|
|
Guidelines for BPD Involvement in Projects
Criteria for getting involved
Given BPDs capacity and potential demand for its services, guidelines and criteria are needed to help select appropriate projects with which to work. Whilst the criteria below are expected to develop further over time, selection processes will hinge upon projects:
Targeted at providing water and sanitation services in poor communities Projects with a particular emphasis on sanitation will be more favourably regarded as BPD would like to strengthen its work in this area. Where projects include W&S as one part of wider service provision, our emphasis may be limited to this component.
Involving multiple stakeholders The group asking for assistance must represent a wider multi-stakeholder body. This should include one organisation from the public sector, civil society and the private sector. Where two of these sectors are looking to bring in the third, BPD assistance will still be a possibility. BPD acknowledges that the tri-sector partnership model is a simplistic approximation, so flexibility will be necessary.
Potentially or actually involving some form of Private Sector Participation Although BPD encourages reform processes to look at a range of options, projects that involve PSP are a fundamental pillar of BPD experience and expertise. Projects seeking BPD assistance should either involve private sector participation (including the range of local small-scale private providers to involvement of international operators) or be looking at the potential of doing so. BPD involvement will generally be limited to projects in which the private sector organisations core business is around providing water and sanitation services. Other factors
BPD shall welcome the opportunity to get involved in projects that provide or exhibit the following:
- New Exposure: where a project expands BPD experience in new geographic areas, offers new contacts and brings BPD learning to a new (and wider) audience;
- Innovative / Interesting Features (including, for example, contract design, regulatory mechanisms, new types of partners, etc): especially where these are relevant to BPDs research agenda or have potential for replication in other projects;
- Ability (of BPD) to influence: where it is obvious that BPD involvement will be very helpful to a project and where the context is such that BPD involvement is likely to prove effective; also where BPD involvement is likely to influence wider (national, regional, donor) perspectives;
- Ability (of BPD) to learn: BPD effectiveness has come from its learning through innovative focus projects. Thus situations that afford BPD not only a chance to positively impact upon the project, but that add significantly to BPD learning (and its research agenda), will be very favourably viewed.
- Clearly exhibit the support of different local actors, i.e. not overwhelmingly dominated by one organisation.
- Clearly interested in contributing to the wider BPD objectives of sharing information and learning.
Considerations for not getting involved
BPD shall not get involved with projects or activities that are:
Linked to the bidding process of an individual organisation: BPD would be keen to work on pre-bid transaction design, but only where BPD contributions are available to all bidding parties on an equal basis.
Seeking a verification agent: To maintain BPDs neutrality at the macro level, BPD involvement in particular projects should not result in a BPD seal of approval for particular organisations. BPD shall not issue statements extolling the accomplishments of a particular organisation. As in the first phase of BPD, learning shall be promoted more generally using a variety of projects as reference points.
Seeking to use BPD merely as a conduit to other BPD partners (World Bank, DFID, etc.).
Lacking clear donor co-ordination, i.e. where it appears that BPD is being asked to conduct activities that donors perceive is part of their portfolio.
Seeking conflict resolution in such a way that might make BPD appear to be the cause of partnership failure (i.e. projects looking for scapegoats). Application Process
BPDs application form solicits information on the partnership project, the support requested, and draws out responses to allow for some judgements to be made about the criteria and considerations above. Once the application has been reviewed, a Terms of Reference shall be drawn up by BPD to detail the support to be provided. The TOR would then need to be agreed by the relevant partners involved. Whilst the actual tasks can be flexibly implemented and adapted over the course of the engagement, changes to the tasks would have to be agreed again by the relevant partners involved. Partner in-kind support (for meeting rooms, local transportation, etc.) will be pursued by BPD. BPD Commitment to Projects
- To act fairly and non-judgementally;
- To be inclusive, involving the viewpoints of as many stakeholder groups as appropriate;
- To assume that the partnership project in question is different than other projects with which BPD has worked;
- To be clear about the types and level of support BPD will offer;
- To seek other inputs (from, for example, water and sanitation specialists) where needed; and
- To avoid openly disclosing the failures of particular projects (unless such disclosure is agreed by all relevant parties).
Disabling Environments for Partnerships
In some instances partnerships may provide an unrealistic approach to providing services in poor communities. A disabling environment exists where:
- the political will required to underpin partnership is conspicuously absent,
- contractual or bureaucratic rigidity prevents flexible partnerships being formed or severely limits incentives to do so,
- strong internal opposition blocks partnership formation and open and reasoned dialogue is impossible,
- partnership raises unmanageable expectations within a community,
- the roles, capacity and objectives of civil society organisations are not incorporated into the planning,
- incentives for the operator to serve the poor are particularly weak,
- regulatory barriers undermine civil society’s status and negotiating position,
- the situation is highly politicised with vehement opposition to PSP, especially at the local level,
- commitment of partners is highly uncertain or suspect, the investment climate is highly unstable, or partners face irreconcilable interests,
- imbalances of power are insurmountable, or there is an unacceptable lack of safeguards.
|
|
|