Chapter 4 Partnership

Partnership: a declaration of interdependency Chapter 4 from ‘For the twig to blossom ‌ Cooperation in development from a Christian perspective; Prisma 2018

A relection on partnering in development and Christian mission

Abstract As Christian development organizations in the Netherlands we partner with a wide range of actors across the globe, varying from local self-help groups and churches to national multi-sector alliances and intercontinental value chains.

Despite the differences in partnership scale and complexity we see sufficient common ground for joint analysis and reflection. We formed an inter-organizational learning group interested in knowing: What have we learnt from partnerships so far, and what does Partnership 2.0 look like?

Central to our motivation to work in partnerships is the belief that people worldwide are created as equals who are all appointed as stewards to seek justice and show mercy, and that we need one another and are given to one another to fulfil this calling. Over the past decades the roles of many Prisma members have shifted from implementer of own programmes to funder or funder-advisor of local actors’ initiatives. More recently we actively seek to bring added value besides and beyond funding: as brokers, connectors, facilitators, advisors, advocates, alliance partners, and/or (joint) investors. Core partnership principles include Respect, Ownership, Contextuality, Reliability, Accountability, and Learning.

Among our organizations we thus seem to have a rather coherent image of ideal partnership. In practice our partnerships not always live up to this ideal. We identified several common obstacles to good partnership. Behaviour undermining the core partnership principles include: viewing societies either as ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ (threat to Respect), overlooking local possibilities (threat to Ownership), over-demanding (threat to Contextuality), unclear agreements (threat to Reliability), reporting exclusively to donors (threat to Accountability), and refusing to change (threat to Learning).

Stimulating networks and exchange, building on local initiatives and structures, discussing mutual expectations, and actively involving constituencies and beneficiaries are some of the practices that can help to overcome such obstacles.

Page 2

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

Chapter 4 from ‘For the twig to blossom …

Including multiple voices In his book ‘The idea of justice’(2009, p.50), Amartya Sen argues that listening to as many voices as possible is crucial in the fight against justice. Sen illustrates his argument with an example of one flute and three children: Anne, Bob and Carla. Sen invites his readers to choose which of the three children should have the flute. First, Anne demands the flute because she is the only of the three children who is able to play the instrument. If yhis is the only information we would have, it makes perfect sense to give the flute to Anne.

In an alternative scenario however, Bob demands the flute. Her is the only child of three who is poor and does not have any toys to play with. In a third scenario Carla demands the flute. She spent months to make the flute and just when she finished making it, Anne and Bob came to take it away from her.

Two things become clear from this example: 1) If we want to act justlym, we need to listen to different voices in order to get a more complete understanding of situations and needs. 2) At the same time, the more voices we hear, the more difficult it becomes to find quick ans easy solutions.

4.1 Introduction The widely-used term development cooperation suggests that cooperation is an established practice in the field of global development. This seems to ring true for Christian development organizations in the Netherlands as well. Most of their websites mention ‘cooperation’ or ‘partnership’ as an important strategy to carry out their mission. But how is that partnership perceived and how is the cooperation given shape. This was defined as one of the themes of exchange, reflection and learning within Prisma during the trajectory that led to this publication. To answer these questions an interorganizational learning group was established within Prisma, that formulated the following questions: 1) What do we mean when talking about partnership? Why, with whom and how do we partner?

What do we consider to be good partnership?

2) What have we learnt from partnerships so far? What do our partners say about the partnership?

3) What does Partnership 2.0 look like? Which principles and practices need reinforcement in current and future partner relations? Which positive examples and practical tools can help us and our partners to work together in a respectful, meaningful and effective manner?

In section 2 we define partnership and motivate why we work with partners. Section three describes who our partners are and which roles our organizations seek to have in partnerships. In section four we discuss six core principles for good partnership, main obstacles undermining these principles, and practices that can help to overcome these obstacles.

4.2 Defining and motivating partnership In this chapter we define partnership as a relationship between two or more organizations that have formally agreed to work together to achieve a common objective.

In this definition organization refers to all actors, including self-help-groups, community-based organizations, churches, mission movements and other faith based institutes, commercial firms, educational institutes, public service suppliers, government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Page 3

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

4.2.1 Choice for the term partnership The term partnership can have business-like connotations that could not reflect the warm personal relations that often exist between staff members, volunteers and constituencies of the involved organizations. Especially among Christians, relations are often expressed in terms of brotherhood, fellowship or ecumenism. As an Indian pastor wrote us: “I will be happier to call [name, ed.] my close friend and sister in the Lord, than a ministry partner.” On a personal level this is an understandable sentiment. In describing cooperation between organizations however, the term partnership gives more clarity than terms such as friendship or brother/sisterhood.

For the same pastor, the term partnership is not only too cold but also too non-committal: “I suggest ‘Collaboration’. In partnership there is still a great risk that one partner can pull off if something does not work out so well between the two. But since we are doing missions of the Lord Jesus Christ and we are his co-labourers in the field, we ought to take each other in terms of collaboration. In collaboration both partners rise and fall together, they are bonded in terms of relationship as well as work.” This statement hints at a sometimes painful reality in which organizations call themselves partner but take lightly their commitment towards the organizations they work with. When difficulties arise, they run off. As a consequence the term partnership devaluates for the organizations involved. Keeping such experiences in mind it makes sense to suggest an alternative term which carries the notion of co-labouring and with that, hopefully, co-responsibility.

Unfortunately, every term is experienced differently by different people. For others the word collaboration may have negative connotations; partnership may feel more appropriate to them.

In this chapter we use the term partnership for two reasons: it is a more widely used term in the field of international development, and the inter-organizational level on which the cooperation takes place is more obvious in ‘partnership’ than in ‘collaboration’.

4.2.2 Why do we work in partnerships?

The motivation of Christian development agencies to work together with others stems from a Biblebased worldview. For the purpose of this paper the following elements of this worldview are relevant: understanding stewardship as a shared responsibility and seeing partnership as a gift, a calling and a means.

Shared responsibility We believe that the universe was intended and created by God. He wanted this world to come into being and called His creation ‘good’. Despite the brokenness we notice in ourselves and in our world, God highly values His creation. Human beings have a specific task in this created world. God creates men and women in His image and He appoints and blesses them to take care of and rule over His creation (Genesis 1:26-28; cf. Chapter 1). Jesus compares our responsibilities as humans with that of stewards who take care of their masters’ belongings (Matthew 21: 33-41; Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 11: 35-48; Luke 16: 1-8). From the beginning, when Eve was created to partner with Adam (Genesis 2:15, 20-23), this has been a shared responsibility. As God’s image-bearers all over the world, each blessed and equipped by Him with our own gifts and possibilities, together we are responsible to care for this world.

Partnership as gift Competition, rivalry and conflicting interests cause division between people worldwide. Frictions and tensions separate and sometimes isolate individuals, generations, states, and ethnic, religious and Page 4

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

socio-economic groups.

At the same time many people and organizations across the globe actively reach out to one another, seek connection despite their differences, and work together. Regardless of whether the initiators are Christians or not, we see such efforts to unify and reconcile as signs of God at work. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and through the work of His Spirit, God brings reconciliation and repair between God and people and among people. God Himself makes it possible for people to overcome self-centeredness and for organizations to join hands in partnership. Therefore: when we live in unity and work in partnership we demonstrate the supernatural, counter-cultural power of the cross (Capetown Commitment 2011, ch. 11F).

We praise God for the gift of partnership and enjoy unpacking it. When we engage in partnerships we experience mutual encouragement and support. This is illustrated by the following Bible verses:  Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another (Proverbs 27:17.)  Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!

Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12.)

Partnership as calling Christians in particular are called to seek and portray unity. The Capetown Commitment (2011, conclusion) reminds the global church of this calling: In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gave us our primary mandate – to make disciples among all nations. In John’s Gospel, Jesus gave us our primary method – to love one another so that the world will know we are disciples of Jesus. […] Three times Jesus repeated: […] ‘Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.’ Three times Jesus prayed ‘that all of them may be one, Father.’ Both the command and the prayer are missional.

‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’ ‘May they be brought to complete unity so that the world may know that you sent me.’

The same document confronts us with the necessity of this reminder: Our failure to live in reconciled unity is a major obstacle to authenticity and effectiveness in mission. […] Too often we have engaged in mission in ways that prioritize and preserve our own identities (ethnic, denominational, theological, etc), and have failed to submit our passions and preferences to our one Lord and Master. The supremacy and centrality of Christ in our mission must be more than a confession of faith; it must also govern our strategy, practice and unity.

Making disciples may be more central to the work of mission agencies than to development-oriented NGOs, but the call to strive for unity applies to all Christian organizations.

Partnership as means A partnership can be a mutual encouragement to each of the partners. The partner relationship is not an end in itself however; it is also a means to reach certain objectives. What then are these objectives? As we wrote above, Christians worldwide take share stewardship as their starting point.

In further defining their mission and strategy, many Christian development organizations are inspired by the Bible verse Micah 6:8: ‘He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.’ Showing mercy (sometimes formulated as care or compassion) and promoting justice are two central elements in our work. At the same time, strategic agendas vary. Some organizations focus primarily on Page 5

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

emergency relief, others on social and/or economic development and yet others on integral mission or diaconate. These differences determine how partnership goals are described. For example, where GZB wants to join partners ‘to bring and proclaim the Gospel to all nations', The Salvation Army aims to 'jointly contribute to a life in dignity for people in need', and ICCO Cooperation is 'enabling civil society worldwide to fight poverty, injustice and exclusion’.

Expectations for the results of partnerships thus vary 'depending what we aim for: relations between faith communities in the North and in the South, linking and learning, and/or realizing part of our strategic agenda' .

‘We don’t care with whom you partner, we just want to see results’ In a result-oriented society like the Netherlands, understanding partnership not only as a means but also as a gift and a calling does not come automatically. During a conversation in our learning group a staff member of a Dutch development agency shared: “Our constituency founded our organization to improve living conditions of people in developing countries. Our back donors want to hear about our contributions towards and the progress in reaching this objective. They are much less interested to hear about our partners, the way they work, and our relationships with our partners.”

4.2.3 When partnering works Irrespective of their different focal points, most Prisma members agree that working together with partners is important to reach their objectives. Partners believe that together they are better able to achieve desired changes than when they work separately. ‘No single organization is responsible for any single major social problem, nor can any single organization solve it’. Partners thereby acknowledge that they need each other to realize their mission. Partnership, then, is a declaration of interdependency.

More specifically, the Salvation Army’s partnership policy paper states: ‘We work in partnership because we want to increase our effectiveness and impact […] and efficiency’. Tennyson writes that organizations usually expect one or more of the following benefits from engaging in partnerships: ‘professional development of key personnel, better access to information and different networks, greater ‘reach’, improved operational efficiency, more appropriate and effective products and services, greater innovation, enhanced credibility, increased access to resources.’ But how exactly do we need one another? How do partners help each other to show mercy, promote justice and achieve sustainable development?

First, each organization brings a unique voice to a partnership. In a partnership we listen to each partner’s voice and perspective and develop our policies and strategies accordingly. Including multiple voices can be hard work. “A partner's different perspective is valuable, but the very fact that it is different means that it will require work, humility, time, and resources to incorporate that perspective. At times, this will require checking one's pride at the door” . Or, as an African proverb says: ‘if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’

Second, each organization brings its unique resources to a partnership. These resources include but are not limited to expertise, networks, manpower and money. According to ZOA, partners and the partnership can add different values to their programme:    

Specific expertise Context knowledge (e.g. local networks, local language) Access to insecure areas (sometimes it is less risky for local NGO than for INGO like ZOA) Sustainability of service provision after end of programme

Page 6

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

  

Continuity of support to communities after phasing out of ZOA Legitimacy for specific actions (e.g. local NGOs advocating for better services with local government) Efficiency (e.g. local NGOs may implement cheaper than ZOA and thus reach more people)

ZOA’s list mostly refers to the added value of having local partners. These observations are in line with results of recent research in Myanmar, in which local civil society actors and the national government were asked to share their perceptions of international NGOs. Both the government and civil society in Myanmar perceive INGOs as wasteful and inefficient, suggesting that local organizations can work more (cost-)efficiently. Besides, the civil society perceives INGOs to be unknowledgeable of local contexts. They advise INGOs to base their interventions on the expertise and context knowledge of local actors.

In short, when each partner’s voice is included and its resources utilized, a partnership can become an effective vehicle for appropriate action and sustainable change.

Focusing on added value might contain a risk that partnerships become too instrumental. If partners are purely selected on what they can add or contribute, organizations that perceive themselves or are perceived by others as vulnerable or weak may easily be neglected or excluded from partnerships. We argue however that the real pitfall here is not the focus on added value, but an incorrect prioritization of capacities. George gives an example from Myanmar: “Multiple CSOs [civil society organizations, ed.] allege that INGOs value skills such as English language abilities, report writing, and previous experience working with INGOs much higher than the trust and respect the organization commands in its community. […] The overvaluing of language, reporting and accounting skills, the same skills that INGOs have in abundance fuel the impression of INGOs as arrogant and dismissive of local capacity.”

Ultimately this discussion brings us back to our fundamental view on humanity. God gave every human being value. When we encounter one another, we encounter the image of God. In giving us to one another, God gives Himself to us. When we join hands to show mercy and promote justice, it is His justice and mercy that reach and transform people.

Added value We asked several partners to describe the added value each partner brings to their partnerships.

Responses from five partners based in Asia, Africa and Central America give the following: Added value of partners from the Netherlands for our work / ministry: o Love, trust, personal relations, prayer. o Financial support. o Trainings on household cohesion and holistic mission. o Capacity building on project (PME), human resource and financial management and fundraising. o Linking us with others; broadening our network.

Added value of our organization for partner(s) in the Netherlands: o Spiritual emphasis; prayer. o We act as a tool/hand for partners to reach local communities and support vulnerable people. o We oversee development activities in our area, focusing on poverty eradication and food security. o Passion, vision, ripe fields and manpower for mission in our region. o Dutch partners can see the culture, reality and needs of local communities through our organization.

Page 7

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

o Partners can communicate with the local government through us. o We advise our partner so that they can support relevant sustainable programs. o Our Dutch partner uses our expertise for trainings in our country and abroad. o Dutch churches can learn and be motivated by the example in our churches. o We help our Dutch partner in their promotional work and preach in their churches.

Response from partner India Mission, representing a group of Dutch churches: Added value of Indian partners in India for our churches: o Partners demonstrate how to be witnesses of Christ in a non-Christian and sometimes hostile society. o Partners show examples of women and youth participation in their churches.

Added value of our churches for partners in India: o Our money. o Our spiritual support. o Our expertise in education, food and health care.

4.3 Partners and their roles 4.3.1 Who are our partners?

What do we share Christian development organizations in the Netherlands partner with a wide range of actors across the globe, varying from local self-help groups and churches to national multi-sector alliances and intercontinental value chains.

With whom organizations collaborate depends on their mission and goals. Organizations focusing on evangelism usually work together with churches, theological institutes and mission agencies, others specialize in education and partner with schools, universities and governmental departments, and yet others primarily aim for food security thereby cooperating with farming groups, food factories and other actors in the value chain.

For global mission, a shared Christian identity is a prerequisite for partnership. For sustainable development it is insufficient to work exclusively with Christian partners. Important criteria of development agencies for establishing partnerships include common vision, legal registration and passed quality assessment (Light for the World), shared values and shared vision (Dorcas), diversity, added value and expertise (ICCO), closeness to target group, politically unbiasedness and nonconflicting values (ZOA).

