User:SamiraDF/be bold

Collaborative Partnership
Collaborative arrangements occur based on more than just altruism. Mutuality and equitable engagement will not exist if southern partners expect developed countries to simply transfer their technological competitive advantage(Brinkerhoff 2002).A particular concern that arises in both for-profit and academic partnerships has been the failure to reap benefits of collaboration at meso- and macro-levels. While Southern researchers, inventors and managers involved in cross-border collaboration projects have benefited individually, these benefits do not translate to improvements in their organizations and institutions, possibly reflecting a problem of agency in the relationship (Alnuaimiet al. 2012). In general, partnerships for sustainable development are self-organizing and coordinating alliances. In a more strict definition; they are collaborative arrangements in which actors from two or more spheres of society- whether state, market, and civil society, are involved in a non-hierarchical process through which these actors strive for a sustainability goal (Glasbergen et al. 2007). In recent times, partnerships are set up to solve societal problems and they do so on the basis of a commitment that is formalized to some extent. Recently, partnerships are perceived as arrangements that can further the drive for sustainable development. In that role, they provide a managerial response to the general ethical ideal of societal progress.

Sustainable Development
Partnerships are perceived as arrangements that can further the drive for sustainable development. In that role, they provide a managerial response to the general ethical ideal of societal progress. Collaborative arrangements in which actors from two or more spheres of society (state, market and civil society) are involved in a non-hierarchical process through which these actors strive for a sustainability goal. Partnership practices may be seen as both idealistic and structural specifications of that philosophy in a more operational governance paradigm. The main premises can be summarize underpinning this partnership paradigm as follows: •	 Parties from the public sector, from the market and from civil society have an interest in sustainable development. •	A constructive dialogue among these interests can be convened in a setting that excludes hierarchy and authority. •	Dialogue can produce a shared normative belief that provides a value-based rationale for collaborative action. •	Collaborative action based on voluntarism, joint resource commitment and shared responsibility of all actors for the whole project can serve public interests as well as private interests. •	Collective action can be commercial in nature; the market mechanism can promote more sustainable practices through the leverage and spin-off of private-sector investments. A pluriform partnership practice has taken root in a paradigmatic premises. Partnerships come in three modalities. -	The modality concerns partnerships that are initiated by government. These partnerships lean heavily on the authority and sanctions of government. -	The second modality concerns arrangements made by private parties in which public administrations participate as one of many partners. -	The third modality concerns the cooperation between businesses and non-governmental organizations. These collaborative arrangements also relate to society’s problem-solving capacity.

Sustainable development requires concerted collaborative actions at all levels from macro to micro and across all sectors. Cross-sector social partnerships are proliferating rapidly (Child and Faulkner, 1998; Berger, Cunningham and Drumright, 2000). Organizations are more learning to form a multitude of collaborative relationships, including strategic alliances (Bamford, Gomes-Casseres, & Robinson, 2002), partnerships, joint ventures (Child, Faulkner, & Tallman, 2005; Marks & Mirvis, 2011), and transorganization networks (Clarke, 2005; Cummings, 1984). When organizations work together, they are able to develop and fulfill much broader visions by tapping into each other’s resources and expertise (Cooperrider & Dutton, 1999; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). This is also a world filled with frustration. In spite of good intentions and dedicated resources, collaborations do not come easy or naturally (Cummings, 1984); they are messy and difficult (Gray, 1989; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Collaborations focused on sustainability issues, for example, are highly visible and wicked problems that draw the attention of large and powerful interests, including governments, large corporations, and well-funded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). They often produce considerably less benefit than intended (Nordhaus, 2001; Worley & Parker, 2011).

Natural Resource Management

 * Environmental partnerships: Voluntary, jointly defined activities and decision-making processes among corporate, non-profit, and agency organisations that aim to improve environmental quality or natural resource utilisation. (Long and Arnold, 1995)


 * New social partnerships: People and organisations from some combination of public, business and civic constituencies who engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial, innovative relationships to address common societal aims through combining their resources and competencies. (Nelson and Zadek, 2001)


 * Collaboration: The pooling of appreciation and/ or tangible resources ( e.g., information, money, labour) by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems neither can solve individually. (Gray, 1989)


 * Networking: A number of autonomous … groups link up to share knowledge, practice solidarity or act jointly and/ or simultaneously in different spaces. Based on moral (as distinct from professional or institutional) motivations, networks are cooperative, not competitive. Communication is of their essence. … Their raison d‘être is not in themselves, but in a job to be done. … They foster solidarity and a sense of belonging. They expand the sphere of autonomy and freedom. The source of the movement is the same everywhere— people‘s autonomous power— and so is their most universal goal, survival. (Nerfin, 1986)


 * Co-m management: True co-management goes far beyond mere consultation. With co-management, the involvement of indigenous peoples in protected areas becomes a formal partnership, with conservation management authority shared between indigenous peoples and government agencies... or national and international non-governmental organisations. [...] true co-management requires involvement in policy-formulation, planning, man- agement and evaluation. (Stevens, 1997)


 * Collaborative management (of protected a areas) A situation in which some or all of the relevant stakeholders are involved in a substan- tial way in management activities. Specifically, in a collaborative management process the agency with jurisdiction over natural resources develops a partnership with other relevant stakeholders (primarily including local residents and resource users) which specifies and guarantees the respective management functions, rights and responsibili- ties. (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996)

Stakeholders
Marginal stakeholders can be an incredible asset for collaborative networks. Networks and partnerships can be prime vehicles for incorporating multiple stakeholders, directly or indirectly, in a cooperative venture’s goals, decisions, and results. Network development, partnership, and collaboration have been proposed to enable organizations to understand and respond to complex problems in new ways (Cummings, 1984; Gray, 1985). Marginal stakeholders need to understand the importance of a shared decision making process to formalize the relationships in the network. In that sense, marginal stakeholders can be their own worst enemy. Second, marginal stakeholders need external support. By virtue of their size and capacity, many marginal stakeholders have less slack resources to devote to interorganizational collaboration. Marginal stakeholders need coaching and development to be effective members of a referent organization.