 My name is John MacArthur. I'm a senior fellow with the United Nations Foundation, also with the Brookings Institution. I'm delighted to be here to talk about one of the most pivotal issues in global development, which is under the former title, Breaking the Siloes. But I would say, under the other word, partnership. And how do we promote a partnership between different actors in all senses around the world? This is, of course, a major moment of discussion and a great topic of discussion around the world, as we think about, in particular, the successors to the Millennium Development Goals, which will conclude next year at the end of 2015. And there's an active deliberation underway, which many people on the panel have been involved with, around the so-called post-2015 agenda and a broad notion of global sustainable development with pillars of economics, social inclusion, and the environment, probably through to a time horizon like 2030. So today, we're really going to focus on two key pieces of that, the business and the government in all sides. Obviously, both of those have many dimensions and operated all scales around the world. But we have a tremendously talented panel here today to share their perspectives from a variety of angles on those problems. So I'll just give a quick introduction and then we'll open it up. Just so everyone knows, this is a live webcast conversation. So we have a global audience today. It's fully on the record, as it should be, a very important global open discussion. So we're a small number here in the room, but a big number out there in the world. And I think there might even be some hashtags floating around on Twitter. So to my left is Secretary of State for International Development, Justin Greening, with the United Kingdom government. Next to her, we have Luis Alberto Moreno, who's the President of the Inter-American Development Bank. Peter Brabec Lamath is the Chairman of Nestle. We have Minister Maria Kuanuka, who's the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning in Uganda. We have Olaf Persson, who's the CEO of Volvo. And Seth Berkley, who's the CEO of the GAVI Alliance, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations. So we're going to hear from everyone as some thought starters on perspectives on this. And then we'd like to open it up to questions and some conversation from the audience. So maybe just to start, we are talking about development. And we're talking not only about developing countries, but I think there's a broad consensus that the needs of developing countries are paramount as we tackle these problems of global inequality and exclusion. And I'm wondering, Minister, if we could get your perspective first on this issue of breaking the silos from the Ugandan perspective. Thank you. I guess as Minister of Finance and as Minister responsible for planning projects to be done by the government, I have to break silos every single day. For instance, in tourism, the tourism minister might say, we need a road to such and such an attraction. So you better put the money in my budget. And the transport people say, no, no, the money for roads goes into our budget. So you have to get them to sort of work together. And then there's also the question of the private and the public interface. And a private individual will say, well, if you give me such and such tax incentives, I can do such and such which the government can't do. So there again, I have to use the little rules that I dreamt up saying that the financial costs or the financial benefits that the government gives up have to be more, have to be less than the economic value of the project. So these are the kind of breaking silos and the same with the development partners and the same with outside partners. Wonderful, thank you. Very concise and to the point. Peter, you are chairman of one of the world's foremost companies that's been grappling with these issues for quite a long time, but has a number of both innovative partnerships and lessons drawn from the broad experience. Any thoughts you might share with us? Yeah, I think I'm here more in my role as chairman of the Water Resource Group 2030 than in the my role as chairman of Nestle. The Water Resource Group is an innovative public private partnership which has as its objective really to break those silos. It was interesting when we set out this thing. Director General Ban Ki-moon, he told me, he said, are you sure you want what you're going into? He said, only at the UN we have 16 silos for water. And what has proven to us is that whenever we are going to work with governments, we find about between 20 and 30 ministers, agencies that are all working on water, everybody in its own silo. And if you go down to the source of this silo sinking, it's really all only now ahead. So one of the things that you can help in order to break those silos is to get a better understanding of the externalities that there are. I give you an example, biofuels, okay? I mean, if you talk biofuels until you talk it only in the context of CO2, you are missing a big part of the story. It takes you 9,600 liters of water to produce one liter of biodiesel. If you don't understand that and you don't see these links, you will never understand a discussion about water or a discussion about biofuels. If you don't see the link that there is between water as the nexus for food safety and for energy safety at the same time, you will not break the silos. And that I think is the first step, extremely important. And the other one of course is the creation