assessing factors influencing global partnerships …
TRANSCRIPT
ASSESSING FACTORS INFLUENCING GLOBAL
PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
THE CASE OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAMME
BY
OLUNGA MERCY CHRISTINE
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-
AFRICA
FALL 2020
ASSESSING FACTORS INFLUENCING GLOBAL
PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
THE CASE OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAMME
BY
OLUNGA MERCY CHRISTINE
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Humanities and Social Sciences in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the award of Masters of Arts
Degree in International Relations
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-
AFRICA
FALL 2020
ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented to any other college,
institution or university other than the United States International University-Africa
Signature ____________________ Date ________________________
Olunga Mercy Christine (I.D.NO. 643043)
This Thesis has been submitted for review with my approval as the university appointed
supervisor.
Signature ___________________________ Date _________________________
Joseph Kimani Njuguna
Supervisor
Signature ___________________________ Date ________________________
Prof. Martin C. Njoroge
Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences
iii
COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. © Olunga Mercy Christine 2020
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I correspondingly express thanks to the Almighty God who guided me throughout
this research to make the project a reality. In addition, I would like to extend thanks to my
supervisor, Dr. Joseph Kimani Njuguna for the support, assistance and guidance provided
for coming up with this thesis. Lastly, gratitude is extended to my family and friend for
their support and understanding during the countless hours spent on this research.
v
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to my parents Mr. Vitalis Olunga and Mrs. Jemima Olunga and my
friends, who have provided continuous tremendous support, throughout my studies to
enable me to carry out this project.
vi
ACRONYMS
ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budget Questions
CFP Call for Proposal (CFP)
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DAC Development Cooperation Directorate
DAPF Delegation of Authority Policy and Framework
DFID Department for International Development
GCF Green Climate Fund
GNI Gross National Income
GP Grantor Program
IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative
IDA International Development Assistance
IFAF Integrated Financial Accountability Framework
IMF International Monetary Fund
IRB Institutional Review Board
IOs International Organizations
IPs Implementing partners
MDRI Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative
MEAS Multilateral Environmental Agreement Secretariats
MNC Multinational Corporations
vii
NACOSTI National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEX National Execution (NEX)
NGOs Non-Governmental organizations
NIM National Implementation
ODA Official Development Assistant
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
POW Programme of Work
QCPR Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review
RBM Resource Based Management
RDT Resource Dependency Theory
SPPS Statistical Package for Social Science
TNC Transnational Corporations
UIA Union of International Association
UN United Nations
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
WTO World Trade Organization (WTO)
viii
ABSTRACT
Partnerships with both public and non-public entities, are a crucial part of most of the
United Nations system organization in its pursuit for achieving its’ mandates. The United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) engages in many such partnerships through the
implementation of programme activities. It is worth noting that, the volume of resources
entrusted to partners are remarkable. Clear structure and measures of accountability are a
requirement for partners when applying for Call for Proposals. This ensure that funds are
used for the intended purpose with minimum risks of mismanagement, fraud, and
exploitation. Member states have raised their concerns regarding the performance of
partners and have demanded for greater accountability of the resources that are allocated to
partners through the United Nations.
The study relied both on primary and secondary data and the findings revealed UNEP as
the agency within the United Nations organization system that has set the pace as the
foremost worldwide environmental advocate for sustainable development. Through
partnerships the agency attains its mandates by addressing environmental challenges and
issues through partnerships. Different forms of partnerships take places and involves the
collaboration of UNEP granting funds to other entities (International Organizations) to
implement programmes/projects.
However, the agency has several deficiencies that were identified through this study. These
include un-economical use of project funds, waste indication of resource that come about
due to poor project planning and lack accountability for funds that have been disbursed to
partners. The study recommends, executive heads should institute effectiveness in project
execution. In-depth assessments during the selection of partners for effective and efficient
programme implementation. Tools and mechanisms to facilitate systematic identification
of fraud risks and investment in performance evaluation systems.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION................................................................................................................ ii
COPYRIGHT .................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................ iv
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................... v
ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Partnerships ......................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3 General Objective ...................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 6
1.6.1 Academic and Learning Organisations ................................................................ 7
1.6.2 The United Nations .............................................................................................. 7
1.6.3 State Actors.......................................................................................................... 7
1.6.4 Non-state actors ................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Definition of Terms.................................................................................................... 8
1.8.1 Global Partnerships.............................................................................................. 8
1.8.2 Partner .................................................................................................................. 8
x
1.8.3 Programme and/or Project ................................................................................... 9
1.8.4 Development Aid ................................................................................................. 9
1.8.5 Sponsor ................................................................................................................ 9
1.8.6 Good Practices ..................................................................................................... 9
1.8.7 Framework for Assessment ................................................................................. 9
1.9 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................. 11
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 UNEP’s Partnerships ............................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 UNEP’s Partnership Modalities......................................................................... 13
2.2.2 UNEP’s Partnership Principles .......................................................................... 14
2.3 Unpacking Donor Aid .............................................................................................. 19
2.3.1 Multi-lateral Aid ................................................................................................ 19
2.3.2 Multi-bilateral Aid ............................................................................................. 20
2.3.3 Other Forms of Aid............................................................................................ 20
2.3.4 Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) ..................................................................... 20
2.3.5 Concessional Loans ........................................................................................... 21
2.3.6 Non-Concessional Loans ................................................................................... 22
2.3.7 Pre-Cautionary Loans ........................................................................................ 22
2.4 Creating Transparency and Accountability ............................................................. 22
2.4.1 Upward and Downward Accountability ............................................................ 24
2.4.2 Hierarchical and Holistic Accountability .......................................................... 25
2.5 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 26
2.5.1 Theorizing Global Partnerships ......................................................................... 27
2.5.2 Realism Theory and International Organizations .............................................. 28
xi
2.5.3 Neo-liberal Institutionalism Theory and International Organizations ............... 29
2.5.4 Resource Dependency Theory ........................................................................... 31
2.6 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 33
2.7 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................... 35
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 35
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 35
3.2 Research Design....................................................................................................... 35
3.3 Population and Sampling Design ............................................................................. 36
3.3.1 Population .......................................................................................................... 36
3.3.2 Sampling Frame ................................................................................................. 37
3.3.3 Sampling Technique .......................................................................................... 37
3.3.4 Sample Size ....................................................................................................... 38
3.4 Data Collection Methods ......................................................................................... 40
3.5 Research Procedures ................................................................................................ 41
3.6 Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................ 42
3.7 Ethical Issues ........................................................................................................... 42
3.8 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................ 44
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 44
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 44
4.2 General Information of the Respondents ................................................................. 44
4.2.1 The Position Occupied In the Organization of Respondents ............................. 44
4.2.2 Gender of Respondents ...................................................................................... 45
4.2.3 Age of Respondents ........................................................................................... 46
xii
4.2.4 Level of education ............................................................................................. 46
4.2.5 Length of Service ............................................................................................... 47
4.3 Effective and Efficient Programme Implementation ............................................... 48
4.3.1 Strategic Approach in Program Implementation ............................................... 48
4.3.2 Monitoring and Reporting Systems ................................................................... 49
4.3.3 Performance indicators ...................................................................................... 50
4.3.4 Systems .............................................................................................................. 51
4.3.5 Regulations ........................................................................................................ 52
4.3.6 Monitoring Frameworks .................................................................................... 53
4.3.7 Fraud Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... 54
4.4 Accountability and Transparency in Programme Implementation .......................... 55
4.4.1 Selection Process ............................................................................................... 55
4.4.2 Framework for assessment ................................................................................ 56
4.4.3 Partnership assessment and capability ............................................................... 56
4.4.4 Information ........................................................................................................ 57
4.4.5 Good practice ..................................................................................................... 58
4.4.6 Results Based Reporting .................................................................................... 59
4.4.7 Financial Capacity Assessment ......................................................................... 60
4.5 Competencies and Capacities in Programme Implementation ................................ 61
4.5.1 Quality of Projects Implemented ....................................................................... 61
4.5.2 Capacity Development ...................................................................................... 62
4.5.3 Management of Risks ........................................................................................ 63
4.5.4 Performance Evaluation .................................................................................... 64
4.5.5 Project Sustainability Frameworks .................................................................... 64
4.5.6 Project Implementation Timelines..................................................................... 65
4.5.7 Resources ........................................................................................................... 66
4.6 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 67
xiii
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 68
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 68
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 68
5.2 Summary .................................................................................................................. 68
5.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 70
5.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 74
5.5 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 76
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 84
APPENDIX I: LETTERS OF INTENT ......................................................................... 84
APPENDIX II: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ................................................... 85
APPENDIX III: RESPONDENT DEBRIEF FORM.................................................... 88
APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................... 90
APPENDIX V: MEMORANDUM - UNEP ................................................................... 94
APPENDIX VI: RESEARCH APPROVAL .................................................................. 95
APPENDIX VII: PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH ................................. 96
APPENDIX VIII: NACOSTI RESEARCH LICENSE ................................................ 97
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Population ......................................................................................................... 37
Table 3.2: Sample Size ...................................................................................................... 39
Table 4.1: Position occupied in the organization ............................................................... 45
Table 4.2: Monitoring and Reporting Systems .................................................................. 50
Table 4.3: Performance Indicators ..................................................................................... 51
Table 4.4: Monitoring Frameworks ................................................................................... 54
Table 4.5: Fraud Risk Assessment ..................................................................................... 54
Table 4.6: Information ....................................................................................................... 58
Table 4.7: Results Based Reporting ................................................................................... 60
Table 4.8: Financial Capacity Assessment ....................................................................... 61
Table 4.9: Capacity Development...................................................................................... 63
Table 4.10: Management of Risks ..................................................................................... 63
Table 4.11: Performance Evaluation .................................................................................. 64
Table 4.12: Resources ........................................................................................................ 67
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: UNEP's Partnership Categories ....................................................................... 12
Figure 2.2: Partnerships Are an Integral Portion of the Project Management Cycle ........ 17
Figure 2.3: Partnership Portfolio Risk Landscape ............................................................. 18
Figure 2.4: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.1: Results ............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4.1: Gender of Respondents ................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.2: Age of Respondents......................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.3: Level of Education .......................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.4: Length of service ............................................................................................. 48
Figure 4.5: Strategic Approach in Program Implementation ............................................. 49
Figure 4.6: Systems ............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4.7: Regulations ...................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.8: Selection Process ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 4.9: Framework for Assessment ............................................................................. 56
Figure 4.10: Partnership Assessment and Capability ........................................................ 57
Figure 4.11: Good Practice ................................................................................................ 59
Figure 4.12: Quality of Projects Implemented ................................................................... 62
Figure 4.13: Project Sustainability Frameworks ................................................................ 65
Figure 4.14: Project Implementation Timelines ................................................................ 66
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The past few decades are cited as the time when increased recognition of the role
partnerships have played in addressing global challenges. Partnerships have been formed
with the intent of bring about sustainable development and the key stakeholders include
member states and International Organizations (IOs) across the world. Therefore, partners
have come together to pool their resources and co-ordinate joint efforts in resolving global
problems.
The United Nations conference on the Environment and Development held in 1922, placed
partnerships between various actors such as governments, civil society, and the private
sector as a dominant factor towards achieving sustainable development. The call for global
partnerships for development is in accordance to the premises of Resolution 44/288 of
December 1989, of the General Assembly (United Nations, 1992). Therefore, member
states have adopted this approach and accepted the need to take a balance between an
integral approach towards the environment and the question on development. Resolution
70/22 of 2015 of the General Assembly, called for cooperation towards global partnerships.
This form of partnership focuses on enhancing co-operation amongst the United Nations
and its partners; thus, this has been in combination with the call for partnerships for
transformation that is embedded in goal seventeen ‘Partnership for the Goal’ of the
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG).
Public and private partnerships were part of the strategic framework for global partnerships
in the 8th Millennium Development Goal of the year 2000. The World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) that was hosted in South Africa, Johannesburg in 2002,
2
recognized more than two hundred partnerships between the public and private sectors.
Thus, the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development established in 2015 declared that,
partnerships were a significant factor in the implementation of goal seventeen (UNGA,
2015; Beisheim & Ellersiek, 2017). The goal calls upon strengthening spirits globally and
enhancing solidarity. This confirms that through improved co-operation in financing
capacity building, global partnerships for sustainable development can be attained. Goal
seventeen indicates that multi-stakeholder partnership complements global partnerships by
mobilizing knowledge, proficiency, financial resource, and technology as a mechanism to
support the accomplishment of the goal in all countries especially those in the global south
(UNGA, 2015; Beisheim & Ellersiek, 2017).
The United Nation online platform is a global registry for multi-stakeholders and voluntary
commitments for the accomplishment of goal seventeen as per the 2030 Agenda for
sustainable development. In 2018, the online platform had registered three thousand, eight
hundred and twenty-eight partnerships and the SDG that had attracted the establishment of
partnerships as a goal was number fourteen. The goals focus on sustainability and
conservation of the use of oceans, seas, and marine resources with one thousand five
hundred and ninety-four registered partnerships. The goal that is linked to partnerships with
more than seven hundred and ten registered partners is goal number eight that focuses on
the promotion of all and economic growth. This main focus of the goal is to promote
productive employment and decent work for all (UN, 2018a).
Research on global partnerships have established the existence of limited capacity of multi-
literalism that is part of today’s globalized work order. International co-operation has
however, failed to address complex and pressing problems due to the dimensions that are
encompassed in addressing sustainable development and economic growth. For that reason,
states are no longer the relevant actors for the purist of the 2030 Agenda. The private sectors
3
and International Organizations are seen to provide common good and help in addressing
global issues. Governance structures have brought about the emergence of multi-
stakeholder partnerships in the field of development. Consequently, these structures are a
mixture of both International Organization, public actors and private actors on a mission to
provide solutions to pressing concerns that relate to economic growth and development.
