Structure Matters Partnership Programs can get you there. Partnership Programs Collective Action Results Global / Regional Public Goods Global – Country Links Structural Design 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 resource mobilization brand contracts messaging events
Partnership Programs What gets collectivized? governing body trust fundsecretariat 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.
Whats 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 its for membership – whos 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 Relationships knowledge community (sharing, lessons learned) governingfunders bodies hostrecipients target beneficiaries (impact, results) governance / fund administration flows adopted documentscontracts Partnership Programs combine structural and contractual links. All documents need to be aligned. PP
PP Example Trust Fund Beneficiary Donor Governing Body Advisory Group Other Funding Supervising Entity Implementing Entity Trustee / Secretariat
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.
upstream downstream contributions allocations implementation results individual decisions to contribute collective decisions to allocate individual responsibility for implementation (fund use) collective responsibility for results (oversight) trustee secretariat
Conflicts of Interest: Do decision makers have a bias in decision making? –c–connections not content –l–less than transparent –u–uneven playing field, unfair advantage Upstream downstream? not so fast …. Partnership programs can make s ynergies out of conflicts. –c–coordinate between upstream and downstream –b–bring downstream expertise upstream –p–provide full service package, efficient one-stop shop Conflicts & Synergies
The Great Balancing Act How participatory inclusion efficiency How unified commonindividual elementsrequirements How deep global country platformgrounding = TRADE-OFFS buy-in spectrum harmonization spectrum continuity spectrum
inclusion / efficiency Trend to more inclusive stakeholder models Some solutions to keep body size manageable: –D–Donors represented through constituencies –P–Private sector through trade associations –P–Part 2 through (i) donors (lower amount), (ii) recipients (but see COI), (iii) regional associations –C–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 performancevalue for money (iv)lower transaction costs(vii)mutual accountability
Two-Tier Governance II) COUNTRY LEVEL I)GLOBAL LEVEL Developing 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 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
GLOBAL LEVEL GPE PARTERSHIP – Meeting Chair 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 Talero Andrea Stumpf Rocio Malpica