Partnerships and alliances

Partnerships and alliances

Key findings:

Being part of a partnership often brings added value to the partners. Partnerships frequently achieve more than individual partners could by acting alone. (see learning question A)

Partners should expect to invest significant time and resources into developing and maintaining successful relationships. There is a need for expectation management about what the partnership can achieve and how. (see learning question A)

There is no standard recipe for the perfect partnership. The partnership’s scope and mission, the community’s maturity, and leadership roles may all contribute to how alliances function. (see learning question B)

Some partnerships can acquire significant additional funds, while others find it challenging. In the future, alliances could set the conservation agenda and funders co-design or rally around it. (see learning question C)

Overview of the learning topic

Learn the how-to of this step in the approach: Step 1 – Define the learning topic.

Partnerships and alliances have always been vital mechanisms for conservation actors to leverage their strengths to achieve a more significant impact together. 

The MAVA foundation has invested over 70 million Swiss francs in strategic partnerships and integrated conservation planning and management over the last 30 years. 

For the foundation’s final strategy starting in 2016, MAVA has moved from working with individual projects to working with key partners on the level of integrated programmes. Selected partner organisations formed strategic partnerships and jointly designed these programmes to deliver ambitious outcomes (see Strategic Partnerships: MAVA’s approach to scaling up conservation impact for more information).

Establishing 25 strategic partnerships generated a wealth of data and lessons that the learning initiative and involved partners were excited to collect and systematise.

Learning questions and assumptions

Learn the how-to of this step in the approach: Step 2 – Develop learning questions.

The idea behind establishing partnerships is that a set of partners with complementary skills, backgrounds, and experience jointly have a higher likelihood of achieving outcomes than individual organisations on their own.

The assumption is that a successful strategic partnership has a few key ingredients and enabling conditions: a legal framework and financial resources, relevant partners, and sufficient knowledge, skills and interest.

A diverse group of partners must agree on a joint interpretation of their problem analysis and a shared vision and plan. A functioning partnership continuously sharpens its strategic choices

If partners deliver on their agreed contribution to the joint plan, the partnership gains recognition, personality, and authority. It can effectively implement its strategy and achieve more significant outcomes than individual partners.

We have explored the following aspects of strategic partnerships and conservation alliances:

  1. Whether being part of a partnership is beneficial for involved partners (see learning question A)
  2. Whether partners together can deliver more than they can achieve alone (see learning question A)
  3. What we can learn about the set-up of alliances and partnerships (see learning question B)
  4. Which costs and benefits strategic partnerships imply (see learning question C)

Theory of change diagram (click to view full size):

The theory of change is a complicated diagram of boxes and arrows. Its main idea is outlined in the text above.
The theory of change, learning questions, and assumptions for the learning topic Partnerships and alliances. Note that the darker purple boxes contain the learning questions. The light purple boxes show the associated assumptions. This theory of change with learning questions and assumptions has been developed using Miradi Share. You can access this theory of change directly on the Conservation Actions and Measures Library (CAML).

Evidence and findings

The figure below shows an overview of the main findings. Note that these summary ratings do not represent uncertainty and level of confidence in the evidence appropriately. For the full picture, please review the evidence base and assessment below.

Learn the how-to of the approach: Step 3 – Collect evidence, Step 4 – Assess evidence, Step 5 – Compile & conclude.


Learning question A:  Is the whole more than the sum of its parts?

Being part of a partnership often brings added value to the partners. We find several cases where partnerships have achieved more than individual partners could by acting alone. However, partners should expect to invest significant time and resources into developing and maintaining successful collaborative relationships. Acknowledging inherent complexities, investing correctly, and seeing collaboration as a means to an end may help to manage the expectations of those forming partnerships to solve complex conservation problems.

Assumption A1: Partners in a partnership improve and have a better impact than individual partners alone

The evidence supports the assumption that partners in a partnership improve and have a better impact than individual partners alone. Positive outcomes were seen in various areas, from sharing knowledge or resources to a greater potential for innovative thinking. 

Other sources warn that collaboration requires significant additional investment and should be considered a means to an end rather than an end in itself

Those seeking successful partnerships should: 

  • Acknowledge the complexity that will come with collaboration (even defining goals is complex (Vangen & Huxham, 2012))
  • Clarify what change means for all partners 
  • Temper expectations about how achievements can and will be evaluated (Elliott, 2022).
This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 57 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources. 

