Getting Started in Blackboard Collaborate
1. Plug in your
headset and click this
icon to open the
audio wizard.
2. Each time you
talk to the group
click this ‘Talk’
button
Anwar Muhammad
Plan International
Pakistan
Ken Caplan
Partnerships in Practice
State of the art partnerships
Learning from the washsector
Talk button
Emoticons
Participant list
Emoticons
Step away
Hand up
Polling
Whiteboard
tools
Your
feedback
Chat room
Plan International ©
Getting Started in Blackboard Collaborate
Where are you based?
Attending Webinars
Ground Rules
Please make sure you have closed down other
applications such as email and your web browser
If you want to ask a question at any time, please
raise a hand using the raise hand icon you can
find at the top of the Participants window
You can also use the chat box to comment and
ask questions
If you have any technical problems or can’t hear or
see something, please let us know straight away so
that we can help
Plan International ©
Anwar Muhammad
Plan International
Pakistan
Ken Caplan
Partnerships in Practice
State of the art partnerships
Learning from the washsector
Public Private
Partnerships (PPPs)
Multi-Stakeholder
Partnerships (MSPs)
Contracts-based (clear
vertical accountability
structures)
Emphasises horizontal accountability
rather than transactions between
partners
Specific performance
targets, deliverables and
timeframes (that also relate
to Return on Investment)
Expected to evolve organically with
greater flexibility around targets,
deliverables and timeframes
Within clear legal /
regulatory construct
Partnership is unregulated (though
partners operate within legal /
regulatory construct)
Limited stakeholder
engagement expected
Extensive stakeholder engagement
generally considered a critical
success factor
Partnership Types (Function)
• Accountability-based partnership focuses on standard setting,
regulation and policy making by providing certification, verification and
monitoring mechanisms.
• Resource transfer partnership makes funding or other resources
available to local/national projects/programs through grants, products,
equipment, technical assistance or logistical support.
• Learning and innovation partnership generates and shares
learning and innovation with a view to finding new solutions for different
challenges.
• Alignment, Coordination and Advocacy partnership draws
attention to a specific issue to create consistent responses.
• Implementation partnership puts programs/projects in place
through joint activities on the ground.
Levels of ambition
Specific taskorientated
projects
Systemic
change
Delivering
infrastructure
Changing
behaviours
Capacity
building
Changing
systems
[Challenge to vested interests]
Partnership Types (Form)
 Greater commitments
 Higher level of interdependence
& blurred branding
 Generally more specific deliverables
with stronger accountabilities
Integrative
Coalitions
Networks
Collaborative
Joint ventures /
new institutions
 Higher level of risk and reward
follow these 7 steps
6 Partnerships
Principles
Challenges
Programme
Quality
Plus 8th on transition
and exit strategies
PQ Procedures
Staff Competencies
Fund and Grant
Management
Guidance
Types of Partners
Levels of Partners
SPREAD THE WORD
REDUCE ADMIN
BARRIERS
BRING STAFF TOGETHER
BUILD STAFF
COMPETENCIES
SHARE AND LEARN
(From Building Better Partnerships (Plan, 2015) – Plan’s partnership
guidance & 7 key actions framework)
Working in Partnership – Moving from Service
Delivery to Sustainable Programing
• Pakistan the sixth most populous country - 198 million;
• Access to drinking water and sanitation in Pakistan 91%
and 48% respectively;
• Devise a comprehensive WASH programme in 2010;
• Successfully scaled up in partnership with national,
provincial and local governments, CSOs, corporate and
development actors;
• Reached out to more than 8 million people in country;
• Expanded from 3 districts to 35 districts and engaged 2
partners to 18 diverse partners at peak
Plan International ©
Challenges in WASH Programme
• Bringing all stakeholders on same page took lots of efforts
and time;
• Multiple approaches (subsidy and non-subsidy) by partners;
• Weak financial and management systems of local NGOs;
• WASH /PATS understanding of CSOs;
• Sustainability of the Programme – project /funding base
approach; and
• Trust deficit & understanding of each other CSOs vis-a-vis
Government.
