The analytical framework that was used for this review exercise, while still preliminary, offers a range of elements that can include further research and also reflections for managers and policymakers involved in partnerships for development. The review provided a large number of lessons learned also on how to upgrade the analytical framework and the interview protocol. This will be carefully taken into consideration by ECSAD. One clear addition for the analytical framework is a stronger focus on governance system analysis and its impact on effective partnership outcomes. Another ambition should be that the framework has to demonstrate stronger causality and attribution of the outcomes. This, however, remains a difficult task due to the limited number of existing partnerships, their unfinished nature and often unique features. It remains difficult to hold constant variables and factors such as the broader policy environment which is in developing countries very complex and rapidly changing. Future studies have to focus on:

o a broader set of partnerships, preferably covering a longer time period and also compare different partnership programmes.

o Partnership Governance. The research on collaborative governance is a relatively young research topic popping up in different academic fields such as business administration, public administration and participatory studies. Nevertheless, the governing process of partnerships is still a ‘black box’ without much evidence. A systematic research is required demonstrating the causal link between ‘good collaborative governance’ and effective partnerships. A detailed assessment of roles of actors involved, partnership typology and their specific governance mechanisms and the link to outcomes is required.

o Partnership typology. Approaches on how to cluster and characterize partnerships exist - this study built on them - but more systematic evidence through comparison of case-study is required. Partnerships are complex and have a wide range of variety;nevertheless, it would be a great research step to come up with some benchmarks per partnership cluster. This would allow making some evidence-based recommendations on success-factors of such ‘partnership types’. For each type of partnership the focus and role of the support from donor side would be different. Which stakeholders have to be involved in what partnerships?; What are the most important drivers for partners in this partnerships?; What kind of partnership environment is required for which partnership type?; and how can donors support these partnerships?.

30

5. REFERENCESReview Reports ZambiaSchaub-Jones, D. (2007) Case: Partnership Analysis on ZAMAC, Lusaka. BPD for Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unpublished report.Würdemann, W. (2007) Case: Partnership Analysis Liuwa Plain National Park. For Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unpublished report.Schaub-Jones, D., Würdemann, W., Simukonda, A. (2007) Public Private Partnerships in Zambia. Practitioner –Policymaker Dialogue: Early Conclusions. For Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Unpublished report.GhanaWürdemann, W. (2008) Partnership Analysis: Sustainable Development of the Fishing Industry in Ghana.For Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unpublished report.Harrison, T. (2008) Partnership Analysis: Knowledge and Skills Centres Programme Ghana. BPD for Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unpublished report.Harrison, T., Würdemann, W. (2008) Mid-term Review Public-Private Partnerships from “Call for Ideas 2003”. Report of Field Visit Ghana (13-22 February 2008). For Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Unpublished report.ColombiaPorto, S. (2008) Partnership Analysis: Promigas. Barranquilla, Colombia. BDP for Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unpublished report.Porto, S. (2008) Partnership Analysis: Sustainable Development Programme for Narino’s Coffee Growing Families. Narino, Colombia. BPD for Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unpublished report.

LiteratureBPD (2002) Putting Partnering to Work. 1998-2001 Tri-sector Partnership Results and Recommendations.

London: BPD.BPD (2006). Spectrums of Engagement: Three ways of analysing partnerships. London: BPD (unpublished

document)Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2002) Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: a

proposed framework, in: Evaluation and Programm Planning, issue 25 (2002), pp. 215-231.Caplan, K.. (2003). The Purist’s Partnership: Debunking the Terminology of Partnerships. London:

Building Partnerships for Development (Practitioner Note Series). Available from: http://www.bpdws.org/bpd/web/d/doc_86.pdf

Caplan, K. (2005) Partnership Accountability – Unpacking the Concept. London: Building Partnerships for Development (Practitioner Note Series).

Caplan, K. et al (2007) Assessing Partnership Performance: Understanding the Drivers for Success. London: Building Partnerships for Development.

ECSAD (2006a) Interview result in preparation of stakeholder dialogue between government and firms. Rotterdam: ECSAD (unpublished document).

ECSAD (2006b) Partnerships for Development in Practice; Two cases and lessons learned: Nutreco and Vitens, Rotterdam: ECSAD (unpublished document).

El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H. and El-Diraby, T.E. (2006) Stakeholder management for public private partnerships, In: International Journal of Project Management, issue 24 (2006) pp. 595–604.

Glendinning, C. (2002) Partnerships between health and social services: developing a framework for evaluation, in: Policy & Politics, Vol 30 (1), pp. 115-127.

Hardcastle, C., Edwards, P.J., Akintoye, A., Li, B. (2006), "Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry: a factor analysis approach", in Ng, T.S. (Eds),Public Private Partnerships: Opportunities and Challenges, Centre for Infrastructure and Construction Industry Development, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp.75-83.

