1. RBEC survey results Working with the private sector Business focal point workshop Bratislava, 24 October

2. INTRODUCTION Opinion on degree of activity in private sector collaboration We are making some progress but like to see higher degree of involvement 100% = 21 We are working well, this is sufficient for now Amount of current vs planned activity – by country; NB. indicative only, does not encompass scale of each activity Although practically all COs hold the same belief regarding the current level of cooperation with the private sector, namely, that progress is being made but more involvement would be positive, there are significant disparities between the activities of COs, both in terms of current projects/initiatives, and in terms of future plans We are definitely not doing enough Number of current projects/ initiatives with private sector Number of planned projects/ initiatives with private sector Very active COs Relatively low level of activity Not ambitious enough? “Middle ground” NB. 2 COs each

3. MAIN OBSTACLES We do not know how to approach private sector Overall responses Responses by regional sub-groups* Central Asia * Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey) Private sector not interested We see no benefit Not enough support from RBEC/DBP Private sector in our country too weak Other Balkans Central Europe 11 6 4 3 13 6 3 1 0 0 0 5 4 2 2 2 0 5 1 1 1 1 0 3 Companies not focused on public benefits Lack of private sector orientation in CO Unfavourable environment for private sector development Lack of clarity on UNDP roles Ad-hoc basis up to now, currently defining strategy (Similar comments from 3 different COs) Private sector very keen, need partnership strategy Lack of staff capacity Lack of staff capacity and knowledge (e.g. identification of win-win proposals) Need awareness- raising efforts – CSR, benefits for private sector Wide-spread belief that private sector too weak throughout region for cooperation with UNDP – to what extent does this result from in-depth analysis?

4. PRIORITY ACTIONS Central/ regional database Overall responses Responses by regional sub-groups* Central Asia * Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey) Better defined potential UNDP roles “Roving expert” role More RBEC support More CO exchange of experiences Other Balkans Central Europe 14 9 5 4 3 Involving private sector in on-going initiatives, to recognize their wider role in society Support CO with real private sector experience, especially in defining value proposition for PS Increase CO capacity to focus on PS partnerships Definite differences between sub-groups in desired priority actions – overall all agree that more CO exchange of experiences is critical, but Central Asia focuses also on defining potential roles for UNDP, while Balkans very interested in “roving expert” More regional/ RBEC workshops More UNDP instruments/ guidelines More DBP support More CO autonomy 13 6 4 2 3 6 3 2 1 0 7 1 0 1 0 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 3

5. TYPES OF CURRENT PROJECTS Types of current projects overall, by number, % Policy advice on business enabling environment 100% = 75 Philanthropic activities Again, definite differences can be observed amongst sub-regions in terms of types of current engagements with the private sector – in Central Asia, SME development and policy advice activities occupy the main positions, whilst in the Balkans, there is a variety of roles played by companies. In Central Europe, SME development is an important type of activity, with projects where private companies play a variety of (such as TA) in the first place Variety of roles played by companies (e.g. TA) Central Asia GC promotion and advocacy Supporting SME development Types of current projects by sub-regions*, by number, % * Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey) BalkansCentral Europe 100% = 243724 Supporting SME development Variety of roles played by companies Policy advice GC advocacy Philanthropic activities

6. EXAMPLES OF CURRENT PROJECTS Central Asia Policy advice Balkans Philanthropic activities Central Europe Variety of company roles (e.g. TA) Sub-regionCategory 1) Funding for event to support mine victims in Albania, participating companies include Western Union, United Bank of Albania; 2) Computer Clubs for Children in Romania, with e.g. Distrigaz Sud, MobiFon CONNEX 1) Capacity building of Lithuanian women through networking and ICT, with Microsoft; 2) Grant Fund for Plock in Poland, with PKN Orlen, Levi Strauss; 3) Renovation of penitentiaries in Russia, with several insurance companies, 4) Eastern Anatolia University-SME Partnership Project with Cisco in Turkey Specific projects Support to Azerbaijan Investment Promotion and Advisory Foundation Variety of company roles (e.g. TA) 1) Generating employment in Bulgaria by involving construction companies in Beautiful Bulgaria Programme; 2) Municipal support programme, PPPs in Macedonia Supporting SME development 1) Creation of business incubators and rural SME support centre in Belarus; 2) Promoting innovation and employment in Lithuania using SYSLAB methodology Policy advice 1) Private sector involvement in drafting strategic documents of Bulgarian e- Government; 2) Private sector consultations on stimulating investment in Macedonia Variety of company roles (e.g. TA) 1) Introducing TQM and ISO Standards to Georgian export sector, with association of exporters; 2) Transfer of technology for water-heating solar panels in Uzbekistan – with Uzbek and Danish companies GC promotion and advocacy 1) Regional GC seminar on role of business in promoting growth and stability, held in Kazakhstan; 2) Support for programme development in Moldova, with support from e.g. Sudzucker, Voxtel, Moldcel GC promotion and advocacy 1) Tourism development strategy for specific region in Poland, with support from e.g. Danone, J&J, ABB, Deutsche Bank; 2) Development of CSR index in Russia – with e.g. Lukoil, Aeroflot, Yukos GC promotion and advocacy Roundtable on CSR in Romania – with Shell

7. TYPES OF PLANNED PROJECTS Most projects that are planned do not envisage involvement of large companies, but are rather focused on SME development, especially in Central Asia GC participation is the second category of initiatives planned for private sector involvement, especially in Balkans In Central Europe, partnerships with local companies providing funding - main category of cooperation planned Central Asia Types of planned projects overall and by sub-regions*, by number, % * Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey) BalkansCentral Europe 100% =531824 Partnerships with large companies/MNCs who provide funding Partnerships with large companies/MNCs providing contribution-in-kind Partnerships with local corporates who provide contribution-in-kind Partnerships with local companies on commercially justified basis Partnerships with large companies/MNCs on commercially justified basis Overall Partnerships with local companies providing funding Projects with SME benefit, no large company involvement Global Compact participation Other 11 18 22 16 17

8. EXAMPLES OF PLANNED PROJECTS Central Asia Funding Balkans Commercially justified initiatives Central Europe Funding Sub- region Category Possible partnerships in support of regional public access centers in Albania – with AMC (Albanian Mobile Communications) Funding for abortion prevention programme in Lithuania – with Schering-Plough OY Funding for anti-corruption project in Lithuania – with Constructus company Replication of local sustainable development model in Poland – with PKN Orlen, KGHM, Toyota Waste management facility in Russia – with support from Lukoil Building public awareness on hygiene and good nutritional habits in Turkey – with Novartis, Nestle, Unilever Specific projects Oilpipe consortium, BP and Statoil to provide funding for range of activities in Azerbaijan (environment, poverty reduction, blood bank) Further funding hoped for in Kazakhstan leveraging GC network to reach new partners GC participation Awareness-raising activities in Albania, with e.g. AMC, ABB, Ericsson, TetraPak SME benefit New components added to existing JOBS project in Bulgaria Establishment of business and technological incubators in Romania SME benefit Further development of business incubators in Uzbekistan Improving policies and regulatory environment in Uzbekistan Funding Development of Access Point Centres in Macedonia with support from Microsoft Commercially justified initiatives