of partnerships out of those. But I also, I mean, running one of those partnerships, I think it is also important to understand that it is not the amount of partnerships that we're going to create. I think first of all, before you create a partnership, you have to be very clear, very open and transparent about what do you want to achieve. And to have analyzed your externalities very carefully. And the other thing is, once you have this partnership, what we have learned is there is a very important role to be played by governments. Because against the commercial company, what I have learned, for this public-private partnership, there is no market who punishes you if you're not efficient. You see, so it's very easy to create the next partnership and just spend a lot of money and nobody checks your efficiency. Therefore, there's a vital role for governments to be the one who constantly checks whether those partnerships, public-private partnerships are really delivering what they have to deliver. I think that's another consideration, very important one. Maybe, Luis, you've dealt with this from the policy side, of course. I think this is a very deep thread throughout a lot of this is the companies, of course, approach it from what they do and the policy makers approach it from what's needed. How do you see that tension resolving itself or as we move forward? Well, the first thing is as being up from Peter who's done an amazing job in getting all these different stakeholders to work in different geographies, in solving water problems which are certainly in the rural parts that I know best in Latin America where the biggest problems are and that's equally true in many parts of the emerging world. But when you think of silos, I think, first of all, public or private. The reality is that more and more private sector money is coming to attempt to solve public goods. Be they're public goods that are regional in nature or global in nature. And how that combination works is fundamental. The other side, Luis, the traditional notion that development came from the north to the south, more and more you're seeing this south of cooperation. And the kinds of challenges that governments are beginning to have are very different. For instance, the process of urbanization, which is equally, Latin America, for instance, the most urbanized area of the emerging world. But look at Asia, the velocity with which they are having those same challenges or for that matter, Africa. So what we've done is internally, any big organization has bureaucratic challenges. What we did was to create an office of partnerships that its sole purpose is to break those silos. So if we wanna work like we have done with the water resources group, the people responsible for the dealing in this case, thinking as in any corporation, the client, is the people who are gonna mobilize internally our staff and then and only then begin to compare who does what better. With the notion that we as development institutions, a multilateral in this case, have to be measured by results. And this is a constant demand that we have from our shareholders, which are governments. They want us to see how we are measuring for results. And in this regard, there's many examples that I'm happy to share later in the conversation. But the fundamental point is that in today's world, in the challenges that we have, with the limited resources that we have, going around everybody at the same problem doesn't make sense. And therefore, how to do partnerships, which is easy to say and much more difficult to do as you begin to put all these pieces together. And we've had fascinating conversations. We had one this morning, precisely with the Water Resources Group of why in 10 different areas of the world, it worked best in one place as the other. And then you start to think there are stakeholders who can do these things better than others, how to let them take the lead. These are the kinds of practical elements that are at the end of the day policy driven, but especially management driven. It's a really interesting question of how's it going in these public-private partnerships. It's been a big topic, maybe just as an experiment. We want this to be interactive with the audience. I'd love to just pull the audience. If you were to give your gut answer on a scale of maybe zero to 10, voting with your fingers, if 10 is the best thing ever and zero is you think it's not going well at all, how do you think globally the world is doing it, figuring out public-private partnerships? Do you think 10 is, we're fantastic, we've got it? Zero, you're not sure, five halfway, just by a vote of hands. Any nines or tens? A lot of fives and threes, sixes. So two, okay. So it's interesting, I think this point speaks to some of the things that have already come out. There's a sense of ambiguity. There were only a couple low scores, but there were no real high scores, not many. And so Olaf, I'm curious, you've just launched one particular major partnership, maybe if you want to tell us about it, but as a leading CEO, how do you think about the ways to define success? I think when it comes to actually the private sector's involvement in the work we're talking about and also being a part of breaking the silos, I think one very important thing that we have to do is to go back to our own mission and vision and start there and see how can we make sure that this is something that is totally integrated into the business. And in our case, I mean, we are supplying trucks and buses and construction equipment