9.1 Establishing a dedicated PPP body staffed by partners (e.g. PMU in Nepal) appears to be an effective arrangement for taking forward PPP initiatives.
9.2 Institutional arrangements dominated by one partner do not appear to be effective in the longer run.
9.3 Involvement of National Ministries (of local government, finance, etc.) in PPP national programmes (and indirectly in local ones) is critical. But there are both benefits (close political access, links to other ministries) and disbenefits (too government oriented, no private perspectives enter) to basing a programme in a Ministry.
9.4 Comparing institutional arrangements of the three National Programmes shows three options, each with strengths and weaknesses.
9.4.1 Nepal - high-level, multi-partner Policy Committee (steering committee) guiding a dedicated PPP Project Management Unit 6staffed by seconded partner staff from national government, local government association, and national business association. Promotion also of PPP Desks in each partner organization. Advantages: centers partners equally in programme design and management, requires partners to commit resources and so take it seriously, close day-to-day working relationships between partners, strong exchange of perspectives, strong partner coordination, not dominated by one partner. Disadvantages: requires seconded staff to report back effectively, may not automatically transfer learning into partner organizations, danger of capacity loss through staff leaving.
9.4.2 Namibia - multi-stakeholder Steering Board (ministries, local / regional government associations, private sector associations, university) guiding four officials from the Ministry of Local Government have appointed to a Programme Coordination Unit. Advantages: consistent approach, direct channels into government, MRLGH took ownership and ensured sustainability. Disadvantages: too public sector focused, not enough private sector views, tendency to centralize decisions, sub-optimal consultation processes, insufficient partner ownership, bureaucratic.
9.4.3 Uganda - national Steering Committee guiding a Programme Management Unit hosted by an NGO. Advantages: strong pro-poor focus, fast implementation, increased involvement of CBOs. Disadvantages: no scaling up, limited resource mobilization, lack of government access, low engagement of private sector.
9.5 Establishing broad, national and/or local level PPP platforms involving public and private partners can create enabling conditions and 'signal' PPP intent.
9.6 Local PPPs often have multiple dimensions - public / private, national / local, cross-sectoral. Institutional arrangements must provide for such complexity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 In Nepal the PMU staff seconded by national and local government, and business were located together in an office where they worked together on a daily basis.