In addition to their goals, the history of organizations is an important factor in understanding existing partner networks. A staff member of Kom over en Help mentions that “having common objectives is important, but in practice we see that many of our older partnerships are based on personal friendships and shared identity.�

Local partners Many Prisma members primarily work with local organizations in Asia, Africa, Central and South America and Eastern Europe. Although integral mission and development initiatives are slowly shifting from the Southern hemisphere to a more global reach, organizations in the global South (and Eastern Europe) continue to be part of, or closely connected to, communities that are targeted by most development initiatives.

Page 8

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

Light for the World chooses to work with local organizations in order ‘to strengthen local structures and capacity, build on local ownership and focus on sustainability.’ Verre Naasten works with local church denominations, theological institutes and Christian organizations because it sees these actors as ‘primarily responsible and best equipped for mission in their contexts.’

‘Why do you want to work with us?’

The staff at Dorcas Kenya see different motivations among local organizations to work in partnership with Dorcas: “In some cases, the main motive to seek partnership with us is the local organization and their staff’s own survival. Although we have compassion with their needs, this motivation is not a good starting point for partnership. In other cases, people are touched by the poverty they see and desire to bring change to this situation. Other people are driven by Christian values and want to act based on those values. To us it is important that potential partners are driven to bring relief and share hope.”

Civil society An important reason for development organizations to work together with community-based organizations is to strengthen the voice of civil society. Especially in countries where the private sector has a lot of power and can easily influence government policies, or in countries where governments abuse their power over citizens, partnerships can contribute to building and empowering civil society, which in our view is a precondition to a wholesome development of a society.

Multi-sectoral partnerships Complex issues such as poverty reduction, environmental care and justice often ask for a multisectoral approach. Tennyson argues that “only with comprehensive and widespread cross-sector collaboration can we ensure that sustainable development initiatives are imaginative, coherent and integrated enough to tackle the most intractable problems. Single sector approaches have been tried and have proved disappointing. Working separately, different sectors have developed activities in isolation - sometimes competing with each other and/or duplicating effort and wasting valuable resources. Working separately has all too often led to the development of a ‘blame culture’ in which chaos or neglect is always regarded as someone else’s fault. So (multi-sector, ed.) partnership provides a new opportunity for doing development better - by recognising the qualities and competencies of each sector and finding new ways of harnessing these for the common good.”

ICCO Cooperation explains its partner selection as follows: “Being able to work with both civil society organizations and with the private sector is what is seen as an important instrument in bringing together the twofold strategic objective: livelihood and justice.”

Donor demands and partner selection As development and diaconal organisations we receive funds from donors. Different donors (churches, private sector, governments, institutional funds) expect different things, but in general donors ask for more and more narrative and quantitative information about expenses, outcomes and impact. These increasing demands influence the selection of partners. ZOA’s partnership policy paper states “ZOA’s increased attention for accountability to beneficiaries and for security has also implications for ZOA’s partnerships: accountability and security are part of the assessment and may also be areas for capacity development.” ICCO Cooperation writes “due to the changing character and the demands placed upon the ICCO Cooperation in the Dutch aid/development cooperation system our partner relations have seen a gradual shift towards more professional/sector based Page 9

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

organizations. Our partnership relations have also bureaucratized as a consequence. […] There is a possibility that partner organizations that cannot fulfil scale, accountability and transparency demands, will fall out of the partnership.”

This asks for new strategies to maintain relations with smaller or less professional organizations.

ICCO Cooperation envisages “that a broad spectrum of partnerships will be necessary. […] Traditional partnerships such as church-church relations continue to be maintained and developed by the members of the cooperation. In such partnerships the relational element may be the major objective in itself. […] Partnership will be multi-layered, with e.g. a church-church relation being part of a bigger structure of partnerships focusing on one common objective” 4.3.2 Partner categories and roles Different types Being autonomous organizations, partners vary in the degree to which they share values, goals and methods. Therefore, there can be considerable differences in the nature and level of engagement in partnerships. These include shorter-term, project-specific partnerships and longer-term organizational partnerships which include commitments at both project and organizational level.

Several Prisma members distinguish between Implementing Partners (some make a subdivision between Programmatic and Project partners) and Strategic or Alliance Partners. Some organizations also distinguish between Implementing and Supporting partners.

Partners’ positions vary over time and circumstances: ‘At one point a partner may be a supporting partner involved in […] partnerships with Implementing partners. At the same time they may be in the position of Implementing partner in relationships with one or more Supporting partners.’

How partners are categorized has implications for the partnership process. An illustration from ZOA’s partnership policy: “ZOA is ready to invest in capacity development of partners, but the scope of the capacity strengthening depends on the type of partnership: in an implementing partnership capacity development will be more limited to project implementation while in a strategic partnership capacity development may focus on wider aspects including organizational development.” Similarly, lobby and advocacy activities are more often undertaken together with strategic partners than with project partners.

Changing roles In the early decades of international mission and development work, Dutch (and other Northern) organizations usually undertook activities and implemented project themselves. Over the years local groups, churches and organizations were identified to work along with and the role of many Dutch agencies gradually shifted from implementer of own programs to co-implementer of joint projects or to funder or funder-advisor of local partners’ projects.

Today many Prisma members continue to act as funder, advisor and co-implementer. However, these roles and tasks in partnership continue to change. ICCO Cooperation’s partnership document illustrates the main trends and developments: “The traditional role of strategic funder is gradually becoming less important. In partnerships we will engage more and more directly in change processes as co-implementer, investor, broker of knowledge and relations, as facilitator and networker and play a stronger role in lobby and advocacy.”

The same document distinguishes five current partnership types, each in which ICCO has another role: Page 10

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

1. Co-creation: ICCO and partners engage to reach shared objectives and each partner contributes material or immaterial resources.

2. Co-implementation: ICCO is responsible for the management and PMEL (planning, monitoring, evaluation and learning) aspects of a cooperative program of a national or international coalition.

3. Strategic funding partnership: ICCO funds (part of) the joint program and also contributes in other roles: knowledge, broker, facilitator.

4. Value chain development partnership: ICCO cooperates with several other stakeholders in the chain (business to farmer and intermediary actors) and plays a connecting, facilitating, brokering and funding- investment role.

5. Investment partnership: ICCO invests in a (social) business based on social and financial impact / rate of return analyses.

Another role Prisma members often mention in their policy documents is that of capacity builder. As capacity builder, a Prisma member invests in a partner to grow in its existing role or to take on a different or larger role.

Partnership beyond funding A pitfall for both supporting and implementing partners is thinking too big of funding, thereby underestimating the value of other roles and resources. Sometimes we hear ourselves saying that we are “only connecting two organizations with each other” or “only doing a training”, as if investing in networks, knowledge and skills is less valuable or effective than contributing money. It is therefore important to recognize partnerships that are independent of any funding relationship. These partnerships usually centre around learning and sharing knowledge, information and networks. For Christian partners, prayer and thanksgiving is another valuable means of mutual support (see also Colossians 4:2–4, the Bible).

Either Partner or Funder In 2009 Prisma member Woord&Daad (WD) decided to split their roles as ‘funder’and as ‘partner’. Part of the WD staff was made responsible to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate programs together with partners.

These staffs also assist partners in making program budgets, but they are not in granting or withholding funds.

This department is called WD Partners.

Financial decisions are made by another department of WD: WD Donor. This department can ask advice of WD partner staff, but WD Donor, together witrh the board, is responsible to grant or withhold funding to programs.

This division between partner (program coordinator/advisor) and funder roles seems to have positive effect. A WD staff shares: “I feel that we have more mutual trust and openness now. A partner can talk freely with me without worrying that his openness could influence whether or in how far WD will fund his program.”

Combining roles Often partners perform more than one role in a partnership. In his speech on April 7, 2017, then former Tear director Marnix Niemeijer challenged Christian development agencies to fulfil four roles: 1) listener / explorer, 2) connector, 3) do-er / aid worker, and 4) prophet.