31

Humphrey, J. and Schmitz, H. 2002. “How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters?”, In: Regional Studies. 36(9) pp. 1017-1027.

Kolk, A.., Van Tulder, R. & E. Kostwinder (2008) ‘Business and partnerships for development’, in: European Management Journal, 26 (4), 262-273

Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R., & B. Westdijk (2006). Poverty alleviation as business strategy? Evaluating commitments of frontrunner Multinational Corporations. World Development, 34(5), 789-801.

Kostwinder, E.J. (2006) MNEs and development: an unsolvable puzzle?. Unpublished Master Thesis, Rotterdam: RSM Erasmus University.

Kostwinder, E. and R. van Tulder (2006) DGIS and Public-Private Partnerships – First Evaluation of the Call for Ideas 2003/2004, Rotterdam: ECSAD.

Ministry of Development Cooperation (2003). Dutch development cooperation and Public Private Partnerships: ‘Call for ideas’. The Hague: DGIS.

Ministry of Development Cooperation (2004). Richtlijn interne beoordeling publiek-private partnerschappen in het kader van duurzame daadkracht. The Hague: DGIS.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003). Aan elkaar verplicht: Ontwikkelingssamenwerking op weg naar 2015. The Hague: SDU.

NCDO (2006). Measuring the contribution of the private sector to the achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Version II. Amsterdam: National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development.

Nelson, J., & Prescott, D. (2003). Business and the Millennium Development Goals: A framework for action. London: International Business Leaders Forum.

OECD (2006) Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Partnerships, Workshop, Paris: 12 September 2006, ENV/EPOC(2006)15

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rochlin, S., Zadek, S., Forstater, M. (2008) Governing Collaboration. Making Partnerships Accountable for Delivering Development. London: AccountAbilty.

Spielman, D.J., Hartwich, J. and Grebmer, K. von (2007) Sharing Science, Building Bridges, and Enhancing Impact Public–Private Partnerships in the CGIAR, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00708

Tennyson, R. (2003) The partnering toolbook, The International Business Leaders Forum: London.Thomson, A.M., Perry, J.L. (2006) Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box, in: Public

Administration Review, December 2006, Special Issue.Van Tulder, R., Muller, A. and De Boer, D. (2004) Partnerships, Power And Equity In Global

Commodity Chains: Position paper on cooperation between companies and NGOs in stimulating sustainable development, Amsterdam: ECSAD.

Van Tulder, R. with Van der Zwart, A. (2006) International Business-Society Management: linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, London: Routledge.

Van Tulder, R. and A. Kolk (2007) ‘Poverty as a business Issue’, Handbook of the 21st Century, Sage (forthcoming)

Warner, M. (2001) Measuring the ‘Added Value’ of Tri-Sector Partnerships. Working Paper No.14. London: Business Partners for Development. Natural Resource Cluster.

Warner, M., & Sullivan, R. (2004). Putting partnerships to work. Strategic alliances for development between government, the private sector and civil society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

WBCSD (2005). Business for development. Business solutions in support of the Millennium Development Goals. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

32

6. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Resources brought in by sectors

Resources brought in

Market State Civil Society Donor

Finance § Capital § Capital § Grants§ Risk Finance§ Additional

financing of services

Skills § Financial & Accounting Skills§ Marketing Skills§ Project

Management Skills§ Training Capacity

Building§ Distribution

Networks

§ Regulatory Powers

§ Local Knowledge§ Longevity of local

presence§ Brokerage§ Training/capacity

building

Information

§ Market analysis/ forecasting

§ Local Knowledge about social conditions

People § Specialist staff§ Administrative

support

§ Specialist Staff

§ Specialist staff § Specialist staff

Relation-ships with…

§ Policy makers§ Supplier/labour

organizations§ Media

§ Donors§ Policy

makers§ General

public

§ Donors§ Community

groups

§ Policy makers§ Donor Community

33

Appendix 2: Role schemeRole private sectorImplementer Contribution in cash and kind; project management; overall

coordination.Investor Contribution in cash; no active role. Consultant Capacity building; management supportRole (local) public sectorFormal active partner Co-management arrangements Passive partner/ facilitating role

Local authority signed MoU but is not actively involved (sleeping partner). Some business models require government support to some extent for enabling environment (external regulator)

Secondary stakeholder Local authorities have been informed about the partnership but they are not actively involved in the partnership.