around the world. We are active in 192 countries, and we are part of the societal development. And what we did two years ago was that we implemented a new strategy that we wanted to be world leader in sustainable transport solutions. It was very easy to discuss with customers and the organization about world leader. Everyone understood that. Transport solution was quite easy to explain as well. But then you came to the world sustainability. And we had for many years cared for the environment as our core values, and we still have one of our core values. And employees and organizations started to connect sustainability with that. And that's not exactly what we want because there's so much more. And then all of a sudden we have the answers lying just in front of us. And that is the UN definition from 1997, where you talk about in order to get true sustainability, you talk about environmental, social, and economic sustainability. And then we started to transform that into the company. And how does that mean for us being active in development countries in Africa, where we actually are active in 45 countries in Asia and other parts of the world in South America? And then all of a sudden we started to get a much more intelligent discussion internally. What is actually our contribution connected to our business plans? And then we started to get a foundation where you start to be a really valuable partner to the state agencies or the NGOs, where you actually can completely discuss on a different level. And one example is the one we're launching now in Africa, where we're together with USAID and the Swedish SIDA are launching a program over the next years to educate 1,000 mechanics in 10 African countries. And going back to what that means for us, if we have, which we have, a target to grow in Africa, one of the most limiting factors is educated and skilled mechanics. So what we do here is actually together creating a competitive advantage, something that makes us be able to grow, and at the same time we create a very good basis and a sound foundation for a lot of people going forward. And then you can add on, not only this technology, you add on traffic safety, you add on a lot of other topics as well. And we're really looking forward to that. This is a long-term commitment. It's going to take years. We believe it's five, six years that we're going to be. And this is something we're really looking forward to because for the first time, and it's so easy to explain into the organization, and we get so much traction and proudness. So we are really looking forward to this. I have to say I find this a very thoughtful example because so many people talk about things like capacity constraints as if they're fixed. When there are so many things where just a little bit of leverage that can have a huge multiplier, we see this in health systems, we see this in agriculture systems, obviously transport, it's a major part of the real economy. It's a really powerful example. And we're all hoping those thousand mechanics create many tens of thousands of jobs with the transport costs. Minister Greening, Justin, you're leading this in addition to being Secretary of State for UK's Development Initiatives as co-chair of the Global Partnership Initiative, which is really following a major conference in Busan not long ago, really trying to galvanize a new approach to this globally. How do you see this? I think it's absolutely critical. I think for quite a long time, as it were, the development industry often saw the private sector as something that was maybe working in parallel but slightly on one side. And I don't think there was probably enough working together and unlocking the common goals that both groups had. Mexico is about bringing all those people together, breaking down their silos and understanding what good looks like more effectively. I think if you look at economies, look at countries that have lifted people out of poverty, there's a direct correlation between economic growth, about 3% and persistent falls in poverty. It's not just good for countries as a whole because we know that prosperity creates tax receipts which creates the funds to be able to go into health sectors, education sectors. It's good for people. If you actually ask people what they want, fundamentally, towards the top of their list, if not at the top of it, is a job. And they want some form of personal financial independence over their life. And ultimately, when you strip everything away, it's gonna be the private sector and economic growth that delivers that. And that's why we can't afford to ignore it. And so within my own development agency, Difford, what I've been really clear about is that we need to have this issue of economic development much more at the core of what we're looking at. We can, of course, continue to do some fantastic programs around health, around education, around water and sanitation. We'll keep all of that. But in a sense, if we don't do a better job on understanding what our role is working with business, working with countries like Uganda on economic development, we've really only got half a strategy and we have to have a whole strategy. The Mexico meeting in April is about understanding what good looks like together. So it's not good in the terms of what I might think or what a finance minister in Uganda might think or what maybe Olaf might think. It's about reaching a common view about what works and providing ourselves, hopefully, with a real framework that I think businesses that perhaps haven't seen this as