If organizations give attention to all four roles, they bring transformation instead of transaction, Niemeijer argues. The role of ‘do-er’ seems the most obvious for most organizations. Niemeijer therefore elucidated the other three roles: “NGO’s biggest opportunity may be to find wise men and women who can help people to dismantle prejudices and incorrect (self) images. Men and women who can help explain what it means to be called and responsible in this time and at this place. Who Page 11

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

can share what this means in Uganda for example, and in the Netherlands. […] Development agencies should focus on outsourcing [supporting people in other communities and organizations, ed.] and insourcing: giving back to the Christian communities in their home country. Then time, attention and love connect people, instead of just money.”

4.4 Partnership principles and practice As mentioned in chapter two, Prisma members use different selection criteria for partners, leading to a wide variety of partners we work with and partnership types we are involved in. At the same time, however, our policy documents reveal similar key characteristics or guiding principles for partnerships. In this chapter we highlight six common principles: Respect, Ownership, Contextuality, Reliability, Accountability, and Learning. Related to each of these principles we discuss obstacles we encounter in practice, and we share ideas to overcome some of these obstacles.

4.4.1 Respect: Partners value each other Respect Central to healthy partnerships is mutual respect (see also Istanbul CSO Development Effectiveness Principles 2010, #6). A general sense of respect roots in acknowledging the God-given dignity in every human being and the equality of all people. Every organization represents a group of people and therefore deserves respect.

On a more personal level, mutual respect can grow when partners invest time and energy to know each other better and deeper. Knowing –not necessarily sharing- each other’s vision, values, strategy, (hi)story and circumstances is key to building respect and trust. A general rule of thumb to respect each partner’s dignity is to treat one another as you want to be treated. For example: before advising a partner, ask yourself whether you would appreciate it if a partner would advise you in the same manner.

Not all persons and organizations view ‘respect’ and ‘respectful behaviour’ in the same way, however. Cultural differences can play a role here. Besides, scars from previous relationships can cause sensitivities about being treated disrespectfully. Each partnership will therefore require its own approach in order to act respectfully. Respect is not only shown when partners interact with each other, but also when they talk about each other. When communicating with anyone else about their partnership, partners should protect each other’s security, reputation, and future work.

Obstacles to respect In partnership practice we regularly encounter two incorrect (self-)images that undermine mutual respect. First, there are partnerships in which one partner takes on the role of giver or helper and the other partner takes on the role of receiver or beneficiary. The giver gives money and advice and prays for his partner, thereby only showing his strengths to his partner. The receiver receives money, advice and prayer and thereby only shows his weaknesses to his partner.

A second, partly related, image is that of a developed and a developing partner. This image is based on the idea that some countries are further developed than others and that ultimately all people worldwide should develop in the same direction and manner. The ‘developed’ partner acts like an older, more experienced man who leads a younger, less experienced person, the ‘developing’ partner, towards (what both perceive to be) ‘development’.

In both images partners are reduced to caricatures instead of complete human beings. Niemeijer (2017) stated: ‘When you view organizations merely as givers or receivers, you dehumanize both Page 12

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

yourself and the other’. The same is true when we view ourselves or our societies either as developing or developed. Such views often lead to paternalism instead of eye-level partnership.

Sharing partnership moments On April 4, 2017, representatives of six organizations from Brazil, Kenya, Congo, Uganda, India and Sri Lanka, and two staffs from DVN (Netherlands) gathered to share experiences. Each person was asked to share one good and one bad partnership moment. Some responses are listed below. Core elements are added between brackets.

Good experiences - Two years ago there had been attacks in M. (city, ed.); some of our churches were affected and people were killed. I wanted to get to M. to care and help as soon as possible. H. (DVN staff, ed.) understood the urgent need. Usually DVN sends money through bank accounts but this time H. encouraged me to go ahead and travel to M.; H. sent money through Western Union so that I could pick it up in M (Understanding and flexibility.)

- We feel that we are not alone. We know that we are part of the universal church, that Dutch churches pray along, and that we share the Gospel together. (Feeling united and loved) - When we completed a training that was organized together with DVN. This training has radically changed my and my colleagues’ way of doing ministry and now we are training others (Equipping for tasks.)

- After painful splits in our churches, there was a good moment of restarting our collaboration. What I found impressive and healing were the confessions. To me that was a moment which expressed the spiritual basis of our relation: confessing our sins and mistakes to each other, and together being dependent on God’s grace.

(Confession and restart after conflict.)

- The trainings I facilitated together with colleague-trainers from partners. Working together made the trainings better. (Team work, complementing each other.)

- Dutch staff put in much effort to arrange my travels so that I could attend the synod in the Netherlands (Serving, practical help.)

Bad experiences - Our church came up with a good proposal for a borehole and DVN helped out financially to realize this plan.

When Dutch delegates visited us we went out to see the borehole. But when we arrived there was no water!

The money was already spent, but the people in the area still didn’t have water. It was a painful and sad moment. (Disappointing results, shame.)

- The saddest part of partnership is when I feel that DVN does not understand me and my situation. The stipend I receive from the church is just enough to pay my rent; I cannot feed and educate my family just by serving the church. If DVN supports a ministry but forgets the ministers, it feels bad. (Not feeling understood, needs are not taken seriously.)

- Foreign partners do not know our situation well enough. Partners demand or expect certain results that are not fitting to our reality. Keep in mind our bureaucracy, our organizations, our infrastructures etc. (Insufficient understanding of the context, over-demanding.)

- The recent evaluation that was done in our church made us sad. The evaluation showed that auditing and financial reporting in our churches was not good. We felt that we even ran the risk of losing our partnership and our support from Dutch partners. (Uncertainty about consequences of evaluation, fear of losing partnership.)

Overcoming obstacles to respect Acknowledging and openly talking about asymmetric power relations takes courage. For those partners who are often perceived as ‘givers’ and/or ‘developed’, it is important to realize that they run the risk of dominating partnerships. Whether they want it or not, their opinions and ideas may be interpreted by their partners as advices or even commands. To avoid dominance, asking open Page 13

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

questions is a better alternative to giving opinions.

Respectful partnership in which partners interact as equals asks of each partner to know and share its strengths and weaknesses, achievements and mistakes, successes and disappointments, dreams and worries. A safe environment is required for partners to feel free enough to speak out openly.

Creating such an environment usually takes time and patience. Visiting each other can help to build relations and mutual respect.

Working in coalitions and alliances can help to increase a sense of equality among partners. When a group of organizations, each with their own gifts and expertise, work together towards a common goal, the risk of one partner dominating the partnership decreases.

For Christian partners, praying together expresses their shared dependency on God. Through prayer partners acknowledge that God is the giver of life and that they merely pass on to each other what He has entrusted each of them with.

4.4.2 Ownership: Partners are autonomous and feel responsible Distinctions We start here with two clarifying notes. First, as Christian organizations we affirm that God is the Owner of His creation (Psalm 24: 1). Indeed ‘all [people, ed.] are stewards, not one is an owner.’

Ownership in partner relations should thus be understood within this framework of human stewardship. Second, ownership does not equal self-support or independence. The Salvation Army underscores the value of mutual dependency: ‘Dependence often has a negative connotation, implying an unequal partnership. However, once we realise that we are all dependent on each other and that this contains certain reciprocity, leading to mutual reinforcement, we soon discover that reciprocal dependence is actually a strength.’

That having said, we emphasize the importance of ownership in partner relations. With ownership we refer to the autonomy and responsibilities of each partner. All partners are autonomous organizations, each with its own vision, mandate, strategy, resources and responsibilities. Especially in relationships between Implementing Partners (IPs) and Supporting Partners (SPs), the ownership of IPs deserves attention. DVN (2016, p.5-6) distinguishes three forms of ownership in this regard: 1. Formal juridical - being responsible. Ownership in the judicial sense means that the SP waives his rights on whatever he gave to the IP. He may still ask for accountability but cannot claim what he has formally handed over.