1.1.1 Partnerships
According to Bartsiotas (2013), partnership contributions bring about aid effectiveness as
highlighted in the Monterey Consensus of Financing for Development (MCFD) of 2002.
The 2003 declaration on harmonization in the world summit outcomes and Paris
Declaration on Aid Effectiveness brought about, mutual accountability as one of the key
areas that the declaration adhered to. This made it clear on the importance of improving the
effectiveness of aid delivery. For that reason, mutual accountability and transparency have
been a fundamental factor for partners, countries and donors in the use of resource for
development. The outcomes of the world summit and the Paris Declaration helped in
strengthening public support and polices of which was initiated by the northern think tank
countries such as members countries of OECD in collaboration with the World Bank (2nd
High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2005).
In addion a high-level forum was held in 2008 in Ghana, Accra focused on the importance
of accountability and transparency. According to the 3rd High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness (2008), the agreement on the Accra Agenda for Action declared that for the
achievement of development, the need for accountability needs to be openly acknowledged;
and the need for tangible results for development are essential. According to the 3rd High
Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2008), the agreement on the Accra Agenda for Action
declared that:
4
“Achieving development result and openly accounting for them must be at the heart of all
we do. More than ever, citizens and taxpayers of all countries expect to see the tangible
results of development efforts. We will prove that our actions translate into positive impacts
on people’s lives. We will be accountable to each other, to our respective parliaments and
governing bodies for these outcomes” (para. 10).
In the Republic of Korea, Busan in 2011 another forum was hosted of which was the 4th
forum. The forum focused on aid effectiveness and called upon global partnerships for
effective cooperation and development and was a continuation of the Accra agenda for
action of 2008 (Bartsiotas, 2013). Resolution 67/266 of United Nations undet the
Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR QCPR) on operational activities for
development of December 2012, is most recently adopted policy on partnership. The
legislative mandate QCPR is to ensure that result-oriented innovation at international,
national and regional levels with diverse stakeholder.
1.2 Problem Statement
The United Nations works together with partner (other International Organizations)
through grants with the overall aim of addressing sustainable development issues globally.
UN trust funds are used to address indigenous problems through Call for Proposals (CFP).
Therefore, they are set aside to address areas of action such as education, health care, human
rights, poverty, environmental challenges, and socio-economic development (United
Nations, 2013). However, it is significant to note that the management of this information
of partners is a challenge. This arises at agency level due to the many partners the
organization engages with.
Partnerships within IOs involves the execution of programmes/projects at international,
country and regional level. Such partnerships are formed through formal and in-formal
arrangements with UNEP and the volume of resource entrusted to partners is a lot.
5
Management of partners is office and functional level therefore; decentralization has been
implemented throughout the agency. Management is deprived of readily available financial
information because partners assessed in different places.
Concerns on the absence of lack of suitable management control process over
programmes/projects and lack of accountability of funds have raised by the General
Assembly and Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budget Questions (ACABQ);
and also, external and internal auditors (Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson, 2013). Therefore,
member states have called upon for more transparent assessment approaches for partners
and the need for implementation of stringent procedures (Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson,
2013).
The United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) engages in such partnerships and has
developed its partnerships with government agencies, non-governmental entities such as
foundations, civil society groups and research or academic institutions (UNEP, 2011). In
addition, the agency has formulated partnership with other United Nations agencies, inter-
governmental organizations, and private sector entities. While partnerships take different
forms, one major form of collaboration within UNEP involves granting funds to other
entities for the implementation of its mandates. Enough attention is not given to projects
that are implemented by partners of which leads to the misuse of funds since plans are built
on weak foundations. It is significant to take note that, projects differ and are based on
specific Programme of Work (POW) and are based on specific activities. Engagements in
development has diverse aspects that require sound management to address multi-faceted
challenges in relation to effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and transparency,
competencies, and capacity. For that reason, this project looked into establishing factors
that influenced the management of partnership and why these continues to be an issue in
UNEP.
6
1.3 General Objective
The main objective of this study was to assess the factors that influence global partnership
for sustainable development in the United Nations Environment Programme.
1.4 Specific Objectives
1.4.1 To assess the factors that influence the applicability global partnerships in promoting
efficiency and effectiveness by UNEP in programme implementation.
1.4.2 To assess the factors that influence the applicability global partnerships in promoting
accountability and transparency by UNEP in programme implementation.
1.4.3 To assess the factors that influence the applicability global partnerships in promoting
competency and capacity by UNEP in programme implementation.
1.5 Research Questions
This research explored the following questions:
1.5.1 What factors influence the applicability of global partnerships in promoting efficiency
and effectiveness by UNEP in programme delivery?
1.5.2 What factors influence the applicability of global partnerships in promoting
accountability and transparency by UNEP in programme delivery?
1.5.3 What factors influence the applicability of global partnerships promote competency
and capacity by UNEP in programme delivery?
1.6 Significance of the Study
The study provided insights on the management processes of managing partnerships for
sustainable development with a focus on partner within UNEP. An integral part of
7
programme delivery within UNEP is partnerships of which incorporates the project design
phase, implementation phase and evaluation phase. This study will be helpful to other
researchers who will be interested in doing advance work on the same topic. It will also be
beneficial to:
1.6.1 Academic and Learning Organisations
This research will increase the knowledge of other researchers and academicians based on
partnership management. More so in the business process for International Organizations,
non-profit organizations as well as stakeholders such as member states and donors. Thus,
the study will gauge other areas of studies that require supplementary research by
academicians.
1.6.2 The United Nations
The study will benefit the United Nations organization systems and its staff especially when
they need to ensure that respective partnership arrangements that involve the transfer
resources to partners are clearly defined as being distinct. In addition, ensuring that the
appropriate rules and regulations are applied.
1.6.3 State Actors
The study will be useful to state actors, as it will give insights on programme
implementation and the importance of partnership management. Core aspects on
performance can focus on providing quality services as opposed to spending a lot of time
on manual verification process during assessment, administrative tasks, and paper
management in project and/or programme delivery.
8
1.6.4 Non-state actors
The study will be useful to non-state actors as it will highlight the importance of
accountability in partnership management and in securing funding from donors. Therefore,
this would enable financial policy makers to come up with policies that ensure
disbursement of funds to non-state actors are used appropriately.
1.7 Scope of the Study
This research focused on assessing factors that influence global partnerships for sustainable
development specifically the case of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The overview was to assess the factors that influence global partnerships in promoting
economic growth and development by exploring areas for additional improvements.
1.8 Definition of Terms
1.8.1 Global Partnerships
Resolution 60/215 of the General Assembly defines global partnerships as a collaborative
and voluntary relationship between both public and non-public sectors. Therefore, partners
such as civil societies agree to participate together towards achieving a common agenda by
undertaking specific tasks and responsibilities and share resources, benefits and risks
(Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson, 2013).
1.8.2 Partner
A partner can either be a third-party organization that implements projects or programmes
on behalf of the United Nations. Such entities include Non-Governmental
Organizations/Civil Society Organizations (NGOs/CSOs); non-United Nations multilateral
9
and intergovernmental entities and other entities (academia, etc.) or a private organization
(Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson, 2013).
1.8.3 Programme and/or Project
A programme and/or project is an activity that is in-part of the cost of the programme and/or
project activities that are consistent with United Nations organization system mandates.
Programmes and/or projects are separate and distinct objects that are used to identify the
sources and the use of funding (Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson, 2013).
1.8.4 Development Aid
According to Riddell (2007), development aid is a form of aid that is used for the purpose
of development for example ‘humanitarian aid’ and ‘emergency aid.’
1.8.5 Sponsor
A sponsor is a donor in United Nations organization system for example, government or
individual that provides funding to a grantee organization (United Nations, 2013).
1.8.6 Good Practices
Good practices are a set of activities and/or actions founded on tangible and positive
impacts of a specific issue that is based on qualitative and quantitative evidence.
1.8.7 Framework for Assessment
A framework for assessment is a set of activities that influence how assessment is to be
operationalized of which elaborates the ‘what’ and ‘how’ factors (Bartsiotas & Prom-
Jackson, 2013).
10
1.9 Chapter Summary
Chapter one elaborated the background of the study in relation to global partnerships for
sustainable development; then the problem statement and the research questions that study
sough ought to investigate. Furthermore, the chapter looked into the scope and the
importance of factors influencing global partnerships for sustainable development in
addition to the problem statement of the study. The main and specific objectives were also
highlighted in addition to the research questions and the significance of the study. Key
definitions and terminologies of the study were also defined. Chapter two analyzed and
reviewed prior studies that were relevant to the research. The proposed research
methodology was elaborated in chapter three and chapter four entailed the findings, data
analysis and interpretation of the study. Chapter five of the study was focused on the
summary based on the findings and provided the discussions, recommendations and
conclusions.
11
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Chapter two of the literature review section focused on answering the research questions
of the study by evaluating and assessing prior studies that has been undertake by other
scholars and researchers. Various assumptions, from Chapter one was used to guide the
study; therefore, the chapter comprehensively addressed existing literature on factors
influencing of global partnerships for sustainable development.
2.2 UNEP’s Partnerships
An essential part of most of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) systems
organization in pursuing its’ mandate on partnerships is established with public and non-
public entities according to Bartsiotas (2013). Partnerships are established on clear and
shared ideologies and with a common vision. Therefore, UNEP assigns programme
implementation to partners to execute projects on behalf of the agency (UN Environment,
2020). For that reason, inclusive partnership ought to be based on clear ideologies and
values with a shared vision, common goal, vital and transformative roles at the local,
national, and global level.
UNEP recognizes the need for working together with a wider variety of stakeholders to
address environmental challenges (UN Environment, 2020). The backbone of the agency
is collaboration and advocacy; thus, this enables the agency to meet its mission. This is
evident through its Program of Work (POW), budgets and quadrennial medium-term
strategies. UNEP’s mandate contributes towards the achievement of several SDGs
especially goal seventeen that is on strengthening the mechanisms of implementation and
revitalization of global partnership for sustainable development. UNEP’s partnership
12
categories entail governmental, intergovernmental, non-governmental including the not-
for-profit sectors and other United Nations entities. These can further be divided into the
following sub-groups as per Figure 2.1 below.
Figure 2.1: UNEP's Partnership Categories
The United Nations General Assembly encourages UNEP to adopt a common and
systematic approach to partnerships which places greater emphasis on the impact,
transparency, accountability, and sustainability (UNEP, 2011). This is done without
imposing un-due inflexibility in partnership agreements with deliberation to the principles
of partnership. For that reason, these fundamental principles form the foundation for UNEP
when engaging with partners:
• Mutual purpose
• Transparency
13
• No unfair advantage upon any partner of the United Nation
• Shared benefit and mutual respect
• Accountability
• Admiration for the modalities of the United Nations
• Striving for a sensible representation of partners from the global north and global south
with economies in transition
• Sectoral and geographic sense of balance
• Not compromising the individuality and neutrality of the United Nations
2.2.1 UNEP’s Partnership Modalities
According to UNEP (2011), partnership modalities are determined by the proportionate
requirement for risk management and engagement with partners. This occurs through four
modalities of which include:
1. Casual Partnerships
Casual partnerships focus on flexible arrangements that includes partner participation in a
public UNEP/Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEA) event, basic engagement,
advocacy campaign. It is significant to note that such partnerships do not pose direct risk
to UNEP/MEA from any one entity (UN Environment, 2020).
2. Development Partnerships
Development partnerships focus on membership-based forums, platforms, and networks
which stakeholders from all partner categories and may join towards knowledge-based
sharing and capacity building in various sectors. For example, UNEP Finance Initiative and
the Sustainable Rice Platform. Engagements through these modalities does not involve one
14
to one relationship between partners and UNEP/MEAs but UNEP or MEA secretariat
where applicable, maintain many concurrent relationships with partners in relation to the
same platform or network (UN Environment, 2020)
3. Cooperation Partnership
Cooperation partnerships do not include monetary commitment that establish a framework
for cooperation. Partnership engagement documentation requires a legal instrument (UN
Environment, 2020).
4. Implementation Partnerships
Implementation partnerships involve financial commitments between UNEP/MEAs and
the partner. Partnership engagement documentation requires a legal instrument according
to UN Environment (2020).
2.2.2 UNEP’s Partnership Principles
UNEP’s partnerships are based on three key principles. Application of these principles
ensures that each partnership is actively managed to achieve intended results in terms of
outputs, outcomes, and impact, whilst respecting and upholding the integrity, ethics and
transparency that guide all of UNEP’s operations. The three partnership principles
according to UNEP (2011) are:
I. Partnerships that are based on integrity, objectivity, transparency, and disclosure,
in adherence with the United Nations Charter and General Assembly Partnership
Principles
UNEP applies the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on partnership principles
and the Charter of the United Nations, as the guiding documents for personal integrity,
15
incorruptibility, and objectivity. UNEP expects the organization, its staff and supporting
personnel and partners to guarantee that integrity is embraced in all aspects of their
behavior, including qualities such as honesty, truthfulness, impartiality, incorruptibility,
and professionalism, in all dealings with potential or existing partners (UNEP, 2011).
II. Partnerships support UNEP’s objectives, mandate and mission that lead to pre-
defined outputs and sustainable outcomes and impacts
Partnerships are based on integrity, objectivity, fairness, and transparency in line with the
UN Charter and General Assembly Partnership Principles. UNEP and MEA Secretariats
expect their organizations, staff and supporting personnel to ensure that integrity,
incorruptibility, and objectivity are embraced in all dealings with prospective or existing
partners UN Environment (2020). This is to ensure that no actual or perceived preferential
treatment for or against a prospective partner, transparent and openly reported decision-
making criteria, based on objective and proportionate assessments of benefits and risks.