something that they can be part of can understand what it is and start to take some decisions about getting involved. I don't think in the long term, the private sector actually has much of a choice. These are the next frontier economies. These are the ones that in 10, 15 years time will be growth economies. These are the next markets coming through absolutely make sense for business to understand those markets. And it makes sense for us to work in countries working on improving capital flows, working on stimulating the entrepreneurship that's already there to start creating those jobs and those supply chains that big companies will be interested in tapping into as those economies grow and develop. So I think it's incredibly important and actually we were talking earlier today about some of the big ticket issues that are being discussed at Davos. I think that perhaps can be no bigger issue than the amount of poverty that still remains in the 21st century. That's just not an overwhelming challenge. I think when you look at it from an economic perspective it's a huge opportunity for the world as well. But we will need to work together across these different what have been silos to unlock that value. Thank you. And I do want to draw attention to the fact that the UK government as perhaps as much as or more than any other country in the world has put its money where its mouth is in speaking of partnership. So Minister has just spoken about the private sector but of course the UK is the one country that's followed through on its commitment over the past decade to reach the 0.7 aid target which is not an either or it's a both. And that has been a central piece of so many of the bits that in addition of course, many countries several five are already there. We have a Swedish colleague in the front. I think when the first G8 country that's the key for the UK. The first one that made a commitment leading up to 2005 that has reached it and 10 other countries made similar commitments but didn't get there. So this shows what leadership looks like to join that exclusive club. And that's really to be celebrated because it's about both. And that's maybe a nice segue to many of the breakthroughs. I would argue the biggest breakthroughs in global development in the past decade have been in the area of health. And the first revolutionary institution that kicked a lot of it off was launched here at Davos a dozen years ago, Gavi. And it is the world's I think preeminent public-private partnership. It's up for a replenishment this year. So those dollars do matter but it doesn't do anything exclusively. It's a partnership. And maybe, Seth, if you could share. Thank you, John. I think I'll follow well on what Justine said. Let me just start on a couple of development facts that have really changed. So we traditionally thought about development aid as being critical flows for these countries. That's certainly changed. And today, development aid is dwarfed by foreign direct investment, by private investments, by even remittances coming home from people living overseas. And yet they play an important role. The other thing that's happened is that the demographics have changed. And so when we had this big push when Gavi was first started, most poor people lived in poor countries, 90%. Today, 70% of the poor are living in middle-income countries. So we have a changing dimatic situation that needs to be dealt with differently. And for me, these problems, big problems like health are not gonna be solved by any one sector alone. It's gonna require interesting new ways to work. As John said, Gavi was born here in Davos in 2000. We've been very successful. We've immunized 440 million people and prevented more than six million deaths. But when I say we, I don't mean my organization, these are what countries are doing, and we don't work in the ground duplicating anybody. We work in partnership with other institutions, with the UN, with NGOs, and of course with the private sector to solve major problems. And the challenge in going forward is how you bring a market-based solution to this fundamental problem, which is we have these amazing vaccines, they save lives. They didn't get to the people who needed them the most. So for the poorest of countries, for the poorest people, the way this problem was solved is that donor aid was provided to help co-finance vaccines for those countries. But every country had to pay something. If you're very poor a little bit, as you get wealthier more and more, and then eventually you graduate from that aid. And that's very important. But the second part of that is in graduation, how do we bring the prices down? And we do that by working with industry, both in trying to create efficiencies in the market, by bringing new companies into the market, and trying to create some transparency that's going on. And we've been able to save $1.3 billion in the last five years in price reductions by working with companies both in the North and South. And that's really changed the whole market. So many other examples I could go through, but I think the important issue here is you can't have development without health. You need to have people living through their full potential. And then how do we make sure that health is done in the most efficient way as possible as a number of the other panelists have said? And for those who might not have seen it, Bill Gates had a very nice article recently on that. The global shift in even vaccine production, how this is becoming not just a public-private partnership, but a