2. Institutional – taking responsibility. The IP takes responsibility for what was given by the SP: it is placed under the IP’s authority and used in its own structures and activities.

3. Psychological – Feeling responsible. The IP feels responsible for the development or diaconal program, not only for current activities but also for the longer-term effects of the program.

Obstacles to ownership A lack or loss of ownership is a pitfall particularly in partnerships which include funding or material support. For implementing partners it can be a challenge not to give up their own vision in favour of view of a donor. For example, when a consortium or alliance applies for government funding, the alliance participants can be inclined to adjust their original ideas, methods or target groups to the (ever-changing) preferences of the government.

Vice versa, for supporting partners it can be tempting to use their money to require IP’s to go along with their vision and methods, even when the IP does not believe that this will be effective.

According to the Keystone Partnership Survey carried out with 25 Northern NGOs and over 1.000 of Page 14

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

their Southern partners, “Respondents want northern NGOs’ help to become strong, independent and influential organisations. They contrast this with being contracted to implement northern NGOs’ projects and priorities. Respondents say that northern NGOs do not allow them to make changes they need to in the spending of the funds. [...] Respondents report that northern NGOs rarely involve them in shaping strategy or explain when they expect to stop working together.” External support can also lead to hampering local initiatives and overlooking local possibilities. This hinders the success and the sustainability of the programme.

Example: how external funding can harm local ownership Imagine a local church that supports elderly people in their city. When their church starts receiving funds from a foreign partner for this ministry, the local church members start contributing less and less money to this ministry. The church members feel that their contribution is no longer needed or less valuable than the external funds, which demotivates them to continue giving. With time, the local church members consider this ministry less and less as their own and no longer feel responsible for its content and impact. When the external funding stops, the church stops its help to the elderly altogether.

The above examples are related to sending and receiving money. External support in the form of staff/personnel contains similar if not higher risks of handing over or taking over responsibilities though. Despite good intentions, time and again temporary workers from abroad start projects for which local organizations do not feel ownership. Either the projects do not fit with the vision and strategy of the local organization, or cannot be sustained with local staff and resources. These projects can have positive and promising effects during the period in which the external workers are present, but usually end when they leave. In some cases, the sudden discontinuity of such projects negatively affects (former) target groups and may even cause distrust from the community towards the local organization.

Thinking back of the images discussed in 4.3.1., often the ‘dependency syndrome’ of some organizations is related to the ‘full hands syndrome’ of others. Organizations with a full hands syndrome may find it just as hard to change their unwise supporting behaviour as it is for implementing partners to change when and how they seek external support.

Overcoming obstacles to ownership Ownership starts with each partner having a clear vision and being faithful to it. Ownership, then, is closely related to Respect: it requires respecting oneself and the other as gifted and responsible human beings.

One way to reduce dependency on the priorities, methods and resources of one specific partner or funder is to avoid exclusive partnerships and stimulate networks where organizations can meet and work together with a variety of partners. For ‘we do not own our partner and do not have to jealously protect our relationship’ The Lausanne Standards for partnership also advice partners to explore together ‘where and how to draw the line between healthy interdependency and unhealthy dependency’. A first step is to recognize the risks that can come with external support. Already in 1997 an African leader stated that “The biggest problem that we have now are the funds coming from outside and causing problems for us here” Also, sharing examples of local possibilities and ownership can inspire partners. Rev. Ezemadu shares the story of four Nigerian friends. One of them gave up his job to become a missionary; the other three combined their monthly salaries and split the total income evenly over the four friends, thereby all supporting this mission.

Page 15

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

Local organizations are primarily responsible and often best equipped to show mercy and promote justice in their own contexts ‘We reject the idea that either of us could go into the other’s world and do their job better than they do’ Foreign partners should therefore be hesitant to initiate own programmes or to create parallel organizational structures. Rather than handing over or taking over their responsibilities, partners build on local initiatives and external support complements local giftedness.

Local churches and external support Ukrainian author Alexander Malov advices local churches and their supporting partners to respect the following Biblical precepts: - A pastor’s salary should be paid by the local church or tent-making.

- Local churches should participate in helping the needy members.

- Poverty is not an excuse not to give away.

- Work with your own hands (“Be critical of individuals with a call who need money for their ministry.

Why doesn’t he start this ministry after work hours? Why doesn’t his church support his ministry?”.)

- Everything has a price (“If a person is not ready to pay one third of the book’s price, it's likely he does not need a book but rather a free riding”.)

- Salvation is of God. (“’We need money to save the people’ is a heresy. God has thousands of ways to bring His people to Himself and the ultimate results do not depend on the financing of a project.”)

In the same line the Keystone Partnership Survey concludes: “Northern NGOs may best support southern partners by contributing to their efforts, rather than as a strategic leader or commissioning agent.” The same is true for southern partners supporting northern partners, southern partner supporting other southern partners, and northern partners supporting other northern partners.

Support contributing to executing partners’ efforts is characterized by limitation in:  Size. It is an addition to local efforts, ideas, resources and structures.  Time. It follows local initiative and ends when the desired effects of the work can be reached best with other partners or without external support.

For Prisma members Tear and Red een Kind, working directly together with self-help groups is one way to build on existing supporting systems and local structures.

4.4.3 Contextuality: Partners are sensitive to context and culture Partnership and contextuality Contextuality in mission or development refers to two aspects of partnership: 1. Partners work in line with the context in which their joint activities take place.

The context in which projects take place heavily influences the way partners work together. The expectations, objectives, and mutual agreements in the partnership are to be adjusted to the given social, political, economic and infrastructural circumstances. As such circumstances continuously change, context analyses will need to be repeated on a regular basis.

In this process, partners should be mindful not to draw the conclusion ‘locals know best’ too soon.

Locally based organizations do not always have more contextual information than foreign organizations (due to f.e. limited media access, propaganda or a limited or non-representative network), nor do they necessarily (want to) work more in line with the given context.

2. In their interactions partners show understanding for cultural differences.

Partners need to be sensitive to each other’s culture, understanding and showing respect for each Page 16

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

other’s cultural values and norms. For example: the Netherlands is a relatively non-hierarchical society in which is the norm for people to call each other by the first name and openly question each other regardless position or age. It requires sensitiveness from Dutch organizations to work together with partners in more hierarchical societies and vice versa.

Again, cultural values and practices are not static. Interaction between people worldwide accelerates the exchange of information. Some ideas or habits from elsewhere are adopted, others are discarded, but communities and societies across the globe are changing rapidly and assumptions about culture should be checked regularly.

Obstacles to contextuality Partner relations suffer when individual staff members are unable or unwilling to critically reflect on their own cultural preferences and to understand each other’s way of life. Partners from different cultural backgrounds often have different ways to handle sensitive matters, such as expressing or receiving criticism.

Rigidness can also occur on organizational level. Standardizing processes can be helpful to work efficiently, but rigidity sets in when organizations expect all partners to work in the same manner.

This happens for example when an organization demands partners to use its PME procedures and tools without considering existing internal processes and systems of partners. Multiple partnerships further complicate matters: ‘partners may struggle to follow five different strategies and sets of reporting requirements’.

Something similar happens when a supporting partner expects all implementing partners to reach similar results in a standardized time frame. Or when an implementing partner expects the same level of financial or technical support from all its supporting partners. In short, when the diversity of partners and their contexts is not taken seriously organizations run the risk of misunderstanding, underestimating or over-demanding their partners.

Personal partnering skills Conflicting personalities or personal frictions in partnerships cannot always be avoided, but it certainly helps when partners choose suitable contact persons: Individuals often discover that the partnering process has not only taken them on a professional journey, but also on a personal adventure of self-discovery and development. Partnering skills, however, are most easily acquired by those who already have a level of self-awareness and self-management. In other words, effective partnering requires people who can read and control their own emotions, who are quite confident, and who embody qualities such as empathy, optimism, imagination, openness and modesty. Partnerships also crucially require partners who are good at taking initiative.

