Working towards Equitable Partnerships Coady International Institute – January 2014

Objectives  Collaboration to meet mutual goals is an essential element of all development work, yet equitable & transparent partnerships are not easy. The Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness challenge us to pursue equitable partnership based on shared development goals & values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment and solidarity.  This section of the workshop aims to identify, analyze and reflect upon:  Participants’ current partnership experience  Key elements of the complexity of working in partnership: ethics, power, emerging theory & shared practice  How to work with partners to mutually identify indicators for measuring successful equitable partnership

Agenda  Activity One: (1 hr 15 min)  Understanding ‘partnership’ better: the nature & range of collaboration  Activity Two: (2 hrs)  Partnership, power and ethical reflections  Activity Three: (3 hrs 15 min)  Testing an approach for working with partners to identify indicators of successful equitable partnership

Activity One: Partnership Experience & Analysis  Reflections on partnership case stories:  What has worked well? Not so well?  Sharing lessons learned  Introducing frameworks & tools for analysis:  Partnership spectrum  Drivers & purpose for partnership  Partnership scope & domain

Activity One: Nature of collaboration – a partnership spectrum Association / networks Social movements Joint venture Non-binding, loose legal/ binding Coalitions Coordinated management arrangement Adapted from thepartnershipinitiative.org Contractual / donor relation Social Enterprises

Activity One: Drivers for partnership Resources centric Collaborative work For the purpose of Influence

Activity One: Purpose-led Partnership  Systemic Change  Policy Influence  Business solution for social purpose  Service Delivery Coordination  Mutual learning (including research)  Strengthening community voice  others……

Activity One: Partnership Scope and Domain LocalProvincialNationalRegional/ Global courtesy of CARE International

Partnering Cycle

Partnership – one definition Partnership is a collaboration in which organizations work together in a transparent, equitable and mutually beneficial way towards a sustainable development goal and where those defined as partners agree to commit resources and share the risks as well as the benefits associated with the partnership. adapted from The Partnering Initiative

Activity Two: Partnership, power and ethical reflections Session covers:  Global context  MDGs to Istanbul principles  Power, Ethics & Partnership  Power cube analysis  Ethical reflections  CCIC Code of Ethics

Context: why Partnerships? Global context - from effective to equitable …  Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) In 2000, 189 nations made a promise to free people from extreme poverty. This pledge became the 8 MDGs to be achieved by  MDG 8 Virtually nothing in the sphere of international development happens without effective partnerships. The challenge of reducing poverty around the world is simply too big for any single government or organization to tackle alone.

Why Partnership? Global context - from effective to equitable …  Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005 – international meeting of donors) “working in partnership” referred to more than 1000 times throughout declaration  Accra Agenda for Action (2008 – CSO meeting in response to Paris Declaration) “build more effective and inclusive partnerships in order to have greater impact on reducing poverty” Partnerships in a Multi-Stakeholder Environment

Why Partnership? Global context - from effective to equitable …  Istanbul CSO Development Effectiveness Principles (2010 meeting and consultations with CSO networks)  Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity (principle #6) “CSOs are effective as development actors when they commit to transparent relationships with CSOs and other development actors, freely and as equals, based on shared development goals and values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment, solidarity and global citizenship”

Activity Two: Equitable partnership  Equitable - “impartial, just & fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience” – Implies: Power relations Principals & ethical considerations  Power and ethics not easy subjects to explore without common reference points …. let’s do some analysis

Power and Partnership Power ‘over’ – the ability of the powerful to affect the actions and thoughts of the powerless Power ‘to’ – the capacity to act; agency Power ‘with’ – the synergy of collective action, social mobilization and alliance building Power ‘within’ – a sense of self-dignity and self- awareness that enables agency

VisibleHiddenInvisible POWER PLACES Global National Local Household SPACES Closed Claimed Invited Power Cube: The Power Cube

Activity Two: Self-reflection  Mini-analysis on partnership case stories:  where is the power?  what are the ethical considerations?  follow-up required?  Values and principles often not discussed in partnership development  CCIC Code of Ethics and Operational Standards can provide a starting point … Partnerships in a Multi-Stakeholder Environment

Activity Three: what does equitable partnership look like?  Istanbul Principal #6: “CSOs are effective as development actors when they commit to transparent relationships with CSOs and other development actors, freely and as equals based on shared development goals & values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment, solidarity & global citizen-ship”  What does equitable partnership look like? Can we identify indicators and measurement for equitable partnerships?

 Starts with a conversation among partners, based on:  Mutual understanding of “Partnership” (including discussion on power & principles/ethics)  Istanbul Principle #6 as a shared aspiration  What might be indicators of what equitable partnership looks like for us? Reference points:  CCIC Code of Ethics & Operational Standards (partnerships sections)  Keystone Accountability Survey questions  Internal documentation – vision, theory of change, etc Activity Three: what does equitable partnership look like?

Activity Three: Indicators of Equitable Partnership Let’s test an approach to develop indicators of equitable partnership using CCIC & Keystone resources Coady Institute Strategic Partnerships

Activity Three: CCIC Code of Ethics and Operational Standards Code of Ethics: A declaration of common principles that all members strive to continually embody. Operational Standards: Collective understanding of what at a minimum organizations agree they must do.

Activity Three: Keysto Development Partnerships Survey  The 2010 Keystone Development Partnership Survey surveyed over 3,000 local partners of 28 international NGOs ( )  The original 2010 report had two major findings:  Local org’s do not want to be treated as sub-contractors of international agencies. They want help to become independent and influential org’s in their own right.  Feedback from partners is a reliable way of measuring performance. Benchmarks provide direct comparisons between aid agencies - a sector first. The report calls for a new reporting standard for agencies that fund local partners.

 Using the CCIC Code of Ethics and the Keystone Partnerships survey, working in groups to identify potential indicators for:  Transparent relationships  Freely and as equals  Shared development goals & values  Mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy  Long term accompaniment, solidarity & global citizenship Activity Three: Indicators of Equitable Partnership

 NEXT STEPS:  Follow-up within our organizations, including discussion and mapping with partners (  Session 5)  Any interest in a small working group to continue the work on indicators and how to measure?  Ongoing feedback appreciated Activity Three: Indicators of Equitable Partnership

Activity Three: Coady draft strategic lens to assess potential partnerships  Fit with citizen-led, community-driven, asset-based Coady approach  Fit with Coady “step model” theory of change  Fit with thematic areas:  Strengthen inclusive economies | Build resilient communities | Promote accountable democracies  Fit with focus on women's /youth / aboriginal leadership  Key questions to consider:  Are there ethical considerations – a fit with Coady ethical guidelines/principles?  Is it mutually beneficial & equitable for all involved?  Does it allow us to do something other funding doesn’t? (such as off-campus programming) Or allow us to do something we already do, better?  Do we currently have the capacity and/or potential capacity? Does the partner?  Is it funded or does it require leveraged funds? If so, are there leveraged funds?  Are there strategic reasons to consider (ie part of a long term strategy / relationship)?  Does it increase our development impact? Coady Institute Strategic Partnerships

Snap-shot Coady partnerships August 2013 (draft 2)