global partnership with the technology being generated around the world, which is very exciting. I'd like to open it up for questions. Is anyone in the room one who posed something to the panel? We have about 15 or maybe 20 minutes for questions, but this is a chance to get your views as to things you might like to raise in the challenge of global partnership. In the back, I think we have a roving mic, and we'll take maybe three at once and then see how the panel goes with them. And introduce yourself, please. John Hucco from Rotary International. Just a question to the panel on what are some of the effective mechanisms to bridge the gap between the NGO community and the private sector? We talk a lot about partnerships, and particularly private sector partnering with government. It seems to me there's a big gap between the NGO community and the private sector. They live in different worlds. They speak a different language. And I think those of us in the NGO community have been struggling for a long time. It's how to bridge that gap. And I'd like to just hear the thoughts of the panel on how that might occur. Thank you. Maybe a couple from up here. And catch my eye if you want. And we'll get you in the next round, yeah. Thank you. My question is actually for- Could you introduce yourself, please? Yes, my name is Asif Saleh. I'm a senior director at an organization called BRAC. It's one of the largest NGOs. Our strategic partner being UK government. And Minister Greening, actually. But my question is actually for anybody. The success that we have seen in the health sector, in terms of with Gavi, also with Global Fund, why can that not be replicated in other sectors like education as well? I mean, that's a great model. That's a great success story. Why can we replicate that in other models? Thank you. I think Jane had something. My name is Jane Chen from Embrace Innovations. We're a social enterprise that has developed a low-cost baby incubator for developing countries. Seth, you touch on this a little bit. But my question is given how challenging public-private partnerships are, can some of you guys talk about specific failures that you have faced and what you've learned from those failures? Great. So maybe a broad question to start on getting the NGOs. And maybe we can hear from our business leaders first on how you see that. Maybe Peter, how do we get this NGO private sector mixed mesh? Well, I think first of all, I would say where we are standing today, we have done enormous progress. If I compare that with only 10 years ago, and if I look at the collaboration, constructive, positive collaboration between public companies and NGOs, this is day and night. And I think this came about because at the end of the day, in mostly private conversation, we started to say, come on. We have sometimes, not always, exactly the same objectives, targets. And we are spending 99% of our time to fight each other. And not even 1% to find a solution to the problem. And once we started to say, look, why don't we spend even off the record more time together to see how we can find solution to the problems. We started to build a certain base of trust. I've always said, I mean, it was absolutely a stunning experience. It is still partially is. I will take one because it's public. I mean, Greenpeace has been fighting us because we have an open position on GMO. But Greenpeace has been working with us on CO2, on the Montreal Point, very strongly together. So I have Greenpeace in the morning in my office as my partner, and in the afternoon on the walls against, again, an activist. You have to learn to accept that. And starting to work, I mean, we had Oxfam, we had, I mean, many of very important NGOs who were only in the past confrontational, and we have been able to build slowly, slowly, slowly at a collaboration, a constructive collaboration based upon one mutual trust. And I think this has helped a lot. There are still, and there will always be, some part of the civil society, the community, who is not willing to see that if they're really worried about a social objective, the collaboration and the partnership is the only way to really efficiently get to this problem. They will just be what I call the extreme activist NGOs who can only see by confrontation that they have a reason to live. But I must say, in general terms, this collaboration has improved enormously, and it is absolutely in favor of the social goals that we've commonly had. I see you nodding, Maria. I want to get your views on this. Olaf, what would you say? I agree, and I think it's very much what you said, about the trust issue, and also that NGOs sees that the company is now much more structural, much more strategic, much more consequent over a long time. It's actually working on targets goals, which is so obvious when you sit down and look at them, because as you said, everyone wants the same thing. But it's also a clarity from us, at least if I speak for the Volvo Group, that this is a part of the business, this is a part of the strategy. If not, then we will not get sustainability, we will not get to commitment long term. Then it can be ad hoc good things that we do, but it has to be integrated. And that might have take some time for the NGOs to sort of embrace, but once that is done, I think we don't see any issues with that. And we have now, according to the sustainability definition, we now work with a number of NGOs, very structural, long term, and strategic. And that is a good, if you look at around the activities we're doing, and the