• Process of Creating Country Team – the selection of the country was based on the level of interest shown by Rwandan NGOs in the objectives of ALPI. So far there are 14 members.
• Development of the MOU – The MOU couldn’t be signed due to the non-existence of a workplan. So the team held a workshop to identify priorities and to develop a workplan.
• Role of Actors – the country team has only signed the short term contract to facilitate the development of the workplan. The PVOs have provided technical advice to date and InterAction continued to give guidance on other programs. InterAction is also providing funding e.g. funding for the workshop to identify priorities and issues

Questions / Comments / Clarifications

Q1. How did you go about selecting Country Teams?

Response: Selection of country teams was based solely on interest. The Rwanda Country team evolved around NGO contacts with USAID’ but later realised there was lack of information about the program. There was also a conference in Kigali that brought together local organisations.

Q2. Is there a national platform?

Response: Due to the 1994 genocide, everything collapsed and so the structures do not exist to support NGO work. Therefore, the local NGOs are not effective and do not have a regional spread as exists elsewhere. Thematic NGOs exist such as gender, human rights etc, but not as strong as those in Ghana. Additionally, most NGOs are donor dependent

1. Each Country team will review & discuss results of individual questions

2. Record on flip charts the answers to these 2 questions

- What do we learn from this? What’s missing?

3. Formulate any recommendations for your team

COUNTRY TEAMS

MALI Country Team

Lessons Learnt

• Removal of prejudices
• Establishment of dialogue
• Mutual Knowledge through experience sharing
• Strengthening of Partnership among actors

What is missing?

• Balance of power
• Maintaining and strengthening mutual trust

Recommendations

• Better coordination between USAID – Washington and USAID Country Missions on ALPI programmes
• Move towards medium and long term programmes
• Country Team: more commitment of partners
• Base choice of activities on the interests of the 3 partners

Plus de = 3 ; De meme degre de = 2; Moins de = 1

Recommendations

A. Country Team:

• Follow up with USAID the proposal to translate documents in French (RFA, APS)
• Regular visits to US/PVOs and USAID
• Set up a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the partnership between US/PVOs and Senegalese NGOs.

1. ALPI
   • Adopt the Country team model in Washington for American NGOs
   • Encourage USAID to get its Country Mission’s to pay more attention to ALPI programmes

Plus de = 3 ; De meme degre de = 2; Moins de = 1

Lessons Learnt

• Standards project could bring more mutual trust through the provision of quality assurance as well as enhanced mutual knowledge
• Reduce intra & inter stakeholder tensions

Missing

• Balance in power relationship – PVOs/USAID still have control / power / money
• Mutually defined relationship still missing
• Outreach to larger NGOs / PVOs / Donors

Recommendations

• PVOs / USAID must seek to level the playing field
• Real & well defined partnerships should be established between stakeholders
• Outreach programs must be undertaken to bring stakeholders closer

Expectations

• More collaboration and mutual trust among tripartite members
• That the 3 stakeholders would collaborate fully in the country team – with this collaboration spilling over to the larger community with time
• That the process would bring about discipline in the activities of Ghanaian NGOs
• Increased knowledge of the tripartite process
• More collaboration and cooperation among the tripartite members

Recommendations

• A retreat (time away) to re-evaluate members expectations & roles
• Use the Partnership Assessment Tool (PAT)
• Break barriers of information and knowledge
• Increased funding & resource mobilisation
• Realignment of Kenya Country Team activities to USIAD strategic policy objectives

Expectations were met

1. Based on this data from the 2 CTs – and other workshop discussions – to what extent has ALPI met its goal of strengthened tripartite partnerships? (Put your dot on the scale below).

Dots: Ghana = Green ; Kenya = Orange

Mali = Red; Senegal = Blue

Scale: 1-3 low; 4-6 medium; 7-10 high

GHANA & KENYA Results:

Point 4 – 2 green & 3 orange

Point 5 – 2 green & 2 orange

Point 6 – 2 green

Point 7 – 2 green & 1 orange

MALI & SENEGAL Results

Point 4 – 1 blue

Point 5 – 1 red

Point 6 – 2 red & 1 blue

Point 7 – 1 red & 1 blue

Point 8 – 1 red

Recommendations

Prioritize the recommendations for the global level of the ALPI by putting a dot next to the top 5 recommendations according to the following scheme:

1. Blue – Top most important

2. Green

3. Red

4. Yellow

5. Orange

GHANA – KENYA Team

1. Deepen Relationships at Country Level ( 6 green, 2 blue, 2 yellow, 1 red)

2. Define complementary roles in tripartite relationship – from blanket roles/responsibilities to more specific (10 blue, 1 yellow, 1 green, 1 orange, 1 red)

3. Additional funding to mobilise new members and for scaling up phase 2 (6 red, 5 green, 2 yellow, 2 orange)

4. Country teams are entry points and should have a credible system (Standards) to recommend others, e.g. current database to recommend others (5 yellow, 3 green, 3 red, 2 orange)

5. ALPI Branding – plenary should consider issue of ALPI identification (7 orange, 3 yellow, 1 red, 1 blue)

MALI – SENEGAL Team

1. Have advocacy that targets USAID with the goal that the country missions will give more attention to the ALPI program (8 blue)

2. Lengthen the ALPI program to span a period f 3 to 5 years (6 green, 5 yellow, 2 red, 1 orange)

3. Have advocacy that targets PVO headquarters (by ALPI / Washington and local representative (4 yellow, 2 green, 1 orange)

4. Greater inclusion of the Country Teams in the choice of themes/topic for Washington Week (2 Orange, 1 red, 1 yellow)

5. Create space in Interaction’s annual forum for representation/ discussion by the ALPI Country team representatives (4 red, 3 orange, 1 yellow)

Questions / Comments / Clarifications

• The Country Teams should publicise their activities and processes on the website e.g. Ghana Standards project, which would lead on to the participation of more credible partners.
• Should there be more branding? - seeking a wider consensus on the issue of branding. Branding will ensure ALPI does not appear as a USAID or InterAction window
• A bit held back on the issue of branding. The moment ALPI is branded, the concept is lost
• ALPI is an initiative and not an issue of membership. It should reach out to all communities and not only the membership. Branding will not take ALPI any further than it is at the moment
• ALPI has created an initiative of developing tripartite relationships, run by very strong national platforms. Senegal and Mali networks have been strengthened. The success must be seen as coming from the Country Teams themselves and not Washington.

The overall goal of the ALPI process is to build effective tripartite partnerships – but after that what next? The partnerships are only a means for effective development. The goal is out there in the communities, to improve the lives of the poor. The workshop has proved useful in highlighting what could have been done differently, and the team is happy with the outcome.