getting it together structuring partnership programs for collective actio n n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Getting It Together: Structuring Partnership Programs for Collective Actio n PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Getting It Together: Structuring Partnership Programs for Collective Actio n

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Getting It Together: Structuring Partnership Programs for Collective Actio n

143 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Getting It Together: Structuring Partnership Programs for Collective Actio n

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Getting It Together:Structuring Partnership Programs for Collective Action ► LJD Week November 15, 2011 LEGCF, World Bank

  2. Alphabet Soup

  3. Structure MattersPartnership Programs can get you there. Partnership Programs Collective Action Results Global / Regional Public Goods Global – Country Links Structural Design Technical Content

  4. Legally Speaking • informal partnerships ---------------------------- • international law ---------------------------- • sui generis • not legal entities (housed in legal entities) ----------------------------------- • not couched in domestic law • privileges & immunities ----------------------------------- • infinite variations (let 1000 flowers bloom)

  5. Structure in ContextThe Broader Architecture resource mobilization brand STRUCTURE Governance contracts messaging events

  6. Partnership ProgramsWhat gets collectivized? • Shared governance – • decisions / oversight • Pooled funding – money • Common administration – • services • Lessons learned – • knowledge

  7. Establishing a PP • A PP is established by establishing itself. • Those wishing to be the ultimate PP authority designates themselves as the ultimate authority. • Usually through a constitutive document. • E.g., charter, governance terms, instrument • Which comes first, partnership or charter? Both. • One begets the other when partners adopt governing terms and constitute themselves as a defined partnership.

  8. What’s in a charter? • No hard and fast rule - each one is different. • Generally definitional, essential elements – the sine qua nons of the PP. Usually: • mission, objectives, purpose – what it’s for • membership – who’s in • bodies – who meets on what, how • roles and responsibilities – who does what • rights and rules – amendments, COI, P&I, etc. • Structural, not operational, level of detail.

  9. A Web of Relationships knowledge community (sharing, lessons learned) governing funders bodies host recipients target beneficiaries (impact, results) governance /fund administration flows adopted documentscontracts Partnership Programs combine structural and contractual links. All documents need to be aligned. PP

  10. Advisory Group Governing Body PP Example Donor Trustee / Secretariat Other Funding Trust Fund Supervising Entity Implementing Entity Beneficiary

  11. Lines & Links Follow the power, follow the money. • Who makes what decisions? • shared governance (coalition) • consensus (no minority, no dissent) • secretariat / implementers • How do funds flow? • dedicated funds, frequently pooled • one partnership can have many funding sources Create connections – delineate roles & responsibilities.

  12. individual decisions • to contribute • collective decisions • to allocate • contributions • allocations upstream trustee secretariat • individual responsibility • for implementation • (fund use) • collective responsibility • for results • (oversight) downstream • implementation • results

  13. Conflicts & Synergies Conflicts of Interest: Do decision makers have a bias in decision making? • connections not content • less than transparent • uneven playing field, unfair advantage Upstream ≠ downstream? not so fast …. Partnership programs can make synergies out of conflicts. • coordinate between upstream and downstream • bring downstream expertise upstream • provide full service package, efficient one-stop shop

  14. The Great Balancing Act • How participatory inclusion efficiency • How unified common individual elements requirements • How deep global country platform grounding = TRADE-OFFS buy-in spectrum harmonization spectrum continuity spectrum

  15. inclusion / efficiency • Trend to more inclusive stakeholder models • Some solutions to keep body size manageable: • Donors represented through constituencies • Private sector through trade associations • Part 2 through (i) donors (lower amount), (ii) recipients (but see COI), (iii) regional associations • CSOs / NGOs similar to Part 2 Need to be capable of consensus. Need to be sufficiently representative.

  16. common platform / individual requirements For example, pooled funding – distinguish between: c Allocation and use of funds Trustee operations HARMONIZED (annexes) agree on common template • Nature of contribution • Status of legal agreement TAILORED (cover agreement) customize post-template

  17. pooling / earmarking • Pooled funds with common terms versus restricted funds for specific purposes: • Does the donor need financial tracking? • Softer alternatives within pooled funding: • Preferences, non-binding indications • Notional approach, funds in, first out • Granular proposals, detailed reporting • Timed contributions, after allocation decided

  18. global platform / country grounding • Process elements: • country consent for local activities • Structural elements: • country participation in governing body • two-tier governance

  19. Global Partnership for Education (GPE – formerly EFA-FTI) Main purpose: • Accelerate MDG of universal primary completion • Link donor funds to country education sector plans • Get accountability for results Main principles: • country-ownership (v) transparency • benchmarking (vi) development for results / • support linked to performance value for money • lower transaction costs (vii) mutual accountability

  20. I)GLOBAL LEVEL • Developing countries, multilateral agencies, CSOs, private sector and private foundations • The Board of Directors • The Financial Advisory Committee • The Secretariat Two-Tier Governance II) COUNTRY LEVEL • Local Education Group (LEG): Partners develop, appraise, endorse, implement, monitor, and evaluate Education Plans. • Developing Country Governments • Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) • Local Donor Groups (LDG) • Coordinating Agency

  21. COUNTRY LEVEL Education Plan LOCAL EDUCATION GROUP (LEG) Coordinating Agency Government of Developing Country Civil Society Organizations Local Donor Group -Commits to achieving EFA goals in consultation with the others is responsible for the EP -Leads and directs LEG work -Chairs meetings -Ensures participatory review of relevant ministries and authorities -Support EP progress , strengthening domestic policy and accountability processes through advocacy/dialogue -Ensure broad and representative voices -Participate in Joint Reviews -Appraises/endorses EP -Mobilizes L-T financing to complement government funds -Promotes better coordination, harmonization, information -Active role in Joint Reviews

  22. GLOBAL LEVEL Chair GPE PARTERSHIP – Meeting BOARD OF DIRECTORS 19 members – 5 constituency groups Donors MDBs CSOs Developing Countries Private Sector / Foundations FAC Board: Sets policies and strategies; reviews and approves GPE objectives; makes funding decisions; gives direction to Secretariat / Chair, approves their objectives, outcomes, staffing, budget, work plan; enhances links with partners; strengthens communication and collaboration SECRETARIAT (currently in WB) Secretariat: Provides technical / administrative support to GPE, Chair, Board and committees; supports coordination, resource mobilization, LEG and CA to strengthen country process; collects and shares global and country level information, facilitates sharing of lessons learned

  23. Thank you for your interest! XimenaTalero Andrea Stumpf RocioMalpica