A targeted questionnaire sent to 16 MAVA grantees provided 30 pieces of evidence. All recipients of the questionnaire were part of partnerships, for which MAVA provided both financial and in-kind support. The questionnaire was distributed to grantees in 2018–2019 as a means of evaluating the performance of the partnership.

Two statements in the survey focused on this assumption. Respondents indicated to what extent they agreed and provided free text to clarify their answer:

  1. The exchange of knowledge has helped your organisation improve and have an impact
  2. The political influence of the partnership has helped your organisation have a concrete impact

A systematic search of the Conservation Evidence database provided 27 pieces of evidence from 26 sources. We found these sources using keyword searches for partnership, partner, alliance, integrated planning, and integrated management. This returned 17 conservation actions and 262 studies. All study summaries were searched for evidence.

Finally, exploratory searches of the wider literature found 28 pieces of evidence from 14 sources. One source found through searches was a PhD thesis (Elliott, 2022). Following discussions with the author, this thesis provided several evidence pieces, as well as a range of other studies to explore further.

Evidence assessment

On balance, the evidence provides some to strong support for this assumption.

Stronger collectively

Most MAVA grantee answers to provided evidence that strongly supported the assumption. In particular, responses highlighted the value of exchanging knowledge, which helped organisations improve and have an impact.

Examples from the wider literature found that some partnerships could deliver more by operating over very large spatial scales, through collaborative governance 59–62, 72–74 and “connectivity conservation”63. Evidence showed an increased capacity at the operational level:

  • to deliver on projects
  • for outreach and education67
  • for monitoring and enforcement68.

Other examples of success included sharing of data and processes68; innovation 81 arising from collaboration; and delivering higher quality management of watersheds72–73 through collaborative governance. 

There were also some cases from the Conservation Evidence database of successful community management and protection of natural resources and wildlife; community involvement in land management schemes; and community-based restoration. Another common theme was increasing organisational capacity by mobilising volunteers.

A means to an end

MAVA grantees provided more mixed responses when questioned about the political influence of their partnership. While some felt that the partnership had increased their influence, others did not.

Some evidence from the wider literature also provided a more mixed outlook. Some raised the point that collaboration is not a “magical cure” or “silver bullet”, and should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself64, 80. Concerns were raised that added bureaucracy can get in the way of delivering on actual goals69. While some partnerships considered themselves to be flexible and adaptable, others struggled to respond quickly to changing contexts85

It is worth taking into account that answers from MAVA grantees were self-reported, and no formal assessment of each partnership’s impact was undertaken. This challenge of measuring the impact of partnerships and collaborative projects is broadly recognised. Perceived successes can come from delivering outputs and changing processes (e.g. agreements, plans, projects), through to having on-the-ground impacts (e.g. changes to land cover, biodiversity, pollution). However, considerable challenges remain in understanding how a partnership’s outputs lead to environmental outcomes77.

Collaborative advantage

Partnerships and their goals are inherently complex, and individual partners may have different understandings of what success looks like (Elliott, 2022) and how it can be measured. A growing body of research that explores the “theory of collaborative advantage” (Vangen & Huxham, 2014) is embracing this complexity, and a key part of these efforts is to provide practical guidance for those seeking to make a success of collaboration.

A final consideration regarding evidence from MAVA grantees is that there may be some potential for bias. This is because answers were not anonymous and were in response to a questionnaire sent by their donor. However, the mix of positive and negative responses to questions does provide some confidence that the answers gave a balanced view of grantee experiences.

Assumption A2: Being in a partnership has added value for the partners

The evidence highlights several ways in which partnerships may bring added value for partners. However, some sources also reveal that significant challenges must be overcome to enjoy the benefits of collaboration, and those benefits may not always be shared equally between partners. 

Partners should expect to invest significant time and resources into building and maintaining collaborative relationships and developing the processes that will allow for a functioning partnership.

Collaboration is unlikely to be the solution to all problems, and even when it is, it may not be conflict-free. Conflict can at times stimulate new ideas and lead to innovations, and so it may be worth embracing this challenge

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 45 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources.

A targeted questionnaire sent to 16 MAVA grantees provided 18 pieces of evidence. All recipients of the questionnaire were part of partnerships, for which MAVA provided both financial and in-kind support. The questionnaire was distributed to grantees in 2018–2019 as a means of evaluating the performance of the partnership.