UNEP and MEA Secretariats have a transparent approach to partnership information
disclosure, regardless of the nature or cost of the activity. This includes disclosure of the
identity of the partners, the type of activities that are undertaken, the cost of activates, as
well as the contributions that the partnerships make to UNEP’s mandate and Programme
of Work (PoW), or MEAs’ strategic plans, as applicable (UNEP, 2011).
Partnerships support the objectives, mandate, and mission of UNEP and MEAs. This leads
to pre-defined outputs and sustainable outcomes and impacts. Each partnership is expected
to have clearly defined objectives and desired impacts and outcomes that are explicit and
concrete that contribute towards the objectives and expected accomplishments of the SDGs,
UNEP’s PoW, or MEAs’ strategic plans, as applicable (UN Environment, 2020).
16
III. Partnerships are actively managed, and risks are openly acknowledged and
mitigated
UNEP and the Secretariats of MEAs may partner with a comprehensive range of
stakeholders to achieve their mandate. This includes targeted partnering to address the need
to raise standards with actors who need it most. UNEP and the Secretariats of MEAs
recognize there are risks associated with all partnerships, and that these risks often than not
relate to both activities. It is expected that all partnerships should be monitored and
managed to ensure adequate controls and escalation mechanisms are in place and are
documented. This is done to minimize and mitigate potential risks to ensure benefits are
realized. This includes identification, assessment and pro-actively manage and mitigate
risks that might arise from the partner and the partnerships. The risk level shall influence
the partnership management approach (UN Environment, 2020).
Partnerships are an integral part of projects and are part of the project design and
implementation phase. The success of partnerships is measured at the evaluation phases of
projects. The starting point for partnerships is the existing organization structure, which
provides a framework for accountability and responsibility as per Figure 2.2 below.
17
Figure 2.2: Partnerships Are an Integral Portion of the Project Management Cycle
According to UNEP (2011) partnership management approach is founded on the principle
of continuous improvement that ought to be integrated at all stages, from overall target
setting, concept and design, implementation, monitoring, reporting, and appraisal of
projects and project portfolios. Partnerships are managed throughout the organizational
structures which provide the framework for accountability and responsibility.
According to UNEP (2011) risk-based approaches enables UNEP and the Secretariats of
MEA to mitigate risks arising from engaging with partners through partnerships. Partner
and partnership risk management includes active management of benefits and risks at both
strategic and operative levels.
i. Strategic risks through partnership portfolio management and
ii. Partnership portfolios that require the objectives of each sub-programme in the
organization to be meet and have approved workplans and budgets.
At the operational level, the risk-based approach requires identifying, understanding and
managing risks that is proportional, to the risks presented by the specific partner and
18
partnership as per Figure 2.3 that elaborates UNEP’s partnership portfolio risk landscape
(UNEP, 2011).
Figure 2.3: Partnership Portfolio Risk Landscape
According to UNEP (2011), partnership risk management includes the following
fundamentals:
i. Assessment and identification of the risks related to the partner and the
partnership
ii. Mitigation procedures if there is evident risk to the society or environment
iii. Monitoring and internal check points
iv. Responsibilities and risk communication when things do not happen as intended
19
Partnerships may incur deviations, delays, or lack of implementation for several legitimate
or non-legitimate reasons. Open transparent communication between the partner will aid in
identification of the circumstances and risks of these situations (Bartsiotas & Prom-
Jackson, 2013).
2.3 Unpacking Donor Aid
Donor aid is the disbursement of funds from a foreign country to a recipient country for
economic growth. Development is an event by which an entity changes the situations within
a country for its betterment. Donor aid is associated with projects that improve on
education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social integration according to Agarwal (2017).
Aid is a set of funds provided by a foreign country to a host country for development
assistance on issues that relate to humanitarian crises, democracy, stability, and economic
clarity. Some of these institutions include foreign governments, OECD, Development
Cooperation Directorate (DAC), Department for International Development (DFID), the
United Nations and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) whose
goal is to improve on the dynamics of their foreign aid distribution. According to the Paris
Declaration, the aim to increase aid is through collaboration between the partner and the
developing state (OECD, 2010). Gulrajani (2016) further states that 28 different members
have provided bilateral aid accountable to OECD and DAC.
2.3.1 Multi-lateral Aid
Institutions like the European Union, World Bank, International Development Assistance
(IDA), Regional Development Banks, United Nations and Specialized Agencies rally up
funds for developmental assistance (Gulrajani, 2016). There are two hundred and ten
different organizations which provide assistance especially to the global south to address
global challenges. Multilateral funds are used through different channels where recipients
20
vary from the governments to the organizations. Multilateral aid is provided to address
issues of trans-border conflicts, climate change issues and educational mismanagement.
2.3.2 Multi-bilateral Aid
The Paris Declaration introduced the complex relationship between bilateral and
multilateral institutions in aid contribution with similar interests (OECD, 2010). For
example, bilateral institutions contributed 60% of the ODA while 25% contributed multi-
laterally to ODA. Countries like Australia have budgeted 38% of funding to bilateral
organizations, 22% to multilateral organizations while 40% are core funds presented to
multilateral funding schemas. According to OECD (2010) this presents key principles of
multi-bi lateral funding, where eight principles specify timelines and targets relating to the
improvement of the global south states.
2.3.3 Other Forms of Aid
Military aid is a form of bilateral foreign aid that provides military assistance through
military arm distribution or personnel through a contract. In 2018, the Trump
administration designated an “anti-terrorism” framework of $4.5 million. Tied aid supports
a country to deal with a specific issue and is used for that specific purpose (Agarwal, 2017).
Project or voluntary aid is given by aid institutions to assist a charitable movement.
2.3.4 Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)
Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) are the global capital flows relayed to investments by a
foreigner, through purchase of stocks or bonds. General terms used include the national
investor as a “parent” of the local. Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and Transnational
Corporations (TNCs) who invest without a controlling stake of a portfolio or equity are
foreign companies. The total of FDI is the national balance of payment, which builds up
21
the total value of the affiliate’s equity at a state level, reinvestments of earning and the
intercompany loans directed to ‘parent’ companies. FDI is also not the firm and its assets
but a basis of funding (Alfaro & Chauvin, 2017). The three categories of FDI are:
i. Horizontal category: Whereby a parent company establishes an affiliate
company abroad.
ii. Vertical category: whereby a foreign affiliate provides inputs or intermediary
services associated to a final product
iii. Complex category: whereby the parent company combines both the vertical
and horizontal approaches (Alfaro & Chauvin, 2017).
2.3.5 Concessional Loans
These are World Bank loans extended to developing countries that have better terms
including long maturities, grace periods, lower collateral requirements, sub-ordinated debt,
other forms of quasi-equity requirements and the provision of technical assistance grants
and market loans. They are provided by the World Bank and non-governmental finance
organizations disbursed through permission from the parent country (Ross, 2016). The
disbursement is also reliant on the interest rates that reflect on a development issue. Local
currency loans are higher than the dollar or euro requested loans. The World Bank
distributes concessional loans through the International Development Assistance (IDA)
which finances a specific list of its forty members, and this is updated every year (IDA,
2018). The International Development Association (IDA) funds through the Multilateral
Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) also classify the highly indebted poor countries.
22
2.3.6 Non-Concessional Loans
Non-concessional loans are given to developing countries through the IDA with a market-
based interest rate (Ravallion, 2016). This is grouped into three categories, stand-by
Agreement where member countries borrow funds within 1 to 2 years to support macro-
economic stabilization programs and the repayment periods are three to five years. The
extended fund facility to a country is within a grace period of three to four years with
repayments of five to ten years.
2.3.7 Pre-Cautionary Loans
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides pre-cautionary loans to prevent factors
that bring about crises by providing financial assistance. This is done through anticipated
shocks or volatile uncertainty based on human and non-human environmental issues. It is
divided into the supplementary reserve facility, a short-term financing mechanism for
economies experiencing a loss of the market capital based on outflows, contingent credit
lines on the financing to avert an economic catastrophe the repayment if for one or two
years. The compensatory financing facility where loans avert shortfalls in exports due to
unforeseen circumstances such as climate change affecting agricultural yields the
repayments are within three and a quarter to five years of borrowing (Ravallion, 2016).
2.4 Creating Transparency and Accountability
Accountability is the obligation or readiness to accept responsibility for commissions or
omissions. Transparency denotes the need for partners to make available to all stakeholder
their operations and to allow for continuous monitoring and observation of the activities.
This is intertwined with characteristic that partnerships ought to attract and retain quality
management personnel. According to Boutin (2000), the president of the Union of
23
International Association (UIA), states that self-discipline and mutual vigilance ought to
be encouraged when trying to enforce transparency.
The last 25 years have been a great witness of a phenomenal economic growth in the
contributions of donors to the overall aid effort; thus, both run many times more
development projects and programmes. This include direct implementers of projects with
grassroots, communities, intermediary support organizations and different sorts of umbrella
organizations (Riddell, 2007). The gaps in data and information limit the ability to form
judgments about the impact of official aid even more unembellished in donor aid funded
development initiatives. Partnerships plays a critical role in influencing socio-economic
and political development (Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson, 2013). However, local
beneficiaries; for example, in Africa, attach little or no ownership to donor support projects
such that beneficiaries assume that donor money benefits individual interest more than
collective interest. At times conditions set can be far reaching and can contradict the interest
and beliefs of the beneficiaries for instance, how does aid dependent Africa fulfil its pledge
to its beneficiaries and stakeholders (Tandon, 2008).
Lewis & Kanji (2009) in a study of accountability by partners through Weber’s theory of
bureaucracies provides the basis for one to think about accountability, which resonates in
contemporary societies and with entities. Rule bound responses by organizations and
individuals must report to recognized authorities such as donor organizations that
resources, they receive are effectively used and implementation is done in an effective and
efficient manner. These viewpoints, links partners in a way in which accountability is
perceived under neo-liberal approaches (Lewis & Kanji, 2009).
Partners vary widely and include host governments, nationals, and international NGOs,
CSOs and research and academic institutions. Disparities depend on the type of projects,
24
but projects matter based on choice. Engagement in humanitarian and development
assistance in diverse economic, political, and social settings exhibits a multi-faceted
challenge. There is no one-size-fits all approach for the diverse United Nations system
organizations regarding managing the array of partners. According to Bartsiotas & Prom-
Jackson (2013), the benefits of engagement in partnerships have been a well-recognized
aspects amongst the United Nations community and partners have become indispensable
players in attaining the objectives of the United Nations system organizations of which
increasingly realize that partnerships do not only come with benefits but also with
associated risks and costs.
An article by Kiberenge, (2012) highlighted that some intergovernmental organizations
were diverting aid that was meant for refugee in Somalis to other East Africa countries for
commercial gain. This involved collusion with various parties such as logistics providers
who were involved in the transportation of relief material to Kenya and other neighboring
countries to Somalia. Therefore, the need to develop internal accountability systems in
addition to the accountability levels demanded by the regulatory bodies and external
players is crucial.
2.4.1 Upward and Downward Accountability
Partners play an increasingly significant role in the delivery of healthcare, education, and
other welfare services in many developing countries. A requirement that is attached to the
funding is that, the organizations must account to the donor on what the funds have been
used for. With this requirement this ensures that funding is not being spent mis-
appropriately and/or the donor is aware that the funds are not being spent on undesignated
projects as this has exhibited problematic consequences (Bartsiotas & Prom-Jackson,
2013). International Organizations need to ensure there is upward and downward
25
accountability as mechanism and not a counterproductive means to ensure that there is
enhanced effectiveness of service delivery within their own systems (O’Dwyer and
Unerman, 2007). Downward accountability approach is designed and implemented in ways
that help the organization to identify the intended beneficiaries and the programmatic and
technical expertise is noted when addressing this (Ebrahim, 2003b).
2.4.2 Hierarchical and Holistic Accountability
Upward accountability to donors is a form of hierarchical accountability, characterized by
rigid accounting and accountability procedures (Fowler, 1996). Therefore, these forms of
accounting typically provided donors with written information they had requested to ensure
that the funds are effectively utilized for the intended purposed. This is usually in the form
of a one-way flow of information from the partner to the donor and/or intergovernmental
organizations to the donor, with the focus being on the efficiency and effectiveness (Dillon,
2004). The one-way flow of information in hierarchical accountability often does not
provide either the intergovernmental organization or the donor with information they
require on how the funding is being used (Fowler, 1996; Najam, 1996; Dillon, 2004).
Hierarchical and holistic accountability presumes that specifying details of the projects is
required by donors to know the most effective way to alleviate poverty at the local level.
Where donors have common project requirements and specifications across several
locations, it also presumes that variable local conditions do not affect the way aid projects
deliver maximum benefit. In practice, there is a difference between the donors in more
developed nations and the localized aid projects, and differences exist in local conditions
that affect the impact of differences of aid delivery processes. The effectiveness of aid
delivery and local knowledge needs decides the specific details of individual aid projects
at the local and international level (Najam, 1996; Hilhorst, 2002; Dillon, 2004).
26
2.5 Theoretical Framework
For the past two decades, there have been several scholarly publications on
Intergovernmental Organizations (IOs) accountability; thus, the framework or conceptual
lenses through which accountability, efficiency and effectiveness can better be understood
and managed. This study focused on the Realism theory, Neo-liberal institutional theory,
and Resource dependency theory. It is significant to note that IOs may be black boxed so
as to model their effects thus, they have similar generic properties as states. This describes
the elements of international politics that are structural models for international relations
scholars.