Tennyson 2011, The Partnering Toolbook

Overcoming obstacles to contextuality First, respectful and effective intercultural communication requires a sensitive attitude of partners.

To develop mutual sensitivity and understanding, visiting each other’s contexts and regular conversations are particularly helpful. It helps when partners acknowledge that even in long-term partnerships, it may remain difficult to understand each other well. Therefore ‘we recognize the value of calling on a trusted third party to prevent and handle conflict.’

Second, a flexible approach is a prerequisite for working in a contextualized manner. Determining what is fitting and fair in a specific partnership depends on multiple factors including the history and circumstances of the partners, their other partnerships, and other actors in their societies. If Page 17

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

available, partners might jointly decide to use local systems and tools. Another option is to translate and contextualize international standards and tools together as partners, to ensure their relevance and practicality for the given partners.

4.4.4 Reliability: Partners are committed and predictable Keep agreements Reliability means that partners do what they say. They make clear agreements and are committed to keep those agreements. One aspect of partnerships asking for clear agreements is communication.

Partners bring clarity in their relationship when they decide together: Who will communicate on behalf each organization? How often do we expect to have contact and through which means (Skype, phone calls, Whatsapp, e-mails, letters, face-to-face)? How soon do we expect each other to respond on a message or question?

Similarly, partners make decisions regarding reporting (mutual reporting dates, content of the reports, who is allowed to read and use the reports), prayer support (who will be involved to pray along, dates to send mutual thanksgiving and prayer requests), funding (payment dates, usage of funds) and other relevant aspects of the partnership.

Partners should also be clear about the time frame of their partnership. Partnerships are in principle limited in time. Right from the start, the terms of engagement need to be clear and exit strategies need to be discussed and agreed upon. Questions to discuss include: How long do we expect to work together in this project? (How) will we continue our relationship after we stop collaborating in this project? How long do we intend and are we able to commit to each other’s work?

Open to new partners, faithful to existing partners: an example After having worked together in a work-and-income oriented project for several years with a partner in Central America, Woord & Daad (WD) had to conclude that this partner was unable to work on the scale and in the manner that was necessary to achieve the desired changes. For work-and-income projects WD therefore decided to start working together with a more professional organization in the same country. Indeed, the new partnership proofed to be effective: thanks to the partners’ joint efforts, more people were able to find productive work and income.

WD and their older partner stayed connected. Basing their mutual expectations on the partner’s scale and capacities, they lowered their level of engagement and changed their field of cooperation. These changes are evaluated positively by both WD and the partner. “There is less pressure on performance and less mutual frustration now”, a WD staff says.

Obstacles to reliability Unclear expectations or agreements about each partner’s responsibilities and possibilities can cause uncertainty and may lead partners to question each other’s loyalty. Also, unrealistic promises or vague statements like “We will do what we can” make it hard to rely on a partner. Obviously, it also harms trust when a partner is aware of mutual agreements but does not act accordingly. An example of such behaviour is when an organization bypasses the contact person officially appointed by its partner and rather communicates with other individuals inside the partners’ organization. By doing so, the organization shows no concern for their agreement, but also shows disrespect for the internal structures and decisions of its partner, thereby undermining the principles Respect and Ownership as well.

Page 18

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

Overcoming obstacles to reliability Discussing mutual expectations is an essential step in partnership-building. ZOA has positive experiences in discussing mutual expectations with new partners in workshops. It helps when partners take time at the start of their cooperation to “choose from a menu of roles and tasks”, a staff member at The Leprosy Mission says.

The next step is to make specific and realistic agreements. Keep in mind that partners’ agreements should serve the quality and effectiveness of the joint program. A Kenyan partner of Dorcas shared that “due to short period projects associated to gradually reduced funds, it becomes increasingly difficult to employ qualified people who can bring acceptable results”. Implementing partners should openly share these concerns with their partners, so that together they can look for ways to guarantee the quality of the projects for which they are jointly responsible. In this case, options partners can consider together include a) committing to longer project periods, b) involving more partners, c) scaling down the project.

4.4.5 Accountability: Partners are transparent to all stakeholders Organizational commitment For effective partnership it is necessary that all partners ‘demonstrate a sustained organizational commitment to transparency, multiple accountability, and integrity in their internal operations.’.

Just like reliability, accountability helps to deepen trust in partnerships. Whereas reliability means that partners do what they say, accountability means that partners say what they do. Multiple accountability is achieved when organizations openly inform all stakeholders:  Within their own organizations (Inward accountability)  End users, beneficiaries, target groups (Downward accountability)  Partners (Mutual accountability)  Funders, prayer supporters, constituencies (Upward accountability)  Wider community, general public (Outward accountability).

As mentioned in §4.3, partners usually make agreements for narrative and financial reporting agreements at the start of a joint project or program. Many organizations also pro-actively present oral and/or written annual reports which include their current partner networks, ongoing projects, achieved results and a financial overview of the past year. Such annual reports are given to constituencies and funders and/or published online for the general public.

Accountability is more than regularly updating stakeholders. To be accountable literally means to be answerable. It requires the willingness to answer, explain and clarify. Stakeholders have the right to be informed on processes taking place and decisions being made.

Sharing how we work and why we make certain choices takes effort and time. But ‘we agree to do the extra work required to be seen as trustworthy in the eyes of our partner [and other stakeholders, ed.], which is often harder than being trustworthy in our own eyes or even the eyes of the Lord.’.

4.5.2 Obstacles to Accountability Control and bureaucracy are main obstacles to accountability. Protocols and reporting can easily become a goal in itself instead of a way to achieve more impact. When a supporting partner tries to control processes, decisions and finances by micromanaging, it leaves no space for its partners to be truly accountable and to take ownership (see also §4.4.2). Some organizations refuse to disclose how Page 19

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

they work with anyone, including their partners. Prisma member KOEH observes that several organizations in Eastern Europe ‘perceive paper work as control’. Bad experiences with controlling actors or repressing systems may be an underlying reason to keep information to themselves.

Organizations unwilling or unable to give account to partners and donors run a serious risk of losing their trust and support.

How transparency builds trust Excerpts from a conversation between Woord & Daad (WD) and its Guatemalan partner AMGG: Looking back AMGG’s director says: “Transparency builds trust which is the most crucial element in a partnership.” For the first couple of years he wasn’t really trusting the process. […] He shares that the first couple of years WD might even have felt a little oppressive to him. “WD had a goal which was the MFS funding and we were brought into this. The WD team was constantly trying to make it sound like we came up with this together.” Coming from a corporate background Brian understands this.

There were so many structural changes to be made, plans to be written and much more. […] Now looking back, it was clear that the focus was on getting the MFS government funds. WD could have probably been a bit more clear and transparent. Clearly laying out the situation, saying what was needed to work on together and how this would be done. Now a sense of ownership and authorship was given while in reality this didn’t exist so much, we all just worked towards a goal that was in our benefit and not many partners really critically reflected on this. […]

Communication […] remains a challenge in the partnership AMGG and WD. […] For example the new organizational way of working of WD. AMGG’s director explains: “We are still not sure exactly how it all works or what the big picture is. Key in this is then the communication. Using easy and clear terminology that is understandable for the partner organizations explaining what is really going on and what changes for the partner organization etc. Quick communication does not work then, as WD might be working on a change already for months, but for us as partner it is new, so there is the need to explain it from the start.” […]

But the trust started growing. It was developed and nurtured and that is when AMGG came to see also the fact that some requests in the partnership were actually very reasonable. Having a relationship, a partnership is what makes trust grow. By working together and listening to each other. AMGG’s director also highlights that when all is said and done, WD as a donor and partner is very reasonable and generous.

A more common concern is that many organizations worldwide struggle to achieve multiple accountability. Most organizations do their best to share their work with constituencies, prayer supporters and funders (upward accountability). They take photos, collect human interest stories, scan bank statements, and invite external auditors for their periodic reports. At the same time, accountability towards other stakeholders receives less attention or is even neglected.

