Strategic Partnership:

Challenges and Best Practices in the Management and Governance of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships Involving UN and Civil Society Actors

Background paper prepared by Carmen Malena for the Multi-Stakeholder Workshop on Partnerships amd UN-Civil Society Relations

Pocantico, New York, February 2004

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to review challenges and recommended practices in the management and governance of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) involving (among other) United Nations (UN) and civil society actors. Prepared as input to a workshop on the governance implications of MSPs, the paper does not necessarily seek to offer conclusions but rather to stimulate discussion and debate by identifying key issue areas, posing critical questions and proposing some working hypotheses based on current experience. As the ultimate purpose is to inform the work of the High Level Panel on UN-Civil Society Relations, the paper focuses on lessons and implications for UN actors.

The methodology for the preparation of the paper included: a review of key documents (a short bibliography is attached), an analysis of a number of case studies of diverse MSP experiences involving UN and civil society actors (listed in Annex I), and discussions with a number of MSP participants and experts (listed in Annex II).

The paper is composed of three parts. Part I, Framing Multi-Stakeholder Partnership, highlights the importance of situating MSPs within a clear conceptual, analytical and strategic framework. Part II, Practicing Multi-Stakeholder Partnership, identifies and discusses issues and lessons learned with regard to five key elements of the effective practice of partnership: inclusion, clear definition of purpose and roles, participation/power-sharing, accountability and strategic influence. Part III, Institutionalizing Multi-Stakeholder Partnership, briefly discusses issues and implications related to the “mainstreaming” of MSP approaches by UN organizations. In order to capture the wealth and diversity of a wide range of stakeholder views and experiences, direct quotes from primary and secondary sources are given considerable space throughout the three sections.