The three theories complement each other in relation to global partnership and the roles
International Organizations play as a stage for donors (member states) in the international
community in addressing global challenges. The realist approach states that International
Organizations have been established as institutions that set the tone for the rules and
policies. IOs therefore, govern the international society even if they are an independent
aspect as actors in international relations. Therefore, this is dependable on who creates the
rules or over sees the rules that are created and agreed upon by states. This coincides with
the neo-liberal institutional theory and the resource dependency theory whereby,
International Organizations are driven by the approach of international realm that is
anarchic, and states behave based on their own self-interest. Therefore, power that stems
down from some member states has a significant role between states which is why there is
vast amount of distrust in global institutions such as the United Nations. The critique from
the theories is significant to the study as it is evident that there are different dimensions of
institutionalism and the idea the United Nations is a stage that provides a framework for
discussions and multilateral agreements with its’ partners and member states.
27
2.5.1 Theorizing Global Partnerships
According to Waltz (1956) and Young (2011) realist international relations theorists
understand the anarchic character of the international system as the main barrier to
successful cooperation at the international level. Understanding the international system as
an anarchic means that one understands it as having no ruler hence, “no overarching
authority to enforce order” (Russell, 2010). In the absence of a regulator, power relations
guide the outcomes of international relations since human nature yearns for power to ensure
survival (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1959). Cooperation and compliance with international
agreements becomes something difficult according to realist theorists since states prefer to
avoid complying with “inconvenient obligations” that are not found of utmost importance
(Parker, 2011). If states do join co-operations and comply with agreements, realism tends
to contend that the co-operations are built on shallow agreements “that reflect the statute of
law of the least ambitious party” or that the actors would have acted according to a co-
operation agreement even if in the absence of one (Parker, 2011). As Donnelly in Burchill
(2005) et al. describes it, “anarchy can defeat even our best intentions.”
Nevertheless, there are also international relations theorists that are more positive about the
prospects of international global co-operation on common affairs most of whom would call
themselves neo-liberal international relation theorists. The central concern of neo-
liberalism is the cooperation among states and other actors in the international system (IOs)
(Sterling-Folker, 2010). Even though neo-liberal international relations theorists
acknowledge that obstacles to global partnerships, this can be difficult to overcome in an
anarchic environment. This is because they recognize that the growth of international
institutions in the twentieth century has made international cooperation easier to achieve,
compared to before (Sterling-Folker, 2010).
28
2.5.2 Realism Theory and International Organizations
The theory of realism is one of the dominant schools of thought that formulates the
Realpolitik of statesmanship. This focuses on possession, pursuit, and application of power.
The history of the theory can be traced back through the classical antiquity that begun with
Thucydides. Jonathan Haslam characterized the theory into states and systems whereby:
1. The state is the central actor in international politics and acts in their own self-
interest.
2. The international political system is based on anarchy and there is no authority
above to enforce rules.
The theory leans towards the realist traditional aspects of morality and simply implies
practical acceptance of the reality of power politics by the global north. The role of
International Organizations (IOs) in international relations, is investigated by realists with
some skepticism of which is significant to this study in relation to the partnerships that are
established. The outcomes are normally in favor with the most power or those who bring
their power to bear most effect; thus, in realist perspective in the contemporary world states
bring the most power. For that reason, states control most in terms of military power and
the capability to tax. In addition, states are the issuers of the world’s currencies; however,
International Organizations share none of these characteristics but can only succeed when
they are supported by the state. It is evident that IOs are not independent actors and are
instruments in the power struggle of states. This has roots in international law whereby it
sees states in the economy as corresponding to the people in the domestic society.
Therefore, International Organizations have become the rules and policies that govern
international society even if they are an independent aspect as actors in international
relations. This is evident from the role the United Nations plays in addressing global
29
challenges. However, this is dependable on who creates the rules or over sees the rules that
are created and are agreed upon by states. The extent to which the world’s society is
controlled is based on a set of rules and policies and norms that are shared across diverse
cultures to a considerable extent that guide global politics regarding resource allocation for
programme implementation for example. States have remained as the locus of power in the
international system therefore, development is reflexive and not autonomous as the Latin
American scholars put it, development and partnership are reliant on the ever-changing
economies of the world. Rules are therefore determined and made by states either
collectively (partnership) rather than individually. This is the concept of multilateralism
that expects states to act as a group especially those from the global north when it comes to
addressing global challenges affecting the global south. Donor aid is pertinent in today’s
world as it is by the transfer of aid from the global north to the global south that partnerships
are established with the intent of bring about sustainable development. Member states have
therefore, come together to pool their resources; and co-ordinate joint efforts to resolve
global problems.
2.5.3 Neo-liberal Institutionalism Theory and International
Organizations
Neo-liberalism is a school of thought that was developed by Joseph Nye and Robert
Keohane. The theory believes that states ought to be the least disturbed with absolute gains.
Therefore, international politics is focused towards institutional as intergovernmental.
Therefore, IO have been founded in every sphere of the world. Such institutions include
United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The theory is
30
significant to the study as it gives insight to the reality of the growing number of institutions
and their roles; in addition to, how adequately IOs are in international governance.
The theory of Neo-liberal institutionalism is a principle that views the role of International
Organizations and they serve as mediators to find solutions. The United Nations has
established such partnerships for this purse in pursuit of its mandates; in addition, their role
is to guide countries to promote cooperation. Neo-liberalism approach is important to the
study as it provides insights on the role of International Organizations and their patterns.
Therefore, it is a political theory of international relations that emerged in 1980 (Martin
and Simons, 1998). According to Martin and Simons (1998) the study of International
Organizations is a policy-oriented approach that describes the nature of analytical
framework this is significant to the study as the theory elaborates the roles IO undertake.
Such role includes as monitoring and providing assurance that others (states) are living up
to the terms of their commitments.
According to Krasner (1982) IOs have become valuable foundations for international
cooperation that have defined set of rules and policies. However, Stephen Haggard and
Simmons (1987) have argued that neo-liberalism is the main cause that has increased the
gap between the rich and poor countries; thus, IOs have failed in their attempts to address
the difficult problems in international relations. What Robert Keohane highlights is that
international politics elaborates that neo-liberal institutionalism and the assumptions drive
the approach of international realm that is anarchic. Therefore, the meaningful and lasting
form of cooperation are possible under the conditions of anarchy. However, global
governance can be achieved through norms, network of rules and institutions that can
moderate competition amongst states; in addition, to limiting resource to violence by states
in pursuit of their own agenda.
31
The major player in world affairs is the state and they are unitary actors that ought to
promote national interest. Anarchy has an impact on how states behave, and this can bring
about defects from partnerships that are formulated. Neoliberalism expects that
International Organizations will bring about co-operation that is beyond creating
opportunities to member states to purse their own interest more-so IOs ought to develop
their own identities. The United Nations plays a fundamental role in terms of shared habits
and practices therefore, IOs ought to work to facilitate sustainable development and
cooperation by increasing transparency and shared responsiveness from the partnership that
are formulated; thus, this will reduce uncertainty about their motives and intentions.
2.5.4 Resource Dependency Theory
The theory of Resource Dependency by Jeffery Pfeffer, an American business theorist and
Gerald R. Salancik an American organizational theorist was developed in the year 1978
and the perception of the theory was published in their work “The External Control of
Organizations a Resource Dependence Perspective”. The theory has been built upon by
several scholars and it elaborates that an alternative perspective to economic theories of
mergers and board interlocks are evident when it comes to precisely understanding the type
of the partnerships that are present in the world (Davis & Cobb, 2010). Therefore, the theory
explains how states or organizations behave of which includes “actions and decision
making as well as non-decision-making and results of decision making and actions”.
Difference in the behavior of states or International Organizations can be traced back to
differences in leaderships and decision making of which is influenced by external and
internal agents controlling critical resources. Those who control critical resources have
significant amount of power. In addition, the theory explains how different structures have
emerged within a state; thus, states are driven by the need to compile with the requirements
32
of strategic resources provided to deal with the pressures of uncertainty and scarcity in the
environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
In addition, there is dependency on critical and important resources that influence the
behavior of the global north towards the global south and these actions play a critical role
in influencing social-economic and political development of a state.
There are three core ideas of the theory:
1. Social context matters;
2. Countries have strategies to enhance their independence and pursue
interests;
3. Power.
The weight power plays in decision making processes for partnership engagement and the
articulation of explicit repertoires of tactics is a hallmark of the resource dependency
theory. The basis of exchange-based power in the theory comes from Emerson’s concept
of 1962 whereby the power of state A over state B come from the control of resources that
state B values and has that are not available elsewhere. Power and dependency are simply
the obverse of each other whereby, state B is dependent on state A to the degree that the
power state A has over state B becomes evident. Furthermore, power is not a zero sum as
state A and state B can have power over each other making them interdependent. The world
is full of International Organizations therefore, how much and how adequately these
institutions of international governance are tame the question of anarchy.
When one looks at partnerships there is a form of membership fee that is incorporated,
especially when partnerships are focused on grant giving that are not only unpredictable
and unstable but also comes with a set of conditionalities “strings attached” that is
“power” that impact the overall performance of International Organizations.
33
Accountability is tied to donor aid and this stems from the aid giving country and the
recipient country must abide. The rich and poor countries have a compelling relationship
that holds richer countries of the OECD to give generously their wealth to help eradicate
poverty and bring about economic growth and development in the global south through
partnerships. For example, during the colonial era, western powers enriched themselves
through slave labor and extraction of resource from their colonies; but today they give more
aid each year as solid evidence of the benevolent “goodwill” to developing countries
through International Organizations. According to Pfeffer & Salancik (1978), this theory
rests on three key assumptions whereby, International Organizations are encompassed of
both internal and external coalitions that have come about from states, that influence and
control their behavior and resources.
2.6 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework showed the variables of the study that has on partnerships of
which have a significant impact on sustainable development. The key variables of the study
are influenced by transparency, accountability, capacity, competency, effectiveness and
efficacy as per Figure 2.4 below.
34
Figure 2.4: Conceptual Framework
2.7 Chapter Summary
The literature review section, of the study analyzed and reviewed prior studies that had
already been conducted on factors that influence global partnerships for sustainable
development with a specific focus on International Organizations (IOs). Observations were
made through various perspectives and measures of the role IOs play in the international
community and it is evident that there are some issues that still need to be addressed in
relating to partnerships. Perspective, available information and conclusions were used to
identify the literature review. Therefore, based on the data that was collected, there is still
need for more in-depth assessment and analysis.
35
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The chapter outlined how the research was undertaken and why various representations
were used in carrying out the research. The was done in the following order firstly was the
research design, followed by the population and sampling design; thereafter, discussions
on the chosen sample design and techniques used and the methods of data collection. Lastly
this was followed by the data analysis that was adopted and the chapter concluded with as
summary.
3.2 Research Design
A descriptive research design was used, and this provided an understanding of the
characteristics of the population that were involved in the study. Necessary activities were
used to guide the research design. An operational frame of as study was provided based on
the discussion of the research within which facts can be placed, analyzed and valued
(Cooper, 2006). The variable phenomenon was explained descriptively, and some aspects
of the study were qualitative.
The dependent variables were the factors that influence global partnerships in promoting
accountability and transparency; efficiency and effectiveness; and competency and
capacity in programme delivery. The design was appropriate for this study as it allowed for
descriptions, interpretations of existing relationships and comparisons between the
variables for this study. Descriptive analysis had the following advantages for the study
that involved direct observation of the behavior of the natural environment of which gave
a baseline of gathering information and antecedents.
36
3.3 Population and Sampling Design
3.3.1 Population
Cooper and Schindler (2008), define a population as a group and or collection of individuals
or objects that can be used to obtain the required information/analysis. All individuals or
objects within a certain population of this study was comprised of UNEPs’ staff members
listed below who are involved in the programme of work. The staff members occupy
various position in the organizations. The categories listed below were relevant to the study
as their day to day responsibilities (programmatic and financial) entail development,
implementation, budgeting, financial analysis, and evaluation of programmes/projects
through partnerships; in addition, they monitor and analyze programme/project through its
life cycle from the development and implementation stage to the financial and
programmatic closure. Furthermore, they review relevant documents and reports and are
expected to identify problems and issues that need to be addressed during implementation
and propose corrective actions. Questionnaires were distributed randomly to the following:
3.3.1.1 Programme Assistant
3.3.1.2 Senior Programme Assistant
3.3.1.3 Program Officer
3.3.1.4 Finance Assistant
3.3.1.6 Senior Finance and Budget Assistant
3.3.1.6 Certifying Officer
3.3.1.7 Administrative Assistant
3.3.1.8 Senior Administrative Assistant
37
3.1.1.9 Other (UN Volunteers, Interns, Consultants)
3.3.2 Sampling Frame
A sampling frame entails a list of a population that is selected based on the elements of the
populations (Welman & Krugler, 2008). The research was conducted among full-time staff
members of UNEP involved in programme of work. This study used a sampling frame that
was selected from a list of staff members as provided by Human Resource Department. A
total of 50 questionnaires as per Table 3.1 were distributed to respondents drawn from
different divisions in UNEP. The study adopted the purposive sampling method to divide
the target population.