Overcoming obstacles to accountability Downward accountability, transparency towards the people and communities whom we want to serve (target groups or beneficiaries), deserves priority. Our organizations exist to support, encourage and empower them; therefore they are also the first people to be involved and informed.

Multiple accountability ought to be on every organization’s agenda. Beneficiaries, community members, volunteers, colleagues or partners may not pro-actively ask to report or to share information. As mission and development organizations we should be critically asking ourselves whether this is a good sign (apparently everyone is happy and everything is clear) or whether we need to work on our accessibility (can people easily reach us and freely talk to us?) or our relevance (is what we do really important to the people whom we want to serve and with whom we work? Do they bother to be informed?). It is beyond the scope of this paper to further elaborate on this, Page 20

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

therefore the remainder of this paragraph zooms in on accountability between partners. Over the course of a partnership, partners strive to find a workable balance between giving trust (taking risks, letting go, believing in partners’ strengths) and earning trust (updating and involving each other).

In order to give trust and avoid micromanagement, some partners use the ‘black box’ approach to avoid micromanagement. They do not report every step they take and do not discuss internal processes -these details stay in the proverbial black box-, but instead focus on sharing and evaluating effects and results directly related to their common objectives. Prisma members intend to work based on ‘low control, high accountability’ in their partnerships. Mission organization GZB, for example, wants to develop a planning and accountability system based on equity which promotes joint learning.

When it comes to earning trust, partners should seek to establish mutual accountability. In practice we see that implementing partners hardly request their supporting partners to report, but all organizations have the right to know how their partners work, on which criteria they base their decisions, how they raise and spend funds, and with whom (else) they cooperate. All partners are called to be responsible stewards of what was given to them. For supporting partners this means that they do not give blindly: they are responsible and answerable for how they use their resources.

ICCO’s measures to minimize risks in their partnerships include country/region risk profiles, organizational and financial health scans for new partners, and financial monitoring including antifraud and corruption policy. Kom over en Help (KOEH) and Verre Naasten (DVN) use an orientation phase with new partners. DVN’s guideline for this orientation phase (1-3 years) is to limit its financial support to a new partner’s projects to a maximum of €5.000 per year. KOEH also starts with smallscale projects and takes time to visit one another frequently in the first year(s). By ‘starting small’, all partners have time to get to know each other better and to see whether working together works, without large mutual obligations. ZOA’s partnership report also recommends to ‘use short term ‘try out’ contracts to learn to know the partner.’

Sometimes responsible partnership means suspending or ending support, for example when a partner repeatedly withholds or manipulates project-related information, or in cases of fraud.

Mutual learning: an example A staff of Prisma member Woord & Daad (WD) interviewed the director of one of their partners in Guatemala (AMGG). According to AMGG’s director, the two organizations have learnt the following from each other: - AMGG considers the spiritual eplhasis of their work equally as important as the professional emphasis. Sound and professional development efforts plus a spiritual emphasis is the answer to transforming lives. This is an added value from AMG USA, as their mission/vision is focussed on transformation through evangelism and dicipleship.

- At the same time, AMG USA has not put enough emphasis towards providing financially for the work, not have they been very strong on field accountabiulity or professional development.

- This is something that WD as a partner has done much more. WD has been supporting a large part of the work of AMGG and has a strong focus on professionalism,accountability, good programs, good monitoring and evaluation. WD helped with the development of a lot of tools linked to the MFS process like PMEL, scorecards, reporting formats and much more. The Stretgic Multi-annual Plans and Strategic Partner Plans helped partners to really look at their overall programs.

- AMGG feels that in the partnership there has been a lot of added value towards each other by bringing in the aspect each is strong in. WD has been less focused on the spiritual aspect and this couyld be an area of groth, while AMGG has learned so much from the professionalism WD has expected from them as partner.

Page 21

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

4.4.6 Learning: Partners are willing to learn Learning attitude The sixth and final partnership principle we highlight here is that all partners have a learner’s attitude. The Istanbul CSO Development Effectiveness Principles put it as follows: “Civil society organizations […] create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning. They enhance the ways they learn from their experience, from other CSOs and development actors, integrating evidence from development practice and results, including the knowledge and wisdom of local and indigenous communities, strengthening innovation and their vision for the future they would like to see.”

Just as organizations are accountable to all stakeholders, they also learn from different actors. 









Within their own organizations: Organizations purposefully create time and space for staffs and volunteers to learn together and from one another. Within organizations, project results are important sources for learning. We do not only monitor and evaluate for accountability reasons, but primarily in order to learn how to become better change-agents in our fields of work.

End users, beneficiaries, target groups: Organizations do not only inform and answer end users (downward accountability), but involve them in planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation of their programs. People are never beneficiaries only: their expertise and experience should be recognized and utilized.

Constituencies and back donors: Organizations pro-actively involve constituencies to think along and give advice. Again, for organizations to learn from and together with constituencies, they need to view them as more than (potential) donors, but as “people of flesh and blood with a calling, a drive, capacities, and willingness to act.”

Other organizations in the region or field of expertise: Linking organizations in order to learn together is a valuable investment in capacity strengthening. NGOs in the global South ask strongly for support in the form of sharing experiences with other organizations working on similar issues.

Partners: In a partnership, partners actively seek to learn together and from one another through critical dialogue. Some examples of reciprocal learning between partners are given in the text boxes. Partners believe that they, as well as their constituencies, can learn from each other to grow and develop. The partners, and ideally their constituencies, together form a learning community. Groenendijk calls this a ‘reciprocal development process’. Such a process starts with the acknowledgement that all partners -in North and South, East and West- have things to learn from one another. Klaas Harink, director of mission and diaconal agency Verre Naasten, emphasises: “For churches it is essential to be in contact with churches in other parts of the world. We desperately need our brothers and sisters worldwide to pray for us and to inspire, encourage, help, advise and sharpen us, and we need to do the same for them.” A reciprocal development process also implies a critical attitude towards one’s own behaviour, both at micro- and macrolevel. For people in the global North, this means learning -and trying to change- that poverty in the global South partly exists due to the policies and practices in the North, including trade laws and subsidies protecting Northern and excluding Southern markets, and charging financial interest from countries receiving development aid.

Page 22

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

The effect of an evaluation conducted by partners Some years ago Woord en Daad (WD) asked some of their partners to evaluate WD’s overall strategy. A conclusion of their evaluation was that WD performed well in the field of poverty-reduction (one of WD’s objectives), but underperformed in bringing lifestyle changes in the Netherlands (also a WD objective).

Based on these conclusions, WD started a new program called ‘Giving and Living Behaviour’. The programme includes exchange between youths in the Netherlands and abroad. This program already brings beautiful changes in the lives of young people. For example: a teenager from the Netherlands shared that he had learnt how to follow Jesus from Christian teenagers in Bangladesh. The boy’s parents, who were very critical about this exchange with teenagers from ‘a Muslim country’, were moved to tears when they heard their son’s testimony.

Obstacles to learning Unwillingness and fear to change are main challenges to learn. Leaders are essential in creating a learning culture. When leaders do not demonstrate a learner’s attitude or when they do not want to be part of learning processes, they give a bad example to the rest of the organization.

In some cases, people simply do not see any reason to change their ideas or behaviour. Journalist and anthropologist Joris Luyendijk argues that “many people live in a circle of like-minded people, and can hardly imagine that others see and experience the world in a totally different way. Facebook, Instagram, Google and other media companies select images and messages that confirm our tastes and views, making it harder and harder to imagine that there may be good reasons for a radically different worldview.” (translated from Dutch, ed.)

Between partners, fear of hurting or insulting each other may be an obstacle to constructive criticism. For example, partnership surveys can be a good tool to learn from partners’ feedback. In practice however, “many partners give politically correct and socially desired answers”, a staff member from LepraZending observes, “How do we know whether our partners are completely frank?” Some partners may be polite because they don’t know each other well enough yet. It may be unclear what the consequences of their feedback will be.