I. FRAMING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP

In recent years, MSPs have emerged as an increasingly important modus operandi throughout the United Nations system. Some UN organizations (such as UNDP, UNICEF and WHO) have worked in partnership for many years and consider it a core practice. Other UN bodies are currently expanding their involvement in MSPs or seeking to mainstream the practice. The recent UN publication Building Partnerships, for example, reviews dozens of current MSPs involving UN bodies and the website of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs lists hundreds of “partnerships for sustainable development” launched during and after the World Summit on Sustainable Development.As the adjacent citations illustrate, MSPs have come to be acknowledged as a crucial, indeed the only, manner in which to achieve the UN’s global goals. As one UN interviewee stated, “It’s no longer a question of if partnership, it’s about how to expand partnership”.
Despite its buzzword status and “feel good” overtones, partnership remains a poorly defined and highly contentious concept. Touted as “a revolution” and “the way of the future” by some, the term is dismissed as trite and meaningless by others. While some consider it a “victory” for civil society organizations (CSOs) and an “end to the lip service of consultation”, others equate partnership with “the co-optation of CSOs” or see it as “a strategy to divide and conquer”. Before discussing the practice of partnership, this section will briefly address some core conceptual issues (raised both by interviewees and in the literature) around the definition, limits and risks of partnership.
A. The Meaning of Partnership
Reviewing the literature and talking to UN and civil society representatives quickly reveals that there is little common understanding regarding the meaning of partnership. Acknowledging that consensus on the definition of partnership is probably not possible (nor necessary), many interviewees nevertheless stressed the pressing need for greater clarity and rigor in the use of the term partnership within the UN system. Currently, some UN staff (and publications) use the term in reference to almost any form of interaction between UN and external actors (including, for example, instances of co-financing, inter-agency coordination, information-sharing and consultation). Others seem to link the term exclusively to relationships with business actors or to reserve it for relationships with an implementation (v. policy dialogue) mandate.
Trolling through UN publications produces a plethora of different definitions of partnership, but a general definition that has appeared in several recent documents (and was proposed as a working definition for the current exercise) is cited to the right. While this definition (or some close variation thereof) seems to have gained some level of official status, it does not as yet appear to be very widely known (nor necessarily considered adequate) by staff throughout the system. Many interviewees judged the above definition to be too vague to be of practical use and felt that terms like “collaborative”, “common purpose” and “shared risks” required additional (operational) clarification. Others suggested that a definition of partnership should go further and include (controversial) elements such as equality, trust, and shared values and mutual accountability. Still others noted that the term multi-stakeholder partnership is often used interchangeably with terms such as “multi-stakeholder processes” and “global networks” and requested clarity about the links and distinctions between these.
B. Distinguishing Different Types of PartnershipSeveral interviewees also identified the need to distinguish between different types of partnership. In addition to contributing to conceptual clarity, this is above all considered important for operational purposes. MSPs vary enormously in terms of their purpose, scope, complexity, level of engagement (local to global), size and diversity of partners. Different types of partnerships are motivated by diverse factors, have varying governance requirements and face distinct operational challenges. As a result (as this paper found), it is difficult to identify and share generic lessons and best practices that apply across the board.
The goal should not be to seek an exhaustive typology of partnership experiences (impossible at any rate). Nor should diverse partnership experiences be expected to fit neatly into categorized pigeonholes. The aim should rather be to identify broad “ideal types” which capture enough commonality in order to facilitate the meaningful sharing of best practices and the development of operational guidelines tailored to specific partnership types.
Suggestions from the literature (most based on purpose or core function) include a simple breakdown between primarily operational v. advocacy-oriented partnerships or between process, project and product-oriented partnerships (Murphy and Bendell, 1997). Witte (2003) identifies three ideal typesof networks: negotiation, coordination and implementation; while the Global Action Network Net (Waddell, 2003) has proposed a typology of seven types including, among others: knowledge, task, societal change and generative change networks.
C. Analyzing the Limits and Risks of Partnership
Beyond conceptual clarification, numerous interviewees felt that a serious UN-initiated analysis of the limits and risks of MSPs was needed. Regarding the limits of partnership some interviewees were concerned that partnership is presently viewed as a “blanket solution” to development ills and felt that better analysis and guidance as to when a partnership approach is or is not appropriate is needed. Some, for example, suggested that partnership is a useful approach for implementation/service delivery but may not be appropriate for negotiating policy, where an “arm’s length” relationship is preferable. Others argued that principles of partnership are only applicable (or feasible) where there is a high level of like-mindedness among stakeholders or a strong sense of shared purpose, not just with regard to specific outputs but also broader outcomes.
While the potential risks of MSPs have been quite extensively discussed in the literature, several interviewees felt that these have not yet been adequately acknowledged, debated or addressed within the UN system. Beyond certain operational and organizational-level risks, MSPs raise fundamental questions about how power is (and should be) shared among global actors. Partnerships blur traditional divisions of power and responsibility – creating fears and uncertainties about the manner in which they are reflecting, or serving to redefine, these (sometimes radical) changes in established roles, rights and responsibilities. These include, for example, fears that MSPs will co-opt CSOs, weaken the regulatory role of intergovernmental bodies, undermine government authority or allow governments to abdicate their responsibilities. Perhaps the most common recurring concern in the literature is that partnerships with business actors could compromise the mission, values and reputation of the UN. Utting (2000) stresses the importance of questioning the core motivation behind partnerships with private sector and asks “Are UN agencies compromising their values, standards and conventional agenda for financial reasons?”
It is clear that power and working relations between state-based, business and civil society actors are changing and that these changes are being played out in MSPs. Core concerns about MSPs are rooted in uncertainties about what the “new” roles and responsibilities of different types of actors should be and also in the perceived ad hoc and “laissez faire” manner in which these power relations appear to be playing themselves out. Strong statements are being made from the highest levels of the UN about the desirability of civil society and business actors participating in multilateral decision-making processes, but the legitimate boundaries of that participation remain ambiguous. MSPs are clearly encouraged but guidance regarding appropriate roles, rights and responsibilities of different types of actors within those partnerships is judged to be lacking.
D. Defining a Strategic Framework for MSPs
One interviewee described current UN policy with regard to MSPs as “anything goes”. While everyone seems to agree that MSPs require a high level of flexibility, spontaneity and innovation, there appears to be a growing sense that, within the UN system, there is also a need for a clear “strategic framework” with regard to MSPs. Drawing upon the substantial body of existing analysis of MSPs, the purpose of such a strategy would be to outline the UN’s “vision” and “policy’ with regard to MSPs and provide some clear system-wide operational guidelines. Recent U General Assembly resolutions on partnership (2000, 2001, 2003) and the partnership guidelines negotiated at CSD11 could provid a useful sarting point in this regard. Several interviewees recommended that such a strategy be developed through a process of multi-stakeholder debate and negotiation, initiated the UN secretariat. Key components might include:
  • Clearly defining and distinguishing MSPs from other types of multi-stakeholder relationships;
  • Providing guidelines as to when a partnership approach is feasible/desirable;
  • Proposing a typology of MSPs;
  • Exploring the benefits and risks of (different types of) MSPs for the UN system and its organizations;
  • Outlining basic principles for the definition of appropriate roles and responsibilities for state-based, business and civil society actors;
  • Establishing basic criteria and minimal requirements of partners;
  • Analyzing the potential impacts of MSPs on inter-governmental processes;
  • Setting standards with regard to the monitoring and transparence of MSPs, and;
  • Describing best practices and lessons learned.
/ “The UN once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society.”
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
“Making business and all actors of civil society part of the solution is not only the best chance, it may also be the only chance the UN has to meet its Millennium goals.’
Michael Doyle, UN Assistant Secretary-General
“Global governance is no longer viewed as primarily an intergovernmental concern but one that involves intergovernmental institutions, CSOs, citizens’ movements, transnational corporations, academia and the mass media.”
UNDP & CSOs: A Policy Note on Engagement
“You can not produce results without effective partnerships”
Bruce Jenks, UNDP
“A crusade of sorts is needed to force a greater rigor and accuracy on the use of the term partnership.’
Ken Caplan, Building Partnerships for Development
“Partnerships are commonly defined as voluntary and collaborative relationships between various parties, both State and non-State, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and to share risks, responsibilities, resources, competencies and benefits.”
Towards Global Partnership, Report of the Secretary General
“Institutions and people who not long ago were simply referred to as beneficiaries of technical assistance, project counterparts or sponsors are today referred to as ‘partners’.’
Peter Utting, UNRISD
“Many UN entities use the term [partnership] to refer to almost any relationship with the private sector, and few set out clearly respective rights and responsibilities or clarify how the risks will be shared.”
Ann Zammit in “Development at Risk”
“Before talking about best practices in partnership, you have to specify partnership for what?”
UN staff member
“A multi-stakeholder approach coexists only uneasily with the existing framework of international law based on the sovereignty of nation states…governments are wary of non-governmental actors’ ability to undermine states’ role.”
Navroz Dubash et. al. in “A Watershed in Global Governance”
“Traditional power hierarchies are being replaced by a more complex, multi-relational balance of power, where citizens and companies are playing an active role in shaping socio-economic change and addressing problems that were previously the sole responsibility of government”
Janet Nelson and Simon Zadek in “Partnership Alchemy”
“Among NGOs, there is a widening split between those who seek to engage with other stakeholders and those who define their role outside the conference room.”
Minu Hemmati in “Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability”
“Governments, the private sector and civil society should be equal partners when it comes to designing and building our societies of tomorrow”
Renate Bloem, Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the UN
“The business sector should not be treated on the same level as, or accorded the prerogatives of, member states. The legitimate right of business to promote its own policy interests should be confined to lobbying activities on the fringes of UN activities proper, as should be the case for NGOs and other civil society bodies.”
Ann Zammit in “Development at Risk”
“The power of civil society is a soft one…It is not the power to decide.” Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Chairman of the Panel on UN-Civil Society Relations
“New partnerships are leading down a slippery slope toward the partial privatization and commercialization of the UN system itself.”
CorpWatch
“A clear and agreed upon understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities needs to be established and respected.”
Renate Bloem, CONGO
“Initially, a decentralized and flexible approach was appropriate. But the time has come to…strengthen strategic planning and oversight of globalpartnerships.”
World Bank Operations Evaluation Department
“There is a danger that some UN bodies are rushing headlong into partnerships without adequately assessing the risks which include, for example, conflicts of interest, increasing self-censorship…and the tarnishing of the UN’s reputation.”
Peter Utting, UNRISD