Two statements in the survey focused on this assumption. Respondents indicated to what extent they agreed and provided free text to clarify their answer:

  1. Being a partner has an added value for your organisation
  2. After MAVA closes, your organisation identifies the need and advantage to continue collaborating within this partnership

Some variations of question two were used for different grantees, including “Your organisation is willing to actively engage within the partnership beyond 2022 and is committed to fundraise to support such cooperation” and “Your organisation will continue collaborative work and fundraising for the partnership after the end of MAVA funding from 2022 onwards”.

A systematic search of the Conservation Evidence database provided 5 pieces of evidence from 5 different sources. We found these sources using searches with the keywords partnership, partner, alliance, integrated planning, and integrated management. This returned 17 conservation actions and 262 studies. All study summaries were searched for evidence.

Finally, exploratory searches of the wider literature found 22 pieces of evidence from 10 sources. One source found through searches was a PhD thesis (Elliott, 2022). Following discussions with the author, this thesis provided several evidence pieces, as well as a range of other studies to explore further

Evidence assessment

On balance, the evidence provides some to strong support for the assumption.  While all evidence from MAVA questionnaires showed strong support, evidence from the wider literature was more mixed. 

Added value of partnering

Among the MAVA grantees that responded, all reported that the partnership had brought added value to them and that they would continue to show a commitment to the partnership into the future.

Evidence in support from the wider literature highlighted several benefits brought by being in a partnership:

  • Sharing or pooling resources – from sharing of equipment, databases, and technical tools (e.g. computer models)24; to co-locating staff and creatively pooling financial resources25; to sharing policies, regulations and social norms26.
  • Creation of collaborative organisations27 that become independent of each partner and work to enact the collaboration. However, building these organisations is not without challenges.
  • Healthy competition of ideas34, where some conflicts can and should occur. Some level of conflict may lead to improvements and progress.
  • Building networks and communities34, 39, 40 – including building long-term working relationships, trust, and mutual understanding between partners, and an increased ability to work with diverse stakeholders.
  • Innovation42, 43. Collaboration can stimulate and encourage innovation.
Learning to collaborate

Other evidence pieces suggested a more mixed view of the benefits of being in a partnership. 

Building collaborative organisations requires a large investment of time and resources to build the necessary trust and relationships32. Learning to collectively manage grants, contracts, and personnel31 also takes time, especially if new administrative problems are to be avoided. There is also the potential for costs and benefits to be spread unevenly between different partners41

One study makes the simple point that organisations learn to collaborate by collaborating30.

Issues can arise with time

Only two pieces refuted the evidence. One described how new collaborative organisations experience growing pains and can be overwhelmed by the effort required to develop and maintain the partnership33

The other source documented a failed collaboration between wildlife conservation groups and a petroleum company. New personnel brought different perspectives and motivations, “causing the good faith bargaining evident in the first year to waver”, and communications between several partners broke down35.

A final consideration regarding evidence from MAVA grantees is that there may be some potential for bias. This is because answers were not anonymous and were in response to a questionnaire sent by their donor. However, the mix of positive and negative responses to questions does provide some confidence that the answers gave a balanced view of grantee experiences


Learning question B: Why do effective partnerships differ in their set-up?

While there is no standard recipe for the perfect partnership, there is now practical advice available on how to achieve change through working collaboratively. The scope and mission of the partnership, the maturity of the community, and how leadership roles will function may all contribute to how collaborations will function.

Assumption B1: There is no standard recipe for the perfect combination of partners. What are the main variables to consider?

The evidence supports the assumption that there is no standard recipe for the perfect combination of partners. 

MAVA partnership managers highlighted that scope and mission of the partnership, the maturity of the community, and the role of good leadership are key features of partnerships. However, it may be wrong to consider any of these as explicit drivers of success. A framing from the wider literature was that different collaborative structures emerge depending on the interplay between context, knowledge, process, and vision. 

While there is likely no standard recipe for the perfect partnership, there is increasing practical advice available that may help to guide partnerships towards achieving change through collaboration

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 14 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources. 

An analysis of the features of MAVA’s strategic partnerships provided one piece of evidence. We assessed the features of the partnerships and their ability to raise external funds. Features included: number of partners, geographic scope, main objective of the partnership, type of partner, costs to set up the partnership and the average annual running costs.

Exploratory searches of the wider literature found 13 pieces of evidence from eight sources. One source found through searches was a PhD thesis (Elliott, 2022). Following discussions with the author, this thesis provided several evidence pieces, as well as a range of other studies to explore further.

Finally, to better understand the most important factors that contribute to a good partnership, we ran a four-hour workshop with six experienced partnership managers from the MAVA team

Evidence assessment

All the evidence considered supported the assumption that there is no standard recipe for the perfect combination of partners.