Role civil society organizationsImplementer Project managementCapacity building and or technical assistance

Provision of training and support

Broker Balance interest and objectives of partners; working in close collaboration with all partners

Role donorIn partnership exploration and building phase: DGIS built a gateway to its public funding by encouraging and assisting but also moulding the PPP to suit its own objectivesControl funding (partnership maintaining phase)Institutionalized brokerage in steering committee

Funder and Broker/ Facilitator

Supervision (mainly RNEs) Passive Funder Only funding; no active roleActive involvement Involvement on ground by bringing in assets such as skill sets,

linkages and contacts (role for RNEs)

34

Appendix 3: Transaction and additional costsEstimated Transaction Costs Additional Costs

P1. ZAMAC IRR of the project as 14%. o Staff and time: other costs are hard to quantify.

o Some costs and benefits are more reputational than financial


Total extra transaction cost would amount to an estimated 17.2% of the total DGIS contribution to the project value over the project period (about 2.5 times the transaction cost to a normal project)

No information


Project disbursed its funds efficiently. Direct operating costs attributed to the partnership consisted mostly of the 7.9% charged by IOM

ENA decided a notable amount of time and resource to the project but it was difficult to draw the line between partnership and business activities

P4. Promigas Project disbursed efficiently with some minor delays at some junctures

No information


“Low-cost” partnership due to voluntary contributions. Costs for not partnering effectively could be rather high for the PPP

No information


Transaction costs and monitoring costs incurred by this complicated partnering process are difficult to estimate. (Normal project management and TA costs amounted 19% of the overall budget in the inception report)

o Outside service of a PPP coordinator and services by PWC contracted

o Inputs DGIS/RNE beyond normal inputs in programme development, monitoring and administration

35

Appendix 4: Reviewed critical success factors

Partnerships under reviewP1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

Partnership BuildingTake time in particular in the start-up phase X XInvolve all primary stakeholders X XProject technical feasibility XA focus on important needs that can be best fulfilled through partnerships and that are recognized and accepted by all partners (“compelling case”)

X X

A clear vision of the objectives residing over the partnership and to which all involved parties would be effectively committed

X X X

A result-oriented and appropriately detailed plan for achieving the goals and targets set up jointly for the partnership

X X

Clear understanding of mutual benefits (win-win) to all involved parties

X X

Sufficient and appropriate human and financial resources committed from all partnersCommitment of core organizational competencies X XUnderstanding the needs of local partners and beneficiaries, with a focus on building their own capacity and capability rather than creating dependence

X X

Flexibility is vital – there is no “one size fits all” approach X XMulti-benefit objectiveGovernment involvement by providing guaranteesAppropriate risk allocation and risk sharing XTechnology transferBroker X X XLearning from other partnerships XCommitment of individuals involved XExisting good institutional linkages between partners X XProven financial capacity of partners XEarly involvement of local communities X XCapability to partner and capacity development of individual partners

X X X

Partnership Governance/ Partner RelationEffective relationships and communication build on trust inthe function of partnership and a shared commitment and ownership by all partners; this requires patience and timeGood leadershipClear and enforceable lines of accountability X X XClarity of roles, responsibilities, goals and “ground rules” X XApplication of the same professional rigour and discipline focused on achieving targets and deliverables that would be applied to governing, managing and evaluating other types of business alliancesRespect for differences in drivers, approach, competence, timeframes and objectives of different partners

X X X X

Focus on achieving mutual benefit in a manner that enables the partners to meet their own objectives as well as common goals (complementarity of roles)

X

Keep the momentumShared authority between public and private sectors X

36

Regular informal gatherings XClear communication, shared planning and decision making

X X X X X

Partners presence on side X XMeasurementAccurate and appropriate indicators to be used to evaluate to ensure a successful outcome and progress of the partnershipConstant and effective monitoring, measuring and learning X X XThorough and realistic cost/ benefit assessmentExternal FactorsFavourable legal frameworkAvailable financial marketPolitical supportSound economic policy Stable macro-economic environment Good pool of skilled and capable professionals X X

Remark: this list is based on a pre-version build upon literature research (World Economic Forum 2005 OECD 2006; Hardcastle et al 2006; ECSAD 2006). Since the reviewers did not fill in the list, the researcher interpreted the findings from the mission reports (lessons learned) according to the existing dimensions and included new identified dimensions (in italic).

