Getting It Together:Structuring Partnership Programs for Collective Action

► LJD WeekNovember 15, 2011LEGCF, World Bank

Alphabet Soup

ACBF CoST GAFSP GPOBA

PROFISH

AMC CIF GAVI GRSF PROFOR

ANSA CTF GFATM IFFIm PPIAF

APOC EIF GEF IHP+ READ

ARTF EITI GFDRR

IQTF SAICM

CAADP

FCPF GPE KCP StAR

CGAP FIRST GGFR PEFA UNAIDS

CGIAR FSB GPF PMNCH

WSP

Structure MattersPartnership Programs can get you there.

Partnership Programs

Collective Action ResultsGlobal / Regional Public Goods

Global – Country Links

StructuralDesign

Technical Content

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)

Structure in Context The Broader Architecture

STRUCTURE Governance

resourcemobilization brand

contracts

messaging

events

Partnership ProgramsWhat gets collectivized?

governing body

trust fund

secretariat

activities & results

• Pooled funding – money

• Common administration – services

• Lessons learned – knowledge

• Shared governance – decisions / oversight

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.

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.

A Web of Relationshi

ps

knowledge community (sharing, lessons learned)

governing fundersbodies

hostrecipients

target beneficiaries(impact, results)

governance / fund administration flows

adopted documents contracts

Partnership Programscombinestructural and contractual links.

All documents need to be aligned.

PP

PP Example

Trust Fund

Beneficiary

Donor

Governing Body

AdvisoryGroup

Other Funding

Supervising Entity

Implementing Entity

Trustee / Secretariat

Lines & LinksFollow 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 pooledone partnership can havemany funding sources

Create connections – delineate roles &

responsibilities.

upstream

downstream

contributions

allocations

implementation

results

•individual decisions to contribute

•collective decisionsto allocate

• individual responsibilityfor implementation(fund use)

• collective responsibility

for results(oversight)

trustee secretariat

Conflicts of Interest: Do decision makers have a biasin 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

Conflicts & Synergies

The Great Balancing Act• How participatory

inclusion efficiency

• How unifiedcommon individualelements requirements

• How deepglobal countryplatform grounding

= TRADE-OFFS

buy-in spectrum

harmonization spectrum

continuity spectrum

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.

common platform / individual requirements

For example, pooled funding – distinguish between:• Nature of contribution• Status of legal agreement

TAILORED(cover agreement)

customize post-template

c

• Allocation and use of funds• Trustee operations

HARMONIZED(annexes)

agree on common template

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

global platform / country grounding

• Process elements: – country consent for local activities

• Structural elements:– country participation in governing body– two-tier governance

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:

(i) country-ownership (v) transparency(ii) benchmarking (vi) development for

results /(iii) support linked to performance value for money(iv) lower transaction costs (vii) mutual

accountability

Two-Tier Governance

II) COUNTRY LEVEL

I)GLOBAL LEVELDeveloping countries, multilateral agencies, CSOs, private sector and private foundations

• The Board of Directors• The Financial Advisory Committee• The Secretariat

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

COUNTRY LEVELEducation

Plan

LOCAL EDUCATION GROUP (LEG)

Coordinating Agency

Government of Developing Country

Civil Society Organizations Local Donor Group

-Commits to achieving EFA goalsin 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

GLOBAL LEVEL

GPE PARTERSHIP – MeetingChair

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

19 members – 5 constituency groups

FAC

(i) Donors(ii) MDBs(iii) CSOs(iv) Developing Countries(v) Private Sector / Foundations

SECRETARIAT(currently in WB)

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: 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

Thank you for your interest!

Ximena TaleroAndrea StumpfRocio Malpica