Factors in MAVA partnerships

The most important factors highlighted by MAVA partnership managers included: 

  • The scope/mission of the partnership
    • The more complex topics tend to be the more mature topics. More complex topics tend to imply 1) the need to work at more levels (local – international), 2) more types of partners (govt, NGOs, etc.), 3) more diverse set of conservation strategies” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
  • Maturity of the community
    • “Communication between partners is easier if they know each other for a long time – but that doesn’t mean they also function well together” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
    • “Often, it is more about the trust between people than trust between organisations/partners” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
    • “In some cases, mature partnerships are more efficient because of little upfront / overhead investment – you can get to the bottom of things straight away” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
    • “Sometimes the maturity/size/complexity of individual partners makes collaboration very hard as well” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
  • Leadership in the partner organisations and in the partnership as a whole.
    • “Good leadership (leaders and key people) leads to functioning partnerships”  [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
    • “Having good leaders among all key partners is important – can even lead to ‘joint’ leadership of the partnership” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
    • “Targeted investment in leadership development of key partners can do the trick” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
    • “Sharing responsibility and leadership on a rolling basis can work really well – time horizon is critical though” [statement agreed by three partnership managers]
Factors from wider literature

Evidence from the wider literature also supported the assumption that there is no standard recipe for a partnership. Some collaborations have found success by taking it in turns to step into leadership roles2, 3 depending on the skills required for a particular project. Others have employed “network governance” approaches to further collective interests, rather than those of any one partner4.

Some collaborations moved towards inclusion of a wide range of actors4. Others made a point of excluding certain organisations or interest groups8, preferring to limit partners to those that share the same values or mission. There are also differing opinions when it comes to the role of funders and whether they are considered external to, or part of, the partnership12.

One study suggests that different approaches to collaboration will emerge from the interplay between context, knowledge, process, and vision9. In this instance, “process” refers to the formal and informal rules that shape action, and “vision” refers to motivations that guide action (Wyborn, 2015b).

Wide variation in what works

A review of large-scale conservation in England, Scotland, and Wales demonstrates the huge variation in the make-up of different partnerships, as well as in the perceptions of what makes for a good partnership12. Two quotes from survey respondents demonstrate the point nicely:

“Large partnerships do not work, little gets achieved. Keep it simple”

“The bigger the partnership, the more security the project has, as there is more trust.”

There was large variation found within partnerships supported by MAVA as well:

  • Number of partners – ranged from one to 46
  • Geographic scope – from a single country to a whole region, e.g. the Mediterranean or West Africa
  • Main objective – from protection of a single species, to protection of a habitat type, to promotion of a broad strategy such as establishing circular economies
  • Composition of partners – combinations of NGOs, foundations, research institutes and governmental institutions
  • Set-up costs – ranged from 4,800 to 350,000 EUR
  • Annual running costs – ranged from 9,700 to 301,600 EUR
  • Fundraising ranged from 374,000 to 11,000,000 EUR, or 24,400,000 EUR in one unique case

Given that partnerships are very variable, and success is not dependent on a standard recipe, one study suggests that the focus should be on securing long-term outcomes that are resilient in the face of changes to funding, priorities of landowners, land ownership, organisational practices, and staff turnover11.

Practical advice

Finally, while a prescriptive approach to designing successful partnerships may be misguided, there is practical advice available for how change may be achieved through collaboration (adapted from Elliott (2022)):

  • Acknowledge the complexity and cost of inter-organisational collaboration. Collaborations are inherently complex, so cultivate realistic expectations regarding the efforts needed to manage and sustain them.
  • Consider the nature of the collaborative context. Will the collaboration deal with simple, complex, or chaotic problems? For complex and unpredictable problems, pre-determined approaches to achieving change are unlikely to be appropriate.
  • Work effectively across multiple forms of difference. Time, space, flexibility, and respect are needed to develop an understanding of different groups, cultures, or perspectives and to develop synergy from those differences.
  • Manage diversity for complexity and innovation. Diverse collaborations may be well-placed to address complex problems, but recognising the importance (and cost) of actively managing diversity within the collaboration is key (Vangen, 2017 and Vangen & Winchester, 2014).
  • Clarify understandings of change. Change is complex (Maes & Van Hootegem, 2011) and conservation literature and practice has so far not produced a consistent understanding of the concept. Clarifying understandings of change should enable better management of change-related decisions.
  • Recalibrate expectations for the evaluation of collaborative achievements. Consider social factors, the integration, and understanding of multiple perspectives, and multifaceted collaborative goals when evaluating the effectiveness of collaboration.
  • Consider whether and how the collaboration can respond to change. Consider how factors such as size, funding, and level of collaborative activity might impact a collaboration’s ability to be flexible and responsive, and ensure that expectations of adaptability are aligned and realistic.