37

Appendix 5: Overview covered indicators in interview protocol

1. Zamac

2.Liuwa National Plains Park

3. Coffee Growing Families

4. Promigas

5. KSC

6. Sustain-able Fisheries

[A] Input: Goals and ResourcesA1. Project ContextContextual background Y Y Y Y Y YA2. Partnership RootsDemand for partnership Y Y Y Y Y YHow and why came partners together Y Y Y Y Y YPartners skills, resources, experience Y Y Y Y Y Yindividual objectives of each partner Y Y Y Y Y YChoice about engaging Y Y N N N NStrong and weak partners Y N Y N Y YA3. Present SituationWhere is PPP now in relation to expected results

N Y Y N N Y

[B] ThroughputB1. Rolesoutline background, role, motivation, objectives, contribution

Y Y Y Y Y Y

B2. StakeholdersSpecify primary and secondary stakeholders Y Y Y Y Y Ywhy are stakeholders not involved? N Y Y Y N Nlevel of involvement of communities Y Y Y Y N NB3. NegotiatingExperience in partnering? Y Y Y Y N YExtent to which expectations were made explicit?

Y N N N N N

Equal risks in the partnership? Y N N N ? NAssymmetries in the partnership? Y Y Y N Y Yexit points N N N N N NB4. Complianceshared project definition Y Y Y Y Y Ystructure of partnership Y Y Y Y Y Ywhat sort of partnership paperwork Y Y N N Y YB5. Partneringpartnership governance and decision making Y Y Y Y Y Yhow did roles alter over time Y Y Y Y Y Ydilemmas in working together Y Y Y Y Y YB6. Brokerwas broker involved? Y N N N Y Ywas role evident or has switched around within and outside partnership?

N N N N N Y

Interview Protocol

Partnerships

38

[C] OutputC1. Individual objectivesDid the partnership confirm the original objectives of the participants?

Y Y Y Y N Y

did the partners reformulate their goals already?

Y Y N N N Y

did the partnership adequately address the source of failure?

N Y Y N N Y

C2. Tangible resultsconcrete results in relation to objectives Y Y Y Y Y Yany negative impacts? N Y N N N Yconcrete results identified by the project participants themselves

Y Y Y N N N

benefits for each of the participants N Y Y Y N Ndid the partners deliver on their commitments? Y Y Y Y Y YC3. Responsivenessimpact of external environment on partnership Y Y N Y Y Yhas the wider environment guided or constrained the possible structures?

Y Y N Y Y Y

way in which the partnership has responded to such impacts

Y Y N Y N Y

C4. Capacity Buildingwhether CB has been an important influence on the partnership

N Y Y N Y Y

how partnership and CB may have been interlinked

N Y N N Y Y

C5. Institutionalizationhas partnership influenced how projects andprogrammes are delivered more broadly?

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Evidence of institutional change? Y Y Y Y Y Ynext steps for planning, building or maintaining the partnership

Y Y Y N Y Y

[D] OutcomeD1. Direct Impact on MDG Y Y Y Y Y YD2. Indirect Impact on MDG N Y Y Y Y ND3. Impact on Value Chain Upgrading N N Y Y N ND4. Spin-off effects N N N Y N YD5. Main Success of partnership Y N Y Y Y N

[E] EfficiencyE1. Cost efficiencytotal cost of the partnership N N Y Y N Ycan specific operating costs be attributed to the partnership?

Y Y Y Y Y Y

do partners keep track of the additional cost dedicated to the partnership?

N Y Y Y Y Y

what transaction costs can be attributed? N Y N N Y Ywere other projects left aside? N N N N Y YE.2 Critical Success FactorsTop 5 of critical success factors Y N Y Y Y NChecklist 6 N N N N N N

39

E3. Lessons learnedtop 5 of lessons learned/recommendations Y Y Y Y Y Y

[F] EffectivenessF1. Was the partnership necessary?Do the partners view the PPP as crucial to achieve goals?

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Contribution to each partners core business? Y Y N Y N Ncould partners not reach their indiv. Goals independently?

Y Y Y Y Y N

what would have happened in case the project was not implemented?

Y N Y Y Y N

F2. Were alternative partnering or non-partnering approaches possible?is an alternative approach possible that would have brought comparable results?

Y Y Y Y Y Y

F3. Did the partnership make the allocation of additional resources possible?where more resources allocated than otherwise possible?

Y Y Y Y Y N

F4. Was it possible for the partnership to have other objectiveswhere other objectives possible through the partnership?

Y N Y Y N N

did the partnership project trigger other activities of the participants that proved relevant for MDGs

N N N N N N

F5. ReproducibilityReplication? N Y Y N N YScaling-up? Y N Y Y N YF6. SWOT Y Y Y Y Y Y

Checklist 1 N Y N N N NChecklist 2 N N N N N NChecklist 3 N Y N N N NChecklist 4 N N N Y N NChecklist 5 N N Y Y N NChecklist 6 N N N N N NN.B.: this list attempts to provide an overview on which questions were answered or not by the reviewer per partnership. Some questions were indirectly answered in other parts of the review reports, what made it difficult to capture all answers under clusters.

from idea to partnership - netherlands · 10/23/2008 · from idea to partnership: reviewing the...

Documents