Table 3.1: Population
Scale Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Administrative Assistant 6 12
Program Officer 9 18
Senior Administrative Assistant 4 8
Certifying Officer 8 16
Program Assistant 7 14
Finance Assistant 4 8
Other 3 6
Senior Finance and Budget Assistant 6 12
Senior Programme Assistant 3 6
Total 50 100
3.3.3 Sampling Technique
A sampling technique is a strategy that a research uses to pick a sample from that represents
the population of the study (Bienstock, 2006). The probability sampling method was used
due to its cost effectiveness and this gave a fair representation of the whole population used
38
in the study. This also ensured that the selected respondent had would provide the required
information to address the specific research question therefore, enhancing credibility and
reliability of the findings. A simple random sample method was used, and 50 staff members
were chosen from UNEP.
3.3.4 Sample Size
A finite part of the statistical population can be defined as the sample size (Merriam, 2009).
The research study focused on 50 staff members in total as guided by the Human Resource
department. The main UNEP offices the study focused on as guided by Human Resource
in Table 3.2 were: Policy and Programme Division, Economy, Ecosystems,
Communication, Africa Office, Europe Office, Asia and Pacific, Law, Science, Secretariat
of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, the Secretariat of Biological
Diversity, the Secretariat of Northwest Pacific Region Seas, West Asia, the Secretariat of
the Carpathian Convention, the Caribbean Environment Programme and Cartagena
Convention , the Secretariat of Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the
Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, the Secretariat of the Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Environment Management Group and the Secretariat
of Multilateral Fund. Yamane’s formula (Yamane, 1964) guided in selecting the
appropriate sample size for UNEPs employees recruited in the study. The working sample
was guided by Yamane’s formula;
39
Where n = is the sample size, N = is the population, 1 is a constant, e = is the estimated
standard error (which is 5% for 95% confidence level).
n = 50
Table 3.2: Sample Size
Division Frequency Percentage %
Policy and Programme 3 6
Economy 2 4
Ecosystems 2 4
Communication 3 4
Africa Office 4 8
Europe Office 3 6
Asia and Pacific 2 4
Law 3 6
Science 2 4
The Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and
Stockholm Conventions 3 6
The Secretariat of Biological Diversity 2 4
The Secretariat of Northwest Pacific Region Seas 4 8
West Asia 3 6
The Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention, the
Caribbean Environment Programme and Cartagena
Convention 2 4
The Caribbean Environment Programme and
Cartagena Convention 2 4
The Secretariat of Barcelona Convention for the
Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against
Pollution 3 6
The Secretariat of the Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 2 4
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer 2 4
The Environment Management Group and the
Secretariat of Multilateral Fund 3 4
Total 50 100
40
3.4 Data Collection Methods
Data collection for the study used both primary and secondary data; whereby, primary data
was obtained using questionnaires that had been administered. Both closed and open-end
questions were used for consistency and this provided an effective and efficient way to
obtain information on factors that influence global partnerships for sustainable
development (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Books, electronic journal and the internet were
used for the secondary data and this aided in further explaining what other researchers had
written. The sample size of the respondent was 50 and the study acquired a response rate
of 84% therefore, a response rate above 60% is good, and above 70% is exceptionally good
(Saunders, 2009).
The study was carried out from September to November 2020 and the questionnaires were
distributed to 50% male and 50% female participants, respectively. The questionnaire
results are based on the figure 3.1 below (10%) were administrative assistant, (21%) were
program officers, (10%) were senior administrative assistant, (12%) were certifying
officers, (17%) were program assistance, (7%) were finance assistance, (7%) other were,
senior finance and budget assistant were (12%) and senior program assistant were (4%).
The outcomes of the result below in figure 3.1 were significant to the study as the staff
members holding these positions directly interact with partners throughout the
project/programme life cycle. As a result, the findings from the staff members formulated
the conclusions and recommendations for this study in assessing the factors that influence
global partnership for sustainable development in line with UNEP’s key principles:
i. Partnerships that are based on integrity, objectivity, transparency, and
disclosure, in adherence with the United Nations Charter and General Assembly
Partnership Principles.
41
ii. Partnerships support UNEP’s objectives, mandate and mission that lead to pre-
defined outputs and sustainable outcomes and impacts.
iii. Partnerships are actively managed, and risks are openly acknowledged and
mitigated.
Figure 3.1: Results
3.5 Research Procedures
The research procedures sought out were from the Institutional Review Board (IRB),
National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) and from
UNEP. A pilot study was conducted was permission was granted to detect the weakness in
the design (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
Pilot questionnaire were prepared and administered to 5 respondents of UNEP and acted as
a pre-test and provided area for further improvements. Confidentiality to the organization
0 5 10 15 20 25
Administrative Assistant
Program Officer
Senior Administrative Assistant
Certifying Officer
Program Assistant
Finance Assistant
Other
Senior Finance and Budget Assistant
Senior Programme Assistant
Administrative
Assistant
ProgramOfficer
SeniorAdminist
rativeAssistant
CertifyingOfficer
ProgramAssistant
FinanceAssistant
Other
SeniorFinance
andBudget
Assistant
SeniorProgram
meAssistant
Distribution Percentage (%) 10 21 10 12 17 7 7 12 4
Distribution Frequency 4 9 4 5 7 3 3 5 2
Results
42
was confirmed and questionnaires were sent and collected back. The mode of delivery of
the questionnaires was via emails using an online form to the respondents. Subsequently,
once the respondents submitted their responses through Microsoft Forms, data was
analytically evaluated and exported to excel for additional analysis. To ensure high
response rates, follow ups were sent to the respondents.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
The analysis of data for this study was conducted after the collection of the questionnaires
from the respondents. Subsequently, checking of errors and cleaning of data was done for
rectification. For ease of analysis data, the questionnaires were coded, and the data was
entered and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive
analysis was included in the frequencies and percentages that were calculated for easy
interpretation of the results for the research and therefore be presented in tables and charts.
3.7 Ethical Issues
This research assured the respondents of the confidentiality of the information they provide,
including their own personal information. The respondents were also be informed of the
purpose of the study before data is collected from them. A letter of authorization was
collected from the University as well as a research permit from the National Commission
for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). The research carried-out
questionnaires that were based on the guidelines of ethical considerations. Request for
permission from the participants were sent before conducting the research. In addition,
participants were, randomly selected for success response rate. The researcher shared a letter
of consent and approved MEMO by the director of Corporate Service UNEP with the
participants. The letter of consent from the University was shared with UNEP before the
research was carried out. In addition, the study evaluated previous studies done by other authors
43
and used the American Psychological Association (APA) format of citation to enhance
credibility.
3.8 Chapter Summary
Chapter three focused on the research methodology and provided further information on
the design, population, sampling design, data collection method, research procedures and
ethical issues for this study. A discussion of the population size and a justification of the
provided sample size was made. Chapter four of the study presented the outcomes from the
respondents based on the research questions.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
Chapter four of presented the data from the respondents and discussed the findings of the
research. The sample size for this study was 50 i.e. UNEPs staff members were used, and
the study acquired a response rate of 84%. One of the most popular measures used was the
Cronbach coefficient (alpha) and this must be 0.70 or more than that for any study. This
ensure that the outcome is reliable and in the case of this study this was (0.840) for this
study.
4.2 General Information of the Respondents
This section represented the outcomes of the results on the basic information of the
employees. The variables included general information data that consisted of the gender,
position occupied in the organization, level of education, length of service in organization
and functional title.
4.2.1 The Position Occupied In the Organization of Respondents
The study revealed that (10%) were administrative assistant, (21%) were program officers,
(10%) were senior administrative assistant, (12%) were certifying officers, (17%) were
program assistance, (7%) were finance assistance, (7%) other were, senior finance and
budget assistant were (12%) and senior program assistant were (4%). Table 4.1 below
presents the findings of the study. This was significant to the study was majority were
programme officer who directly involved with the partners UNEP engages with and are
responsible for the partnerships that are established.
45
Table 4.1: Position Occupied In the Organization
Scale Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Administrative Assistant 4 10
Program Officer 9 21
Senior Administrative Assistant 4 10
Certifying Officer 5 12
Program Assistant 7 17
Finance Assistant 3 7
Other (UN Volunteers, Interns, Consultants) 3 7
Senior Finance and Budget Assistant 5 12
Senior Programme Assistant 2 4
Total 42 100
4.2.2 Gender of Respondents
The study sought after the gender of the respondent’s distribution and majority were
female. The findings show that (43%) were male and (57%) were female. The findings are
presented in Figure 4.1 below. The implication to the study is that there are more female
staff members involve in the programme of work as compared to male staff members
involved in the programme of work.
Figure 4.1: Gender of Respondents
57%
43%
Gender of Respondents
Female
Male
46
4.2.3 Age of Respondents
The study sought after to establish the age of the respondents. The findings show that
majority of the respondents working in the organization are (48%) were between 35-54,
(29%) were 26-34, (17%) were 55-60, (5%) were 18-25 and (2%) were 60+. The findings
are presented in Figure 4.2 below. It is evident the organization higher staff members from
a mature age group.
Figure 4.2: Age of Respondents
4.2.4 Level of education
The findings presented below in Figure 4.3 elaborate that majority of the respondents had
attained an undergraduate degree of which were (43%) therefore majority had a university
degree, (38%) had attained postgraduate degree, (7%) high school level of education and
(12%) were other.
5%
29%
48%
17%
2%
18-25 26-34 35-54 55-60 60+
Sca
le
Age range
Age of Respondents
47
Figure 4.3: Level of Education
4.2.5 Length of Service
The study researched on the length of service the respondents had served within the
organization. The findings of the study indicate that majority of the respondents in the
organization had served for more than 10 years therefore, the staff had tremendous
experience in their engagement with partners. This were (45%) therefore, they had
experience in the programme of work, 6-10 years were (32%), 2-6 years were (12%) and
1-2 years were (11%). The findings are presented in Figure 4.4.
43%
7%12%
38%
Level of Education
Undergraduate
High School
Other
Postgraduates
48
Figure 4.4: Length of Service
4.3 Effective and Efficient Programme Implementation
This section represents data on effective and efficient program implementation and how it
influences sustainable development. The variables include strategic approaches in program
implementation, effective monitoring and reporting systems, key performance indicators,
regulations that relate to management of project funds, risk base monitoring frameworks
and training.
4.3.1 Strategic Approach in Program Implementation
The respondents were asked the extent to which partner management in the organization
employs a strategic approach in line with the corporate strategic objectives as the basis for
determining partnership requirements. A majority were (50%) Yes, No were (26%) and
Not Sure were (24%). The findings are presented in Figure 4.5.
11% 12%
32%
45%
1-2years 2-6 years 6-10years More than 10 years
Per
cen
tage
Years
Length of Service
49
Figure 4.5: Strategic Approach in Program Implementation
4.3.2 Monitoring and Reporting Systems
The respondents were asked, on the extent to which effective monitoring and reporting
systems are in place for partners work in assuring that funds are being spent as intended
and that results are achieved. Majority of the respondents disagree of which were (26%),
agree were (24%), uncertain were (21%), strongly disagree were (19%), strongly agree
were (10%). The findings are presented in Table 4.2. Therefore, it is evident that there is
lack of effective monitoring and reporting systems that are in place within the organization
to evaluate the work that has been done by partners, to ensure that funds are spent for the
intended purpose.
26%
24%
50%
Strategic approach in program implementation
No
Not Sure
Yes
50
Table 4.2: Monitoring and Reporting Systems
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 4 10
Agree 10 24
Uncertain 9 21
Strongly Disagree 8 19
Disagree 11 26
Total 42 100
4.3.3 Performance indicators
The study sought out to establish the extent to which the organization has set-up clear
indicators and other performance measurement to determine the performance of partners.
It is evident from the results that majority of the respondents disagree which was (40%),
uncertain were (26%), strongly agree (14%), strongly disagree were (14%), and disagree
were (6%). The findings in Table 4.3 below therefore, indicate that there is no process in
place to assess the performance of partners during programme/project implementation.
51
Table 4.3: Performance Indicators
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 6 14
Agree 2 6
Uncertain 11 26
Strongly Disagree 6 14
Disagree 17 40
Total 42 100
4.3.4 Systems
The study sought out to establish the extent to which systems are in place to record outputs
and outcomes to measure the performance of partners. Majority of the respondents disagree
which was (33%), uncertain were (24%), strongly disagree (21%), strongly agree were
(17%), and agree were (5%). Therefore, Figure 4.6 below highlights that despite there being
a note-able amount of investments made despite there being a lot of investments in the
implementation of programmes, control systems that is Enterprise Resource Planning
Solution (Umoja), systematic analysis of deliverables have not been incorporated in the
organization.
52
Figure 4.6: Systems
4.3.5 Regulations
The study researched on the extent to which the organization has set up clear regulations
that relate to the management of project funds and methods for compensation and
reimbursement of expenditure. The outcome of the research indicated that majority of the
respondents strongly disagree of which were (36%), disagree (24%), agree were (19%),
strongly agree were (17%) and uncertain were (5%). The findings presented in Figure 4.7
therefore, indicate that the organization adheres to the United Nations Financial Rules and
Regulations (UN-FRR) when engaging with partners.
5%
33%
17%
21%
24%
Systems
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Uncertain
53
Figure 4.7: Regulations
4.3.6 Monitoring Frameworks
The research sought out to establish the extent to which the organization has set up risk-
based monitoring frameworks that guide in systematically monitoring programme delivery
by partners. Majority of the respondents agree (33%), strongly disagree (24%), uncertain
were (19%), strongly agree were (17%) and disagree were (7%). The findings below in
Table 4.4 indicate that despite have systems in-place within the organization, risk-based
monitoring frame works are in place of which go hand in hand with UNEPs Partnership
Policy Framework.