II.PRACTICING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP

The literature on MSPs discusses a wide variety of operational issues and lessons. Based upon the priority concerns of interviewees, the following five key operational challenges related to the management and governance of partnerships were identified: inclusion; clear definition of purpose and roles; participation/power-sharing; accountability, and; strategic influence. The following section explores some best practices and key challenges with regard to each of these. As described above, the usefulness of this discussion would very likely be enhanced if based upon a more precise definition of partnership and a distinction between different forms of partnership. Even then, it is clear that there are no one-size-fits-all rules for successful partnership. Experience has shown that innovation is vital and partnership design must be tailored to its specific purpose and unique circumstances. Given these caveats, this section nevertheless attempts to identify and discuss some basic principles and best practices for effective partnership. Given the limited nature of the research and sample, the experiences presented here are indicative rather than conclusive. The purpose is to provide a starting point for a discussion about potential solutions for dealing with core operational challenges. / “The development of effective partnerships is an art not a science.”
Fanny Calder, Royal Institute of International Affairs
Everyone knows there’s no blueprint for successful partnership, but there is a clear need for learning from mistakes and setting some standards.
UN staff member
[There is] need for a strong rules-based framework in place to ensure that critical issues such as power asymmetries, transparency and accountability can be addressed.”
Jan Martin Witte et. al. in “Progress or Peril?”
A. Inclusion
A first key operational challenge of effective partnership is getting the right actors around the table. As partnership experience has evolved, a general lesson that has emerged is the importance of involving diverse stakeholder viewpoints. The identification of relevant stakeholders and an “optimal” level of inclusion must, however, derive directly from the specific purpose and goals of the partnership. For example, a partnership mandated to negotiate a highly controversial issue (such as the sustainable development impacts of large dams) will likely need to pay greater attention to issues of inclusion, diversity and representation than one that is established to implement a more straightforward, pre-agreed development task. Key challenges and recommended practices for achieving inclusion are discussed below.
i)Conduct a stakeholder analysis - In recent years, conducting a stakeholder analysis has become fairly standard practice in the preparation and design of development interventions. Its use appears to remain limited, however, in the creation and design of MSPs. A few of the experiences examined (the World Commission on Dams and Agenda 21’s definition of “major groups”, for example) have made use of a process of stakeholder analysis. While a stakeholder analysis may be carried out in a more or less formal manner (depending on need and circumstance) it is nevertheless considered a crucial step towards (i) identifying the broad universe of stakeholders that may influence or be influenced by the partnership; (ii) determining which stakeholders should (or must) be involved in the partnership, and; (iii) in what capacity. Whether partnerships are intentionally created and nurtured in a “top-down” manner or “sprout up spontaneously” according to opportunity or need, the relevance of conducting a stakeholder analysis is arguably the same. Drawing on many excellent available tools and resources, stakeholder analysis can be carried out by a convening individual/organization or, ideally, in a more participatory manner, for example, by an initial group of core stakeholders or “self-selected” partners.