Plan International ©
Learning /Tips from WASH Programme
of Pakistan
• Need to build broader consensus among stakeholders at all
levels;
• To achieve best results proper capacity building of local
stakeholders (government and CSOs) is crucial;
• Programmes to have flexible approach of working with
space for innovation and adaptability;
• Aligned with government and community priorities (strong
networking among local CSOs, communities and
government at all levels);
• Constant critical review, re-adjustment and improving
programme design.
Plan International ©
Why Plan Netherlands invests in WASH PPPs?
Anwar Muhammad
• Bigger impact
• Complementarity
• Financial leverage
• Sustainability
• Ownership with local government from the
start
• Business model will continue after project
has ended
• Funding options are available
16
Plan International ©
Exploring the state-of-the-art in WASH partnering
• Undertook a literature review, a
scan of various partnership
evaluations, and interviewed 30+
partnership practitioners and
policymakers.
• Challenge of trying to generalize
out of a very diverse set of
experiences
• Also seeking some comparisons
with the Water Resources
Management sector
17
Plan International ©
Initial Overarching Findings on WASH Partnerships
1. Evaluation Criteria – Most partnerships score well on relevance but less well
for efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability (in that order).
2. Global to Local – Particularly challenging to measure impact at the global
level where the work of the partnership is harder to translate to the country
context.
3. Impact is usually less than expected (given the competition around resources
and the primacy of ideas, and the challenge of aligning attitudes to risk). Most
tinker around edges of the status quo rather than making meaningful change.
4. Funding arrangements generally do not facilitate risk-taking or sufficient
innovation but rather reinforce short-termism.
5. Negotiating the SDGs provided a solid foundation for joining WRM and
WASH. Most interviewees note a return to siloes.
6. Increasing competition for the same funding sources and the same policy
space for growing number of partnerships
18
Section title [enter in Footer field from the Insert ribbon]
Plan International ©
Working with the Private Sector
1. Little incentive for (non-water provider) private sector to engage beyond
their fence line – most focused on internal efficiencies to reduce
reliance on water from external sources
2. Generally not leveraging commercial funding from or operational
relationships. [Most from CSR or foundation sources.] Thus private
sector ownership & true engagement is less convincing.
3. Government quandary – lacks capacity to ensure public oversight;
keen to leverage resources & expertise but not wanting to be seen to be
colluding; not wanting to antagonize so as to foster employment and
economic growth.
4. [Related to above] Decentralisation not yet providing the resources
and capacity for government to engage effectively at the local level,
particularly with the private sector.
5. Some promise in new business models for sanitation but these are
generally hampered by funding arrangements (as mentioned above).
19
Plan International ©
Examples of a WASH PPP
• Title: Water Demand Management to mitigate
Water Shortages
• Partners: Vitens Evides International/ Northern
Regional Water Board/ Mzuzu City Council/ Plan
Malawi/ Plan Netherlands
• Budget: 2,6 million Euro
• Location: Mzuzu city, Malawi
• Aim: Improve access to water and sanitation for
all residents in Mzuzu city.
20
Plan International ©
Challenges
• Learning each other language
• Team building is time consuming
• Integrating different expertise into one project
• Working with local government
• Integrating financial flows
• Ensuring a pro-poor focus
21
Plan International ©
Lessons learned
• Take time to select the right partners - no forced
marriages
• Ensure capacity building within project team for
PPP
• Ensure a clear division of labor and clear
communication structure.
• Evaluate the partnership every few monthsensure flexibility in project design
• First year is for team building
22
Plan International ©
Trends to watch
1. Influence of “big data”
• Little excuse for not reporting on outcomes and impact
• Stronger requirement for mutual accountability amongst the partners
(internal)
• Stronger requirement to call out failing initiatives (external)
2. Emerging focus on the “circular economy” (reuse / recycle) – [Converting
waste flows to energy and agriculture inputs, for example]
• May require engaging different partners or reframing the primary focus of
partnerships
3. Universal coverage through the SDGs
• Should force more negotiated and tailored conversations around how
best to tackle the hardest to reach places
• Will change the dynamic around funding arrangements with a revised
view on “value for money”
23
Plan International ©
Q&A
Plan Academy Webinar