societies we are in, the sites and the production sites, they're always areas that we can address from an NGO point of view as well, and we would like to do that. Riya. I'd like to chip in from the government's point of view just by giving a quick example of what I think the government does in such areas. For instance, someone mentioned the great strides taken under the health sector, and that is no exception in Uganda. A lot of money has gone into the health sector. But I said to myself last year when I was preparing the budget, I said, what is the biggest single factor in health in Uganda? And it was malaria, more than HIV AIDS, more than tuberculosis, more than anything else. Malaria kills more people in Uganda than all the other diseases put together. So, and it's not just a health issue, it's a productivity issue. People are sick and they can't work. It is a big factor in maternal mortality, which is one of the millennium goals. It's a big factor in stunted childhood or early death in infancy. So I said, okay, as a government, we'll lead. And I said, any entity that's going to be active in the health sector in Uganda, whether you're a private sector, whether you're an NGO, whether you're a CSO, whether you're a corporation, whether you're the government, let us come up with a malaria strategy to roll back malaria the same way we roll back polio some years back. So we've had a round table going of, led by the corporates with input from the NGOs, with input from the bilaterals, the academics, they've come in and given us a lot of their research findings. So by May, we'll have a strategy that is ready for funding with clear goals over the next six years in two cycles on how to lower the incidence of malaria in Uganda to below 30%. And that was where all the different actors came together because they all believed that malaria is a big issue. But again, the government had to lead the way by saying this is the number one priority. It's amazing. I had the privilege to work with some of your colleagues in the ministry many years ago where the case wasn't so strong. And so it's remarkable to see that progress in the leadership to really provide the driving force. Led by the Ministry of Finance. Yeah. Which means there's money on the line. And brings up, which concentrates people's minds wonderfully. Seth, you wanted to jump in on this. Things have really changed. And so if I go back 15 years ago here at the World Economic Forum, there were a handful of NGOs. There was the suspicion, there wasn't the trust. But there also wasn't the language. There wasn't the embracing of the different skill sets that people brought to the table. And to me, one of the failure issues that was asked about is when you try to have one institution, one group do everything. That's a problem. And the best way to do this is to make these interesting partnerships and to use the skills that one has. So for example, WHO is very important for quality control for us. They need to be there as a normative standard to make sure vaccine standards are right, that they're safe, and that they're pre-qualified, et cetera. They can't negotiate with private companies. They can't. And if they try to do that, they don't have the skills. They don't have the language, their suspicion. They only want to do with everybody in the room. And so when we think these new partnerships, the challenge is to recognize that we've got to bring those specific skills. And I think it's been fascinating as we've worked through this. Sitting on our board is everybody from foundations like the Gates Foundation, NGOs, some critical, some helpful, some delivering vaccines, but also private sector companies, developing country private sector companies. The conversation isn't always harmonious, but what it does is it aligns interests and it allows us to understand, develop that trust to really solve these problems. Justine, we have maybe a couple of questions embedded in there for you. I do. I'll try and cover all of them, actually. I mean, obviously, Rotten's done some fantastic work on behalf of civil society in polio. And I think what it shows is that if you're going to have a full solution, it will need a variety of different actors. And health is one area where we can see that really clearly. And Asi, if you asked about Global Fund and GAVI, I think we've learned a huge amount from understanding what's made those mechanisms successful. And invariably, it's about having some investment from donors, country-owned plans. It's about having the technology, the creativity and the innovation. It's about having civil society beating the drum both internationally, but also often domestically to help drive through change on the ground. And then actually, it's about having some really good accountants and procurement people who can max out the numbers so that every single pound, in my case, of money that is going in to make a difference doesn't just make a bit of a difference. It makes a big difference because it's leveraging in so much more investment and so much more impact than it otherwise would if we were just doing it as a bilateral program on our own. So I think those sorts of experiences have really shown us the way. And they've opened our eyes about the fact that if we can work successfully together, we can achieve a huge amount. Jane, you asked about failures and what we can learn from them. I think it's Germany A, when we don't work together. B, when we don't have a country-owned plan. So if there isn't that leadership politically, it is hard to get things