Learning question C: Which costs and financial benefits do strategic partnerships imply?

While some partnerships can acquire significant additional funds, others find it more of a challenge. Individual partners can sometimes feel that they are competing for a limited pot of funds. A different approach could be conservation alliances setting the conservation agenda and interested funders rallying around it, or engaging in co-design from the start.

Assumption C1: The investment of setting up a partnership pays off through the additional funding acquired by the partnership over time

From the limited available evidence, we found some examples where partnerships were able to acquire significant additional funding. We also found examples where the opposite was true. In some cases, partners felt that they were in direct competition for limited funds.

In-house knowledge and expertise may increase a particular partnership’s capacity for fundraising. But that in itself won’t be sufficient. There will often be a requirement of upfront investment of time and resources. This may be in short supply for many nascent partnerships. 

A restructuring of the relationship between funders and grantees could see funders engage in meaningful co-design of projects that address the most pressing conservation challenges, with the agenda set by conservation collaborations

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 17 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources. 

An analysis of the funds raised by 19 strategic partnerships, established and supported by MAVA, provided one piece of evidence. We compared the funds raised by each partnership (as of March 2021) with 1) their estimated set-up costs; 2) their average annual running costs; and 3) their total budget. 

The average annual running costs included: 

  • the cost of Steering Committee Meetings
  • the funds provided to the coordinating partner(s)
  • the funds invested in communication (internal and external) and materials
  • the funds invested in fundraising and partnership development. 

This figure does not include the time of MAVA staff to support the partnership; the costs of the Mid-Term Evaluation process; nor the support provided by FOS Europe to each partnership.

A systematic search of the Conservation Evidence database provided one piece of evidence from one source. We found this source using searches for the keywords partnership, partner, alliance, integrated planning, and integrated management. This returned 17 conservation actions and 262 studies. All study summaries were searched for evidence.

Finally, exploratory searches of the wider literature found 15 pieces of evidence from five sources. One source found through searches was a PhD thesis (Elliott, 2022). Following discussions with the author, this thesis provided several evidence pieces, as well as a range of other studies to explore further.

Evidence assessment

On balance, the evidence we found neither supports nor refutes the assumption

Among the 19 MAVA partnerships, 16 raised funds in excess of their estimated set-up costs; 13 raised funds in excess of their set-up costs and average annual running costs; and 18 raised significant shares of their total budget. This provides some support for the assumption.

Evidence from the wider literature presented a more mixed view of the capacity for partnerships to raise additional funds.

Some partnerships showed a clear ability to raise large amounts of additional funding from sources that had not previously contributed to individual partners35. Some partners felt that collectively applying for grants increased their chances of success30, particularly when the partnership could present a broad, longer-term strategy39.

However, when available funds are limited, partners in a partnership may end up competing with each other37, with potentially damaging consequences for the partnership31. One source found that the ambitions of the partnership as a whole may at times be seen as a threat to some partner organisations38.

While collaborating may bring long-term benefits, organisations may be put off by the upfront costs29. One study revealed a funding “chicken-and-egg” dilemma relating to what comes first: seeking funding or developing a collaborative idea (Elliott, 2022). While it may seem logical to first develop an idea, this process can take significant investment of time and resources, which may not be possible without funds.

What is clear is that for many collaborative organisations, securing enough funding is a major concern40. As a result, in-house knowledge and expertise in fundraising are very valuable assets40.

More broadly, there is a view that the relationship between grantees and funders may need to change. Instead of funders determining the conservation agenda, a reorganisation could see conservation collaborations advising funders on conservation priorities and how they should be addressed (Elliott, 2022) – a concept very much in line with MAVA’s approach to strategic partnerships.

Join the learning

With this starting point based on best available evidence, we hope to spark discussion and to invite practitioners and organisations to learn about key conservation strategies.

If you are contemplating taking a similar approach for another strategy or would like to contribute with your evidence and insights, please contact us

We are planning exciting things to continue learning from evidence, including online events and new learning topics. Sign up here or email us at info@conservation-learning.org to receive updates.

Links

Download report

Web resources