❑ It is important to have a strong conceptual understanding of PPPs and pro-poor PPPs among national stakeholders. Initial awareness raising and capacity building should be focused on getting this conceptual base established.
❑ National programmes can contribute by improving the political, policy, capacity, institutional and risk environment for local pro-poor PPPs. They can also nurse initial pro-poor PPP projects that can act as 'wins' to help to further open the approach in the country.
❑ High level political back is important to legitimize' local level pro-poor PPP activities. Political backing should also be well informed - politicians should understand not only the potential benefits for the poor, but also the structural consequences of PPPs for local governments.
❑ It is critical for key national ministries (e.g. ministries of local government, decentralization, finance and so on) to be involved and to support pro-poor PPP programmes.
❑ A review of the state of the policy and legislative environments with regard to pro-poor PPPs should be undertaken. This should identify any policy and/or legal supports and constraints to local initiatives. This assessment should inform decisions of whether, and what form, of supportive policy and/or legal intervention for pro-poor PPPs may be required. Making even modest amendments to local government laws and regulations can go a long way to supporting local pro-poor PPPs. It is often difficult to foresee all possible legal constraints. For example, it is often only when a local project is started in a particular sector that constraints in the relevant sectoral legislation may be identified. Establishing a PPP body (see below) can play a useful role by assisting in resolving such legal constraints when they are identified.
❑ In some cases, putting in place a "national policy for local PPPs" can have a strong and high profile impact. Such a policy can provide strong political signalling by the government of its intention with regard to pro-poor PPPs. It can clarify procedures and can put in place institutional and other supports for the sector that may be required. The consultation with stakeholders required in formulation of such a policy is also extremely useful.
❑ In some countries, local governments may need 'authorisation' or 'instruction' from higher levels of government to undertake pro-poor PPPs. Such authorisation can take place through policy, legal or similar acts by central government.
❑ Communication channels should be opened (where necessary) between government, the private sector, local governments and other stakeholders
❑ regarding pro-poor PPPs. These communications can be formalised into a national consultative structure. Care should be taken to keep such an intervention practical and working to ensure stakeholders remain meaningfully involved.
❑ A national PPP body responsible for raising awareness, capacity and generally promoting and supporting pro-poor PPPs can have a very positive role. Such a body can be set up within government or within other stakeholder groups, although an 'independent' body in which government, business and local governments are represented appears to be a good approach.
❑ Active efforts should be made to ensure that business (through relevant associations and representative bodies) is consulted and involved in a national pro- poor PPP programme.
❑ National government should take a cautious approach regarding providing national guarantees for local pro-poor PPP projects. Often such guarantees are requested when local projects begin to take shape. Guarantees can significantly reduce perceived risk and can facilitate initial PPP deals; however, they can also have negative consequences (for example allowing unsound projects to go ahead). National government should therefore have a considered position regarding guarantees. Such issues can be clarified in a national policy and/or policy statement.
❑ National programmes should encourage local governments to look at pro-poor PPPs as part of an overall review of their service provision. They should be supported to see pro-poor PPPs in this broader way (as part of a transformation to a better way of providing services) not just as once-off projects.
❑ National programmes should retain a narrow geographical and sectoral focus to maximise impact. They should try to get good practical examples of pro-poor PPPs running a number of local areas and use these as demonstrations to widen their application to other areas and sectors.
❑ While not encountered in current national programmes and IPGs, national governments can examine the use of new and/or existing grants and allocations as mechanisms to finance pro-poor PPPs (for example by using such funds to subsidise the poor in a PPP).
❑ In addition to promoting specific pro-poor PPP arrangements and projects, national programmes should explore ways in which pro-poor considerations can be added to other and/or existing PPP and service initiatives. In one case, for example, pro- poor tendering guidelines were produced.
❑ However organised, a national pro-poor PPP initiative can undertake a number of beneficial activities, such as: supporting local areas with initial projects, sharing experiences, disseminating standard models and structures for PPPs, making standard contracts and contract clauses available (thereby greatly reducing transaction costs), supporting regulation institutions, keeping literature, developing cases, and so on.