Agree DisagreeStrongly
AgreeStronglyDisagree
Uncertain
Distribution Frequency = 42 8 10 7 15 2
Distribution Percentage = 100 19% 24% 17% 36% 5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16S
cale
Regulations
54
Table 4.4: Monitoring Frameworks
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 8 19
Agree 10 24
Uncertain 6 14
Strongly Disagree 5 12
Disagree 13 31
Total 42 100
4.3.7 Fraud Risk Assessment
The study sought out to establish the extent to which the organization undertakes a detailed
fraud risk assessment pertaining to its engagement with partners. Majority of the
respondents were, uncertain (31%), agree (25%), strongly disagree (24%), strongly agree
(10%), disagree (10%). The findings below in Table 4.5 exhibit a situation where fraud risk
assessments are not in place within the organization.
Table 4.5: Fraud Risk Assessment
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 4 10
Agree 11 25
Uncertain 13 31
Strongly Disagree 10 24
Disagree 4 10
Total 42 100
55
4.4 Accountability and Transparency in Programme Implementation
This section represented data on accountability and transparency in program
implementation and how it influences sustainable development. The variables include
selection process, assessment, key information, good practices cooperation and assurance
in programme implementation.
4.4.1 Selection Process
The selection process of partners is a fundamental aspect within the organization as this
determines if partners can implement projects on behalf of the entity. The study sought to
establish the extent to which the culture of the organization emphasizes on providing
transparency and accountability in implementing partner assessments during the selection
process. The findings exhibit that majority were (57%) yes, (22%) were no and (21%) were
not sure. The findings below presented in Figure 4.8 exhibit that there is a due diligence
process in place for partners.
Figure 4.8: Selection Process
22%
21%57%
Selection Process
No
Not sure
Yes
56
4.4.2 Framework for assessment
The findings presented in Figure 4.9 below indicates that the due diligence and assessment
processes in UNEP is in accordance to the organizations partnership policy. The findings
exhibit that majority were agree (36%), strongly disagree (21%), uncertain (21%), disagree
(12%), and strongly agree (10%).
Figure 4.9: Framework for Assessment
4.4.3 Partnership assessment and capability
The study sought out to establish the extent to which assessment ensures capability of
partners to fulfil programme delivery. The data shown in Figure 4.10 below indicates that
that majority agree of which were (31%), strongly disagree were (24%), uncertain were
(21%), strongly agree were (17%) and disagree were (7%). The findings presented in Figure
16.1 below indicated that assessment is a fundamental aspect in the organization prior to
programmatic and financial engagement with a partner.
Agree DisagreeStrongly
AgreeStronglyDisagree
Uncertain
Distribution Frequency = 42 15 5 4 9 9
Distribution Percentage = 100 36% 12% 10% 21% 21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Sca
le
Framework for assessment
57
Figure 4.10: Partnership Assessment and Capability
4.4.4 Information
The study sought out to establish the degree to which key information on partners such
expenditure by purpose, modality and evaluation is readily available in their organization.
The data collected exhibited that majority agree of which were (50%), strongly agree
(45%), uncertain were (5%), strongly disagree were (0%) and disagree were (0%). The
findings presented in Table 4.6 highlight that information is readily available in the
organization such as audited financial statements and past performance.
Agree DisagreeStrongly
AgreeStronglyDisagree
Uncertain
Distribution Frequency = 42 13 3 7 10 9
Distribution Percentage = 100 31% 7% 17% 24% 21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14S
cale
Partnership assessment vs Capability
58
Table 4.6: Information
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 19 45
Agree 21 50
Uncertain 2 5
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Disagree 0 0
Total 42 100
4.4.5 Good practice
The study researched on the extent to which implementing partner agreements and other
legal instruments are in line with good practices to ensure the inclusion of all provisions
needed to safeguard the interests of the organizations. The data collected shows that agree
were (48%), strongly agree were (38%), uncertain were (14%), strongly disagree (0%),
disagree were (0%) and the findings presented in Figure: 4.11 below.
59
Figure 4.11: Good Practice
4.4.6 Results Based Reporting
The respondents of the study were asked the extent to which projects adopted are with
result-based reporting with clearly defined and measurable targets and deliverables. The
data below shows that majority of the respondents were uncertain of which were (57%),
agree were (19%), strongly agree were (12%), strongly disagree were (12%), and disagree
were (0%) and the data is presented in Table 4.7 below.
Agree DisagreeStrongly
AgreeStronglyDisagree
Uncertain
Distribution Frequency = 42 20 0 16 0 6
Distribution Percentage = 100 48% 0% 38% 0% 14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0
5
10
15
20
25S
cale
Good practice
60
Table 4.7: Results Based Reporting
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 5 12
Agree 8 19
Uncertain 24 57
Strongly Disagree 5 12
Disagree 0 0
Total 42 100
4.4.7 Financial Capacity Assessment
The data presented in Table 4.8 below sought out to establish the extent to which the
organization implements tools and criteria for conducting financial capacity and assessment
of potential of partners. Majority of the respondents disagree of which were (40%), agree
were (36%), strongly agree were (14%), strongly disagree were (10%), uncertain were
(0%). Therefore, the organization has weak financial assessment procedures to evaluate if
a partner is financial capable or not.
61
Table 4.8: Financial Capacity Assessment
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 6 14
Agree 15 36
Uncertain 0 0
Strongly Disagree 4 10
Disagree 17 40
Total 42 100
4.5 Competencies and Capacities in Programme Implementation
This section represents the results of the data collected on competencies and capacities in
programme implementation towards sustainable development. The variables include
quality of projects implemented, capacity development, management risks, evaluation
framework, implementation timelines and the organizations capacity to monitor project
implementation.
4.5.1 Quality of Projects Implemented
The data presented in Figure 4.12 of the study sought out to ask the respondents the extent
to which the organization faces issues with the quality of implementation of projects with
some partners. Majority of the respondents were (40%) no, (36%) yes, and not sure were
(24%) not sure.
62
Figure 4.12: Quality of Projects Implemented
4.5.2 Capacity Development
The study sought out to establish the extent to which the organizations framework ensures
progress in capacity development through a system-wide study to take stock of the
effectiveness and impact of implementing partner initiatives and systems in delivery of
programme and activities for sustainable development. Majority of the respondents were
(40%) uncertain, (21%) were strongly disagree, (21%) were agree, disagree were (10%)
and strongly agree were (8%) and the data is presented in Table 4.9 below.
No
40%
Not sure
24%
Yes
36%
Quality of Projects Implemented
No Not sure Yes
63
Table 4.9: Capacity Development
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 3 8
Agree 9 21
Uncertain 17 40
Strongly Disagree 9 21
Disagree 4 10
Total 42 100
4.5.3 Management of Risks
The study sought out to establish the extent to which the organization manages risks of
partners. Majority were agreed were (33%), uncertain were (24%), strongly agree were
(19%), strongly disagree were (17%), and disagree were (7%) and the data is presented in
Table 4.10 below.
Table 4.10: Management of Risks
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 8 19
Agree 14 33
Uncertain 10 24
Strongly Disagree 7 17
Disagree 3 7
Total 42 100
64
4.5.4 Performance Evaluation
The study sought out to establish the extent to which the organization has set-up
mechanisms for evaluating the performance of partners. Majority of the respondents were
uncertain (36%), agree were (34%), strongly disagree were (23%) and disagree were (5%)
and agree (2%). The findings presented in Table 4.11 indicates that staff members are
unsure if there as systems in place for evaluating partners.
Table 4.11: Performance Evaluation
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 1 2
Agree 14 34
Uncertain 15 36
Strongly Disagree 10 23
Disagree 2 5
Total 42 100
4.5.5 Project Sustainability Frameworks
The data presented in Figure 4.13 elaborates the research sought out to establish the extent
to which the organization has the capacity to follow-up on the implementation of
agreements after they have been concluded. Majority of the respondents strongly disagree
(36%), disagree were (24%), agree were (19%), strongly agree were (17%) uncertain were
(5%). Therefore, project/programme sustainability mechanisms are weak once
implementation ends.
65
Figure 4.13: Project Sustainability Frameworks
4.5.6 Project Implementation Timelines
The study sought out to establish the extent to which projects are implemented on time by
partners. Majority of the respondents were (38%) disagree, agree were (26%), strongly
agree were (19%), strongly disagree (17%), uncertain were (0%). The findings presented
in Figure 4.14 highlight that there are potentially some delays that either arise from UNEP
or the partners during the implementation phase of a project/programme.
Agree DisagreeStrongly
AgreeStronglyDisagree
Uncertain
Distribution Frequency = 42 8 10 7 15 2
Distribution Percentage = 100 19% 24% 17% 36% 5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16S
cale
Sustainability
66
Figure 4.14: Project Implementation Timelines
4.5.7 Resources
The respondents were questioned on the extent to which the organization has the capacity
and the resources for monitoring the activities of IPs i.e. expertise and technical skills for
effective monitoring e.g. staff familiar with financial monitoring. Majority of the
respondents were (40%) agree, strongly disagree were (19%) strongly agree were (17%),
uncertain (17%), and disagree were (7%) and the findings are presented in Table 4.12
below.
Agree DisagreeStrongly
AgreeStronglyDisagree
Uncertain
Distribution Frequency = 42 11 16 8 7 0
Distribution Percentage = 100 26% 38% 19% 17% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18S
cale
Timeline
67
Table 4.12: Resources
Scale
Distribution
Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 7 17
Agree 17 40
Uncertain 7 17
Strongly Disagree 8 19
Disagree 3 7
Total 42 100
4.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the outcomes of the findings based on the specific objectives.
Inferential analysis and descriptive analysis were used to present the results; and chapter
five presented the discussion, conclusion, and recommendation of the findings.
68
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter five presented the summary, discussion, conclusion and recommendations of the
study on the factors that influence global partnerships for sustainable development.
5.2 Summary
The main objective of the study was to assess the factors that influence global partnerships
for sustainable development. More specifically the study aimed at assessing the factors that
influence efficiency and effectiveness, accountability and transparency; and competency
and capacity by UNEP in programme implementation. The population of the study was
composed of 50 employees of UNEP out of which a stratified sampling method was used
to draw out a sample size of 42 respondents the population entailed; Administrative
Assistant, Program Officer, Senior Administrative Assistant, Certifying Officer, Program
Assistant, Finance Assistant, Other (United Nations Volunteers, Interns, Consultants),
Senior Finance and Budget Assistant, Senior Programme Assistant.
The benefits of engaging in partnerships have been recognized and have become a
significant part in addressing global challenges but this does not come without associated
risks and costs form the findings of the study. This especially applies to International
Organizations (IOs) who are critical and are an essential part in programme
implementation. International Organizations for example include NGOs and CSO. They
normally receive resource from UNEP for the delivery of activities, outputs, and results.
Therefore, accountability considerations when engaging with partners is a key principal in
UNEP from the findings. In addition, Realism theory, Neo-liberal institutional theory, and
69
Resource dependency theory used in the study questions the roles International
Organizations play in the international community and whether they have been victorious
in addressing global challenges.
The study focused on the following variables regarding global partnership:
i. Monitoring and reporting systems, performance indicators and measures, policies,
and training. Thus, the need for strategic approach in program implementation by
International Organizations is required as base line that is integrated with corporate
strategic aims. From the finding of the study UNEP lacks effective monitoring and
reporting systems.
ii. Accountability and transparency in programme implementation of which focused
selection process, assessment, key information, good practices cooperation and
assurance in programme implementation. Selection of International Organization is
crucial process in establishing partnerships. Such assessments ensure that there are
rigorous choice criteria will aid to find risks and ability gaps; in addition to pointing
out risk-mitigation measures of which UNEP has strongly invested in. From the
findings of the study disappointing project outcomes arise due to the quality of
projects implemented. This is because the selection of some NGO/CSOs is affected
by preferences and/or decisions made by the host governments or donors.
iii. Competencies and capacities in programme implementation of which focused on
the quality of projects implemented, capacity development, management risks,
evaluation framework, implementation timelines and the organizations capacity to
monitor project implementation. Most scholars have argued that global partnerships
have led to economic growth in developing countries. From the findings of the
study, these goes hand in hand with selection of process of partners. If partners are
selected due to preference, this can have an impact on the outcomes of the project.
70
International relations theorists are more positive about the prospects of international global
co-operation as a common affair most of whom would call themselves neo-liberal
international relation theorists. The central concern of neo-liberalism is the cooperation
among states and other actors in the international system (Sterling-Folker, 2010). Neo-
liberal international relations theorists acknowledge the obstacles to cooperation can be
difficult to overcome in an anarchic environment. Neo-realists argue that International
Organizations will always be ineffective as they are incapable of preventing states from
being self-interested. IOs therefore have managerial power (Mearsheimer, 2004). In
addition, International Organizations are established simply in response of the state interest.
The weight power plays and the articulation of explicit repertoires of tactics that are
accessible to the state is a hallmark of the resource dependency theory.
5.3 Discussion
The findings of the study have showed that there is a positive meaningful relationship
between global partnerships and sustainable development. Partnership arrangements and
their efficiencies and effectiveness towards programme implementation and delivery are
especially important for sustainable development by International Organizations. From the
findings it is evident that if a partner is not working well and not performing as agreed in
the cluster this has an impact on all other actors involved and may distort the whole
cooperation. The importance of having a strategic approach ensures that managers and staff
members acknowledge International Organizations partnerships.
Such an approach ensures that there is a common vision that is shared as stated by
neoliberals therefore, International Organizations can undertake roles such as monitoring
and providing assurance that others (states) are living up to the terms of their commitments.
