2.1 Some uncertainty about what constitutes 'private' in public-private partnerships was noted - voluntary organizations, NGOs, CBOs, communities themselves, not-for-profit companies, business associations, businesses (large and small, formal and informal)? Some initiatives focused on getting NGOs involved, which did not always mean 'businesses' were involved. More guidance can be provided on how to define 'private' in PPPs, and differences between public-'community', public-'NGO', 'NGO-community' and public-'business' partnerships.
2.2 The pro-poor PPP concept is a new approach and there is still limited understanding of the operational aspects needed to accomplish pro-poor PPPs. More support in formulating pro-poor PPPs in practice is needed.
2.3 Some initiatives did not stimulate market competition sufficiently to get the private sector to innovate through competition to the benefit of the urban poor.
2.4 Underlying PPP 'rules' apply also when the poor are involved - PPPs create value through allocation of risks and incentives between parties. Where this does not happen PPPs do not always represent better value.
2.5 A vital area for the urban poor concerns developing the meeting point of profitable business and poverty alleviation.
2.6 Setting up a PPP usually involves government intervention in some way in the market (e.g. appointing a sole provider, creating competition among providers). The local service industry involved should be analyzed carefully when PPPs are designed and PPP experts should be involved in their design.
2.7 PPP initiatives should create a clear vision of the pro-poor PPP they want to put in place as an output. This stops processes from being loose or open-ended.