done. I think the other one that maybe hasn't been mentioned is often scale. So we might try some pilot projects that are remarkably effective in one place or at one level, but it's hard for various reasons to get them to scale up to a level that will make a big difference across a lot of different people. But I mean, overall, just to come back to the original point, I think business and the NGO community have never been closer and I think they're coming closer together. And I think it requires leadership on both sides to continue to make that happen. It's always easy to be able to say what you don't want to do. It's far harder to sit down with people and try and hash out a way forward. And I think many of our leading NGOs, Oxfam now on the advisory board of Marx and Spencers, for example, the ethical advisory board, all of those steps forward, I think, are starting to help us achieve so much more together than we ever would be able to do just working apart. Luis, I'd love to hear anything you'd like to add, but on the failures, managing a large institution, how you look at that? Well, first of all, in development, failures are part of success, not part of something that you just take a distance and say, well, if I failed on this, then I have a problem. I mean, if it were that easy, it would have been fixed a long time ago. So this is something that is fascinating because I think more and more in the business community, when you apply business principles, you want to see success fast, you think it's probably easier. And as I'm sure Peter would tell you, little by little, he's learned how difficult it is to solve these problems when you deal with civil society, with NGOs and the rest of it. Now, I think as we clearly, I agree with what's been said in terms of the great advance that has taken place in the notion of coming together between the private and the public sector and solving poverty issues. The other area is how the models that you implement have to be refined and learned as we go. And this is, I think, an ongoing learning experience. And let me just give you an example. In Central America, with the Gates Foundation, the Carlos Slim Foundation each put $50 million and the government of Spain another $50 million. This was a commitment made about almost four years ago. The purpose was to concentrate on the 20% poorest people in that region around neonatal care, maternal reproductive health. And the deployment of these resources is done on the basis of every patient that is taking care of. And the payment to the direct beneficiary is about $30, which is something like five times more what the average expenditure governments were doing. Now, this meant in essence that today of the resources that have been deployed, about two thirds have been done by this fund and another 30 to 40% has been done by the governments. Now, go and look at the results. In the case of Honduras, you had a 24% increase of coverage. In El Salvador today, almost 93% of total births are taken in hospitals. And when you look at the poorest, most of the deaths happen precisely because they're not taken. In a country like Nicaragua, close to, there's a system of subsidies to pay for the transportation of those poor people to go and get that healthcare. And the growth of not your traditional big hospitals which is the old kind of French kind of delivery system that you used to have at least in our countries, but more and more the growth of health centers where you can provide basic attention and that has grown significantly. So those are some of those outcomes that you begin to learn as you go. But embedded in this was the principle that you can measure the impact and you were only delivering the payment as you were dealing with patients. So you really create all the right incentives in this regard. It's been a very interesting kind of model. This notion of measurement becoming the norm is one of the great gains of the past 15 years, I would say. But also that seems a little bit obvious, but the part I think that's come up so much here which is really important is that these global goals, global challenges, the Millennium Goals and others have given this common reference point which has been a subtler way prompted as many people have said of this collaboration. Of course we wanna do that. Of course we want to eliminate malaria deaths or people living in hunger, vaccines and so forth. And it does draw attention to this question of what the goal should be next. What have we learned from that and how to take them forward? I have a couple of follow up questions but I wanna see if anyone in the audience has some first. Please, there's Mike coming right here. Thank you. My name is Otto Lampe. I'm the German Ambassador to Switzerland and previously in other functions also dealing with the issues that we're talking about here. Implicitly when we're talking about PPP we're implying that it's a cooperation of the global north and the global south. Companies of the global north cooperating with the global south. Now we've had some amazing developments in some parts of the third world, former third world developing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. And I was wondering to which extent companies, local, regional companies, for instance African companies that are emerging have already been getting involved with private public partnership. Thank you. Local companies, what's their role? Anya, Andy, I'm seeing a leading practitioner partnerships in the audience. Not to put you on the spot but I wanna make sure I don't