This minimizes the risks that individual field offices may pursue partnerships that are not
in line with corporate goals and priorities. Adopting a partnership strategic framework,
71
which uses corporate strategic objectives as the basis for deciding partnership is required
and is a prudent way to maximize effective participation of partners in programme delivery
and explore the full potential in working with them. The study also established that
efficiency and effectiveness is highly significant for programme implementation as this will
result to the response to the Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the Rome declaration
that focuses on the harmonization and relevant General assembly resolutions that have been
passed.
Improvements of program management can be elaborated with the concept of efficiency
and effectiveness. Continuous improvements and comparison between programme/projects
are significant in the process of management (DeToro & McCabe, 1997). The lens of
efficiency and effectiveness puts a great deal of focus on internal and external perspectives.
This was evident in the findings of this study. For that reason, there is a great obligation on
efficiency and effectiveness and a great opportunity for sustained economic prosperity and
development.
The use of resources towards sustainable development within the United Nations is guided
by the principles of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy (UN Financial Regulations and
Rules, 101.1) of which UNEP applies from the findings of the research. Since financial
controls and management practices are utilized by partners differ from those employed
within the United Nations, it is incumbent upon the organization to encourage the
application of these principles on resources expended through legal agreements to partners.
There is a risk of financial impropriety arising in the organization and the use of the fiscal
management systems for partners based on the response rate is fundamental. It is imperative
that mitigation measures be implemented to ensure that resources are used for the intended
purpose, are fully accounted for, and are used in an effective, efficient, and economical
manner.
72
Partnership arrangements and process ensure accountability and transparency in
programme implementation by partners and this is especially important for sustainable
development. Selection decisions of IOs are taken at distinct levels and stages of the
programme or project implementation process based on the response rate. UNEP’s
partnership policy and partnership strategy guide the organization at the onset on the
modalities of engagement with International Organizations. The study established a
responsive nature of which is important to see partners not so much as contractors but as
real partners. Real partnership should include mutual accountability and joint decision-
making. UNEP has updated and revised in recent years its policy from the findings to
incorporate the aspect of real partners; in addition to enhancing the selection process of
partners.
Solicitation and comprehensive analysis of International Organizations starts with three
competing organizations; therefore, the legal status and existence of recognized partners is
confirmed followed by assessment and due diligence. This is done to establish the partners’
ability to implement the project or not on behalf of the agency. From the findings, UNEPs
government entities and inter-governmental organizations are selected directly without
comparative analysis. The partnership committee in UNEP are in charge of assessing
partners and provide recommendations whether or not a partner should be endorsed or
rejected (UNEP, 2011). However, from the findings, there is evidence of non-solicitation
and non-comparative an analysis for some partners; therefore, the partners are sole sourced
as per the response rate obtained for the study. Engagement with partners in a transparent
and appropriate manner is evident due to lack of open solicitation and competitive analysis.
Also, from the findings, there are no tool and criteria for conducting financial capacity
assessments of potential partners. As a result, the financial review is subjective.
73
Transparency is considered as a key tool of good governance and a prerequisite to any
democratic regime. Good governance has a major role that includes consensus orientation,
accountability, transparency, participation, responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness,
equity and inclusiveness and adherence to the rule of law (African Development Bank,
Bank Group, 2000). This ensures that corruption is minimized, and views of the minorities
are considered. Also, it ensures that their voices of the most vulnerable are heard in decision
making; in addition, it is response to the present and future needs of the society.
Good governance as a concept that entails the need for responsibility and transparency and
real participation. This ensures that there is a linkage between democracy of which has
becomes much clearer and that good governance reinforces democracy. It is the single most
significant aspect in eliminating poverty and promoting development. The type of
governance structures in place determine the extent to which economic development and
coexistence, inequality, the impacts of climate change, and health can be addressed.
Trust can lead to a dynamic political change of which is influenced by the use of
transparency as a virtuous circle where citizens participate (Worthy, 2010). Transparency
and accountability push International Organizations to adopt a more open functioning
aspect that is relevant for evaluating institutions is known as transparency (Bauhr &
Nasiritousi, 2012). Transparency is the process that involves availing information and
active participation of creating an environment that fosters knowledge sharing (Cotterrell,
2000).
Meijer (2013) and Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch (2012) state that International
Organizations (IOs) need to consider transparency. The need for an end-to-end process in
system visibility means that International Organizations can get the information they are
looking directly from the appropriate stakeholder, rather than relying on a single point of
74
information. Transparency ensure that there are lower chance of flawed or missing
information of International Organizations. In depth assessment of NGOs/CSOs for
example from the findings of the study, during the selection process is one of the most
important and critical elements that is required. One major obstacle to effective programme
implementation is the lack of capacity of several NGOs/CSOs in areas such as fiscal
management from the findings. The lack of knowledge by staff members on the assessment
process of partners has worsened the situation.
The criteria for partnerships consideration are based on technical capacity and financial
capacity to undertake the partnerships. Capacity investigates an organizations unit to
perform functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Resource are a central part of
development and capacity is a continuous process and not a passive process of the state.
Therefore, the overall fundamental aspect is for an organization to undertake their function.
Sharing of information amongst divisions within UNEP on the capacities and capabilities
of various partners is important however this is currently informal and there are no
mechanisms to evaluate the performance of partners from the finding.
5.4 Conclusions
This study has established a positive relationship between global partnerships and
sustainable development. The study concludes that International Organizations through
global partnerships have a strong influence in programme implementation. The constituent
part of project/programme is based on the strategic framework of an organization ought to
be in line with the policy framework. Partnerships can have adverse effects on project
implementation and can result to under-utilization of resources and accomplishment of the
organizations mandates.
75
However, if tools and mechanisms to facilitate systematic identification of fraud risks
during the assessment of partners this can ensure effective controls are in place. In addition,
UNEP staff should ensure quality, efficiency, and effectiveness in of project execution and
this should be geared towards sustainable development through the review of reports and
field visits. The need to effectively check and report submitted by partners is essential in
ensuring that funds are being spent for the intended purpose and that results are being
achieved. Presently, monitoring relies a lot more on reports that are sent by partners which
have no system verification. This is a major constrain that arises due to lack of capacity of
the organization in terms of resource and technical expertise. Due diligence in the
organization is not only set up through solicitation but finds capacity gaps that can be
identified or whether a partner would face challenges in implementation. This study
concludes further that accountability and transparency attribute to assessments is not the
case.
Capacity building or other corrective actions such as blacklisting poorly performing
partners can result to sustainable development and International Organizations can have
their own say during the selection of partners. This minimize capacity gaps that bring about
delayed implementation and inaccurate reporting. Thus, having an adverse impact on the
timely identification and effective risk management measures. Establishment of
frameworks bring about applicability aspects for reviewing the capacity of potential
partners. There are scenarios where spot checks are needed in cases where the partners are
considered as elevated risk or problematic thus, known to have capacity deficits.
76
5.5 Recommendations
The study established a strong relationship between global partnerships and sustainable
development therefore, executive heads should institute training in fraud awareness and
prevention, with emphasis on fraud related to third parties, for staff engaged with partners.
From the findings there are weak fraud risk assessment systems in place. Therefore, this
will strengthen its internal controls to ensure that the fraud risks are mitigated. This includes
investing in structures and systems that enhance control.
Further, there is need to ensure projects adopt result-based reporting with clearly defined
and measurable targets and deliverables. From the findings there is lack of uncertainty if
partners are meeting reporting requirements. Therefore, with weak monitoring and
reporting systems there is lack of verification of programmatic and financial expense
reports submitted by partners. This is because the process is done ad hoc. Project
effectiveness and execution should be encouraged by executive heads and this should be
focused towards sustainable development. This can be done through systematic review of
reports and field visits by staff members. Mechanisms should be established to hold staff
members accountable for projects that have failed during execution.
Mechanisms should be placed during the selection of partners to identify high risk partners
of which should be done in a comprehensive manner to ensure effective and efficient
programme implementation by International Organizations. This will benefit UNEP in
identifying capacity gaps. From the findings, it is evident that disappointing project
outcomes arise due to the selection of partners based on preferences made by the host
governments or donors.
77
The organization lacks mechanisms for evaluating the performance of partners as this is a
paper-based process. Investment in performance evaluation systems is required to ensure
that performance is continuously monitored throughout the project implementation and the
partner’s overall performance at the end of the project and this needs to be systematically
recorded. Establishment of a criteria for disclosure of material information by NGOs and
CSOs and utilization of the existing financial capacity assessment tools as applicable for
reviewing the capacity of potential partners is needed as this is currently paper based
therefore, the organization should invest more in better systems and structures.
78
REFERENCES
Agarwal, P. (2017). What is the definition Foreign Aid?
Retrieved 07 10, 2018, from Intelligent Economist:
https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/types-of-foreign-aid/
Ajayi, K. (2000). International Administration and Economic Relations in a Changing
World. Ilorin: Majab Publishers.
Alavi, S. (2010). Organizational learning and its determinants. Technical managers and
executive messages. Journal of Management of Agricultural Education, 4(21), 17-
25.
Alfaro, L., & Chauvin, J. (2017). Foreign Direct Investment, Finance, and Economic
Development. Encyclopedia of International Economics and Global Trade, 2-8,
from
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/FDICapital_Formatted_201709
22_Final_W_c7fcb82c-f318-4632-a589-20118eaeebf8.pdf
Andrei, K., Bernard, C., & Hart , A. (2016). A Consumers Guide to Grants Management
Systems. Technology Affinity Group.
Banks, N., & Hulme, D. (2012). The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in Development and
Poverty Reduction. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper, 171.
Bartsiotas, A. J., & Prom-Jackson, S. (2013). Review of the Management of Implementing
Partners in United Nations System Organization. Geneva: United Nations.
Bartsiotas, A., & Prom-Jackson, S. (2013). Review of the Management of Implementing
Partners in United Nations System Organization. Geneva: United Nations.
Baylis, J. S. (2011). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International
Relations. Oxford, EN: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 07 30, 2011
Besley, T., & Zagha, R. (2005). Development Challenges in the 1990s: Leading
Policymakers Speak from Experience. New York: The World Bank.
Brazensky, G. (2012). The Root of the Modernizatiob Theory. The Journal of the Socity
for Historians of American Foreign Relations, 36(1), 223-226.
Britton , B. (2005). Organisational Learning in NGOs. Creating the Motive, Means and
Opportunity, 3, 1-56.
Brown, L., & Moore, H. M. (2001). Accountability, Strategy, and International.
Nongovernmental Organizations.
Chambers, D., & Dhongde, S. (2011). A non parametric measure of poverty elasticity.
Review of Inome and Wealth Series, 57(4), 683-703.
Cooper , R. (2006). Business Research Methods. New York.
79
Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource Dependency Theory. Past and future.
Research in the Sociology of Organization, 28(1), 21-42.
Dillon, E. (2004). Accountabilities and Power in Development Relationships. Trocaire
Development Review 2003/4, 105–117.
Domestic Working Group. (2005). Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant
Accountability. Developed by Domestic Working Group.
Easterly, W. (2006). The Realities of Foreign Aid to Third World Countries. London:
Kegan Paul.
Ebrahim, A. (2003b). ‘Making Sense of Accountability Conceptual Perspectives for
Northern and Southern Nonprofits’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2),
191–212.
Fowler, A. (1996). ‘Demonstrating NGO Performance Problems and Possibilities.
Development in Practice, 6, 58–65.
Ghosh, B. (2001). Dependency Theory Revisited. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Glauden , T., Herzfied, T., Rozzella, S., & Wang, X. (2012). President Poverty in Rural
China. Where, Why and How to Escape? World Development, 40(4), 784-795.
Grantor Management Team. (2019). Baseline Document for Grantor Management. New
York: United Nations.
Gulrajani, N. (2016). Bilateral Versus Multilateral Aid Channels. London, UK: ODI, from
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10393.pdf
Haggard S., & Simmons B. A. (1987). Theories of International Regimes. Journal of
International Organizations, 41 (3), 491-571.
Hickel, J. (2017). Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries
Hilhorst, D. (2002). ‘Being Good at Doing Good? ’ Quality and Accountability of
Humanitarian NGOs Disasters, 23(3), 193–212.
Jakson , R., & Sorensen, G. (2010). Introduction to International Relations : Theories and
Approcahes, 4th Ed. UK: Oxford University Press.
Kabonga, I. (2017). Dependency Theory and Donor Aid: A Critical Analysis. Journal of
Development Studies, 46(2), 1-8.
Kearns, K. (1996). Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Nonprofit
Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kearns, K. P. (1994). The Strategic Management of Accountability in Nonprofit
Organizations: An Analytical Framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2),
185-192.
80
Kiberenge , K. (2012, March 11). Concern as NGOs divert aid meant for starving Somalis.
Nairobi: Standard Digital.
Killick, T. (2005). Don't Throw Money at Africa. Instititue of Development Studies (IDS)
Bulleting Journal, 36(3).
Kloppenborg , J. T. (2009). Project Management: A Contemporary Approach. South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Krasner, S. O. (1982). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences. Regimes as
Intervening Variables, International Organizations, 36/2.185-205.
Lang , S. (2013). NGO'S, Civil Society and the Public Sphere. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Lewis , D., & Kanji, N. (2009). Non-Governmental Organizations and Development. UK:
Routledge.
Lock, D. (2013). Project Management. Burlington: Gower Publishing Limited.
MacLachlan, M., Carr, C., & McAuliffe, E. (2010). The Aid Triangle: Recognizing The
Human Dynamics of Dominance, Justuce and Identity. Nova Scotia: Fernwood.
Martin, L. a. (1998). Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.
International Organizations, 52/4. 729-57.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2004). An offensive realist between geopolitics and power. Journal
of International Relations and Development 8, 381–408.
