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.

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 watersheds^72–73 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 itself^{64, 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.

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

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 communities^{34, 39, 40} – including building long-term working relationships, trust, and mutual understanding between partners, and an increased ability to work with diverse stakeholders.
• Innovation^{42, 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

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

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 roles^{2, 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.

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.

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.