Having very close personal relations can also endanger critical dialogue however, as those partners may no longer be able to take sufficient distance to critically reflect on each other’s work and organization.

What do we learn from our partners?

In March 2017, several Prisma members listed what they are learning from their partners. Below are the findings of Kom over en Help (KOEH) and Dorcas Kenya.

KOEH Dorcas Partners teach us: + Hospitality + Servitude + Flexibility + A strong focus on God’s Kingdom and eternal life + Focus on physical and spiritual wellbeing of others + Dependence on God / Trust in God + Boldness to witness about God + Immediate prayer whenever there are setbacks + Evangelism and diaconate go together + Practical actions + Great (com)passion for weak or fragile people

Page 23

Partners teach us: + Humility and servant leadership. Most partner leaders demonstrate this through going an extra mile to serve their beneficiaries + Desire to boldly speak and advocate for services on behalf of their beneficiaries + Hope and tenacity in the middle of desperation and chaos + A strong desire to make a difference against all odds + Compassion for the poor and vulnerable (i.e. children, people living with HIV, people living with

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

+ As Christians they want to make a difference and be meaningful in their society + Willingness and effort to learn and develop (f.e. during ‘rubrics method’ training) Critical notes: - Strong dependence on God sometimes seems hard to combine with own responsibility and making plans.

- Impulsiveness. Sometimes partners don’t have a vision for the long(er) term.

- Some partners have a one-sided focus on conversion and coming to church only (instead of integral mission).

disabilities, people affected by gender discrimination etc.) + Great negotiation skills and peace makers. + Loyalty to the beneficiaries + Good grasp of context issues + Sustainability with some partner after Dorcas pulls out.

Critical notes: -Self-serving leaders interested in gaining political mileage -Sense of entitlement among some partners -Lack of transparency, especially to the beneficiaries among a few leaders working for partners.

- Lack of a clear vision for the beneficiaries.

-Rigidity in terms of expansion and changing mindsets.

Overcoming obstacles to learning A learner’s attitude requires a healthy balance between humility and confidence. When we have a humble heart we can continue to learn, regardless of our position, age or social status, and we can give others the opportunity to learn in their own manner and pace. If we know that we are all still learning, we can also be patient and gracious to ourselves and to one another.

In order to learn from one another as partners (and other stakeholders), we should also know the strengths of each organization, including our own. Prior to formalizing a partnership, partners should consider what resources will be needed for the agreed project or programme of work. A partnership meeting (or several) dedicated to resource mapping, identifying the resources each partner might contribute, can be invaluable. Resources include information, people, networks, accommodation, expertise, and products.

In order to build sufficient trust to open up, it is important that partners invest in their relationship, for example by visiting each other and sharing informal time together (see also 3.1.2). At the same time, it can be wise to keep some critical distance as partners (ZOA 2011, p.24). Again, finding a healthy balance is key. To overcome socially desired feedback between partners, it may help to be open about one’s own doubts. Remind the partner that your intention is to learn from his/her feedback, and share that you wonder whether (s)he is being frank or just being polite.

Some ideas for mutual learning as partners: - Joint trainings, courses or Bible studies - Attending each other’s staff meetings - Facilitating courses together and/or developing training materials together - Inviting partners for policy and strategy consultations - Inviting partners to lecture, present, preach - Inviting partners to evaluate your activities - Project and partnership evaluations 4.5 Summary and Conclusion: a partnership blueprint?

As Christian development organizations in the Netherlands we partner with a wide range of actors across the globe, varying from local self-help groups and chirches to national multi-sector aliances and intercontinental value chains.

Page 24

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

Despite the differences in partnership scale and complexity we see sufficient common ground for joint analysis and reflection. We formed an inter-organizational learning group interested in knowing: What have we learnt from partnerships so far, and what does Parnership 2.0 look like?

Central to our motivation to work in partnerships is the belief that people worldwide are created as equals who are all appointed as stewards to seek justice and show mercy, and that we need one another and are given to one another to fulfil this calling. Over the past decades the roles of many Prisma members have shifted from implementer of own programmes to funder or funder-advisor of local actors’initiatives. More recently we actively seek to bring added value besides and beyond funding: as brokers, connectors, facilitators, advosors, advocates, alliance partners, and/or (joint) investors. Core partnership principles including Respect, Ownership, Contextuality, Reliability, Accountability, and learning.

We indentified several common obstacles to good partnership. Behaviour undermining the core partnership principles include: viewing societies either as ‘developed’or ‘developing’(threat to Respect), overlooking local possibilities (threat to Ownership), over-demanding (threat to Contextuality), unclear agreements (threat to Reliability), and refusing to change (threat to Learning).

Stimulating networks and exchange, building on local initiatives and structures, discussing mutual expectations, and activily involving constrituencies and beneficiaries are some of the practices that can help to overcome such obstacles.

This paper is a joint product of partners in the global South and North. Our learning process has only just begun, however. A paper is like a screenshot capturing one moment in a film. The film, the story, is the ongoing conversation with our partners, constituencies, and colleaque-organizations. Let us continue learning to work together, combining passion and professionalism as we jointly seek to share hope and promote justice.

In light of this we do not aim to end up with a standard code of condact or a partnership blueprint for ‘Partnership 2.0’. Rather, exploring the six principles introduced in this chapter can be a useful starting point for discussion between (potential) partners. Specific implications of these principles can be worked out as part of partnership-building process, and over time other principles may be added by partners.

For now, we conclude with a simple checklist for all who consider, enter, or continue partnerships: 1.     

Know yourself What are our vision, mission and mandate?

What is our context?

What are our objectives and interests (in this partnership)?

What are our strengths and how can we add value (in this partnership)?

What should we learn, develop, or to remain or to become more relevant in this partnership? How is our aglity/adaptability?

2. Know your (potential) partner     

Page 25

What are their vison, mission and mandate?

What is their context?

What are their objectives and interests in this partnership?

What are their strengths and how can they add value?

What should they learn, develop, or to remain or to become more relevant in this partnership? How is their aglity/adaptability?

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence

3. Share your expectations   

Avoid hidden agenda. Take time to discuss what you expect from: The partnership (results, budget, time frame, phases, within the partnership, etc.)

Each other (roles, communication, self-and joint reflection and evaluation, etc.)

4. Dare to chose  

In order to fulfil our mission, do we need partners with a similar ‘DNA’ as ours, or do we look for complementing partners?

Do we primarily view (this) partnership as shared responsibility, as a gift, as calling, or as means? Which implications does this view have for the way we give shape to (this) partnership?

Resource persons The following persons contributed to the reflection that resulted in this chapter: Partners: Alexander Malov (LOTR, Ukraine) Silva Mopageriua(CODESA Mozambique), Joseph Mwanthi, Kitise RDP (Kenya), Moise Mande Lenge Kitenge (URCC Congo), Eden Lucksom, Mathias Subba and Mathusela Limboo (PFCC India), Deus Byebiroha (PCU Uganda), Daniel Kithongo (AEPC Kenya), Lakmal Wijeratne (CRC Sri Lanka), Marcel Mattos Tavares (IRB Brazil), Brian Dennett (AMG Guatemala).

Prisma members: Nico Zwemstra (LepraZending), Gé Draijer and Erjan van der Linden (CGK Diaconaat), Edwin Onyancha (Dorcas), Jan Drost (Bijzondere Noden), Corita Corbijn (ZOA), Anthonet Baijense, Margreet van Beest and Maris Goudzwaard (Kom over en Help), Dries van Dixhoorn (IndiaMission RCN), Reinier van Hoffen, Henk Prins, Jan-Matthijs van Leeuwen, Pieter Messelink and Grethe Kruizinga (Verre Naasten).

Page 26

CHAPTER 4 - Partnership: a declaration of interdependence