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and There Is a Way for Africa. New
York: Straus and Giroux.
Najam, A. (1996). NGO Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. Development Policy
Review, 14, 339–53.
Nicholas, M., & Steyn , H. (2012). Project Management for Engineering, Business and
Technology. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Nils, G. (2004). Mandarins of the Future: Mordernization in the Cold War America. New
York, NY: John Hopkins University Press.
Nilsson, W. (2012). Heterogenity or true state dependency in poverty. The tale told by
twins. Review of Income and Wealth series, 58(1), 1-23.
O’Dwyer, B. (2007). The Nature of NGO Accountability:Motives, Mechanisms and
Practice’, in Unerman, J.,Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (eds), Sustainability
Accounting and Accountability. Abingdon: Routledge.
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From Functional to Social Accountability.
Transforming the Accountability Relationship between Funders and Non
Governmental Development Organisations’, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 20(3), 446–71.
81
OECD. (2005). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. 2nd High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness, 1-25. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
OECD. (2008). 3rd High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Accra Agenda for Action, 1-
21. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
OECD. (2009a). Development Aid at its Highest Level Ever. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_2
OECD. (2009b). Query Wizard for International Development Statistics. Retrieved from
http://stats.oecd.org/qwids
OECD. (2010). The Accra Agenda for Action. Paris Declaration on the effectiveness of
foreign aid and the Accra Agenda for Action (pp. 2-10). Accra, GH: OECD.
Retrieved 07 10, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
Olsen , W. (2010). Poverty as a malaise of development: A discourse analysis in its global
context as cited in A Boran (ed.) Poverty: Malaise of Development. Chester, UK:
Chester Academic Press.
Perez, L. S. (2005). Managing knowledge: The link between culture and organizational
learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 227-245.
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco, California: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Pfeffer, J. (1972a). Interorganizational influence and managerial attitudes. Academy of
Management Journal, 15, 317-330.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Depedence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Pinto, K. (2010). Project Management; Achieving Competitive Advantage. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Prom-Jackson, G. A. (2013). Review of the managment of Implementing Partners in the
United Nations System Organizations. Geneva: Joint Inspection Unit - United
Nations .
Ravallion, M. (2016). The World Bank: Why It Is Still Needed and Why It Still
Disappoints. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 77-94.
Riddell, R. C. (2007). Does Foerign Aid Really Work? New York: Oxford Univeristy Press.
Roche, C. (1999). Impact Assessment for Development Agencies. Oxford: Oxford GB.
Ross, S. (2016, 08 26). What Are the Different Types of Foreign Aid? Retrieved 07 10,
2018, from Investopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082616/what-are-different-types-
foreign-aid.asp
Ruben , R., Pender , J., & Kuyvenhoren, A. (2007). Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Less
Favourable Areas, CAB international. Oxfordshrine, UK.
82
Salmonsson, M. (2007). Foreign aid: Aid dependecy as an argument for policy reform.
Jonkoping.
Smith, M. P. (2003). Economic Development (8th Edition). New Delhi: Addison Wesley.
Steeten , P. (1981). First things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in the Developing
Countries. London: Oxford University Press.
Stephan, H. a. (1987). Theories of International Regimes. International Organizations,
491-517.
Tandon, Y. (2008). Ending Aid Dependence. Cape Town: Fahamu-Networks for Social
Justice.
Tempelton, C. F., LewisBrucer, R., & Snuder, C. A. (2002). Development of an
organization learning construct. Journal of Management Information Systems,
19(2), 175-198.
UK Essays. (2013). Critically discuss Rostow’s stages of growth. London, UK: UK
Essays. Retrieved 07 10, 2018, from
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sociology/critically-discuss-rostows-stages-of-
growth-sociology-essay.php?vref=1
UN Environment. (2020). UN Environment Programme Partnership Policy. Nairobi, KE:
United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP. (2011). UNEP Partnership Policies and Procedures. Nairobi: United Nations
Environment Programme.
United Nations. (1992). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development.
United Nations Sustainable Development. Rio de Janeiro : United Nations Division
for Sustainable Development.
United Nations. (2007). The Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations:New
York.
United Nations. (2010). Results-Based Management Handbook: Strengthening RBM
harmonization for improved development results. New York: United Nations
Development Group.
United Nations. (2013). FI106 - Umoja Grants Management Overview. New York,
US:United Nations.
United Nations publication. (2007). The United Nations Development Agenda:
Development for All. New York, US: United Nations.
Retrieved from https://www.un.org/esa/devagenda/UNDA_BW5_Final.pdf
Valerio, A. P. (2014). A call to rethink the aid effectiveness debate. Devex. Retrieved from
https://www.devex.com/news/a-call-to-rethink-the-aid-effectiveness-debate-84242
Vincent, F. (1996). Dependency Theory: An Introduction. South Hadley MA: Mount
Holyoke College.
83
Welman, J., & Kruger, S. (2008). Research Methodology. Cape Town: Oxford University
Press.
World Bank. (2017). The World Bank in Kenya. New York, NY: World Bank
Organization. Retrieved 07 10, 2018, from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kenya/overview#2
84
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: LETTERS OF INTENT Mercy Olunga
P.O. Box 34065, 00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Number: 254(0)791172161
Email:[email protected]
United Nations Environment Progam
P. O. Box 30552,
Nairobi, Kenya
Date: 19th October 2020
RE: REQUEST TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH
To whom it may concern,
My name is Mercy Olunga, a student of USIU-Africa looking to complete my Master’s
studies in MA International Relations - Development Studies. The topic of my research
is Assessing Factors Influencing Global Partnerships for Sustainable Development: The
Case of United Nations Environment Programme. My intent of the research study will
focus on global partnerships for sustainable development with International
Organizations.
I would like to request for your approval to the research with United Nations Environment
Programme staff members to provide concrete and real-time data on the current situation.
All information will be administered at your discretion and a copy of the research
document will be presented, if needed. I am looking forward to your adequate response.
In case of clarification on the project being conducted, you are welcome to contact USIU-
Africa on [email protected].
Kind Regards,
Mercy Olunga.
85
APPENDIX II: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
My name is Mercy Christine Olunga, a student at United States International University –
Africa, where I am pursuing a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations. As part of
my Degree requirements I am completing a research study and I would like to include you
in my study. My research supervisor at USIU-Africa, Dr. Joseph Kimani may be contacted
by email [email protected] if you have questions at any time.
Your written consent is required to participate so that I can confirm that you have been
informed of the study and that you agree to participate. You are free to decline or
discontinue your participation at any time during the study if you wish to do so. All the
information obtained in this study will be kept confidential; a unique number will be
assigned to the research forms once submitted through the Microsoft forms link to ensure
your privacy is protected. Your name or identity will not be given in any report or
publication.
These questionnaire forms should take between 30 minutes but not longer than 45 minutes
to complete in one sitting. A demographic form including you age and other basic
information will also be requested. The outcome of the information obtained during this
research will be summarized and utilized in my Thesis study. Participant names will not be
utilized, as shown below a reference number will now be assigned to ensure your identity
is kept confidential during and after this study is completed.
TITLE OF RESEARCH STUDY:
ACCESSING FACTORS INFLUENCING GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF UNITED NATIONS
ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Please answer the following questions by ticking the response that applies
86
1. I have read the Information Sheet for this study and have had details of the study
explained to me.
□ Yes □ No
2. My questions about the study have been answered to my satisfaction and I understand
that I may ask further questions at any point.
□ Yes □ No
3. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study within the time limits outlined in
the Information Sheet, without giving a reason for my withdrawal or to decline to answer
any particular questions in the study without any consequences to my future treatment by
the researcher.
□ Yes □ No
4. I agree to provide information to the researchers under the conditions of confidentiality
set out in the Information Sheet.
□ Yes □ No
5. I consent to the information collected for the purposes of this research study, once
anonymized (so that I cannot be identified), to be used for any other research purposes.
□ Yes □ No
87
By signing below, I consent to participate is this study
_____________________ Date: ______________
Signature of Respondent
_____________________ Date: ______________
Principal Researcher
_____________________ Date: ______________
88
APPENDIX III: RESPONDENT DEBRIEF FORM
Thank you for participating in this study. The purpose of this study is to assess global
partnerships for sustainable development and its applicability in programme
implementation with a focus on global partnerships.
What you should know about this study
Your participation will help researchers and United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) to gain more insights in programme implementation and delivery and how this
contributes towards the mandate of the organization. This study will review the methods
currently used by the organizations to select and manage partners, to find elements and
challenges, good practices, and makes recommendations. In addition, this will be tailored
towards efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, transparency, competency and capacity
by UNEP in programme implementation with partners.
Right to withdraw data
You may choose to withdraw the data you provided prior to debriefing, without penalty or
loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Please initial below if you do, or do
not, give permission to have your data included in the study:
I give permission for the data collected from me to be included in the study.
I DO NOT give permission for the data collected from or about me to be included
in the study.
89
If you have questions
The main researcher conducting this study is Mercy Christine Olunga a Master’s degree
Student at the United States International University – Africa (USIU-Africa). If you have
questions later, you may contact Mercy Christine Olunga at [email protected] or
(+254) 791172161. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
research participant in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Chairperson at [email protected]
Once again thank you for your participation.
Participant Signature: _____________________________
Date: ____________________________
Mercy Christine Olunga (Principal Investigator)
Signature: _____________________________
Date: ____________________________
Please sign both copies, keep one and return one to the researcher
90
APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNAIRES
SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION
Kindly respond to the following questions by checking on the appropriate box (X)
1. Position occupied in the organization?
Programme Assistant
Senior Programme Assistant
Program Officer
Administrative Assistant
Other (UN Volunteers, Interns,
Consultants)
Finance Assistant
Senior Finance and Budget Assistant
Certifying Officer
Senior Administrative Assistant
2. Gender?
Male Female
3. Age bracket?
18-25 26-34 35-54 55-60
4. Highest level of education attained?
High School Undergraduate Postgraduates Other
5. Length of service with the current organization?
1-2years 2-6 years 6-10years More than 10 years
91
SECTION II: EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
i) Partner management at the organization employs a strategic approach in line with the
corporate strategic objectives as the basis for determining partnership requirements?
Yes No Not sure
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by
using the scale of 1-5 where for 1. Strongly Agree (SA), 2. Agree (A), 3. Uncertain (N), 4.
Strongly Disagree (SD), 5. Disagree (D)
Effective and Efficient Programme Implementation
Str
on
gly
Agre
e (S
A)
Agre
e (A
)
Un
cert
ain
(U
)
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e (S
D)
Dis
agre
e (D
)
1. Effective monitoring and reporting systems are in place in ensuring
that funds are being spent as intended and that results are achieved
2. Key performance indicators and other performance measurements
are in place to determine individual performance of partners
3. Determination of outputs and outcomes achieved by
programme/project partners are in place
4. Clear regulations by the organization are in place, relating to the
management of project funds and the method of compensation and
reimbursement of expenditure
5. The organization has established risk-based monitoring frameworks
that guide in systematically monitoring programme delivery by
partners
6. The organization undertakes a detailed fraud risk assessment
pertaining to its engagement with partners
92
SECTION III: ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
i) The culture of the organization emphasizes on providing transparency and
accountability in the assessment of partner during the selection process?
Yes No Not sure
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by
using the scale of 1-5 where for 1. Strongly Agree (SA), 2. Agree (A), 3. Uncertain (N), 4.
Strongly Disagree (SD), 5. Disagree (D)
Accountability and Transparency in Programme
Implementation S
tron
gly
Agre
e (S
A)
Agre
e (A
)
Un
cert
ain
(U
)
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e (S
D)
Dis
agre
e (D
)
1. Due diligence and competitive assessment are conducted in
accordance with established policies
2. Assessment ensure capability of the partners to fulfil programme
delivery requirement
3. Key information on partners such expenditure by purpose,
modality and evaluation is readily available in their organization
4. Partner agreements and other legal instruments are in line with
good practices to ensure the inclusion of all provisions needed to
safeguard the interests of the organizations
5. Projects are adopted with result-based reporting with clearly
defined and measurable targets and deliverables
6. There are tools and criteria for conducting financial capacity and
assessment of potential partners
93
SECTION IV: COMPETENCIES AND CAPACITIES IN PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
i) The organization faces issues with the quality of implementation with some partners; for
example, governments. This comes with issues and problems such as capacity on their side.
Yes No Not sure
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by
using the scale of 1-5 where for 1. Strongly Agree (SA), 2. Agree (A), 3. Uncertain (N), 4.
Strongly Disagree (SD), 5. Disagree (D)
Competencies and Capacities in Programme Implementation
Str
on
gly
Agre
e (S
A)
Agre
e (A
)
Un
cert
ain
(U
)
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e (S
D)
Dis
agre
e (D
)
1. The organizations framework ensures progress in capacity
development through a system-wide study to take stock of the
effectiveness and impact of partner initiatives and systems in delivery
of programme and activities for sustainable development
2. The organization framework facilitates identification and effective
management of risks and promotes knowledge sharing on the
capacities of partners between divisions
3. The organization has set-up mechanisms for evaluating the
performance of partners
4. The organization has the capacity to adequately follow-up on the
implementation of agreements after they have been concluded
5. Projects are implemented on time by partners
6. The organization has the capacity and the resources for adequately
monitoring the activities of IPs i.e. expertise and technical skills for
effective monitoring e.g. staff familiar with financial monitoring.
Thanks for your time
94
APPENDIX V: MEMORANDUM - UNEP
95
APPENDIX VI: RESEARCH APPROVAL
96
APPENDIX VII: PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH
97
APPENDIX VIII: NACOSTI RESEARCH LICENSE
98