miss you. Anything you'd like to ask? Well, I think there's a huge opportunity for... Could you introduce yourself? Sorry, Andy Wells from SAB Miller. I think there's a huge opportunity for local companies and multinationals to work in partnership. I guess one of the challenges though is the scale and resources need to build the capability in so many local companies. And that's where I think there's a huge opportunity for and I've been interested in the panel's views on the way that donors and business can work together in quite targeted ways, sharing resources to build capability in many, many, many small local companies to enable them to access value chains better. Any others at this stage? So we have this great question of local capacity. We have two of the world's most eminent companies but of course so much of the job creation, so much of the employment is local. Even farmers of course are much of the workforce in Africa. How do you think about each of you supporting that? And I'm curious, can we set goals even among companies for working with companies? Can we take it another layer down to go from the big global aggregates to set more of these kind of outreach objectives in addition to the project ones? Is that practical? Is that too much to ask? Olaf? I think it is a process. And I mean over the years we can take Brazil for an example, we enter Brazil 1972. Today we have a full-fledged not only own production but a subsupply network, distribution network built up in Brazil. If you look at the development of our subsupplier and company involvement, local manufacturing involvement in China has exploded over the last five, 10 years. But it started with a sales company. It went into a distribution company, went into final assembly company and then we went into the full-fledged production. And during this period we always engage and you have to because when you're local you need to make sure that that's the most efficient way. Again, coming back to the strategy in a business sense. It's much more better to do that. And in order to do that, we developed over time also the subsupply. But this is nothing that comes from Monday to Friday. This is a year-long process that you need to work. But history shows the step-by-step that's at least our development in the countries that we're going to. Any others? Luis? I just think that it's a very good question but let me say on that, what I at least find in Latin America is a lot of companies increasingly very focused on development issues. I see Lorenzo Mendoza who's here. They've been doing amazing things in Venezuela for many, many years. And perhaps they were done quietly. They were done at the margins of government. And this notion of partnership, something that is being built, I think because of what we've been discussing here. But certainly, I see local companies in many countries in Latin America working very closely with us in private public partnership. Yeah, I would also say, I mean, if I take the example of the water resource group, let me go through these different levels. I mean, first of all, I insist again, the importance of goals. It's not the importance of the amount of partnerships that we are creating. You have to start with the goals. And there comes the importance of the sustainable development goals and the millennium goals. They are extremely important because those are the main targets. And they are global. From there onwards, you start to go down. I think the development bank has a responsibility within these development goals to start to define specific for the region goals that have to become part of it. And then you come to the national level. So those goal setting is extremely important. It's on these goals, once you identify you want to be part of solving a problem and become a thing, you then start to look for your partners. And I think it was said very carefully and very clearly. We have to find the different skills that each one of these partners bringing today. And you said it very clearly. I mean, fantastic organization like WHO, but not necessarily the best partner for certain things. That's the creation of a partnership. Where do we get the best skills? NGOs have fantastic skills for certain things and less skills for that. So this comes into the next level. And then I come to this measuring which I also mentioned in the beginning. I said there is no market for a private partnership. Therefore, there has to be somebody who measures. And I think the question that Justin was saying, at the end of the day, how much value get out of every invested dollar? And I make a bet with you if you have a good public-private partnership, you get more out if you have just a development agency working with the country, with the government. Those are very clear sets that you can structure such a partnership. And then I come to the local level. At least at the water resource group. We are working with nine countries. We have four people in Washington. Four people. They run the whole initiative all over the world. How can we do it? Because we applied basically a management principle that we recreate in every single country in which we are working a local public-private partnership where we're invocating the local companies. So the leader, for example, in South Africa, is Sub-Miller. It's not the Coca-Cola. It's not the Pepsi-Cola. It's not the Nestle. It's Sub-Miller because the closest to the market. The best one who understands. The leader in Mongolia. It's a Mongolian company. They are the leader. And the Nestle's and the Coca-Cola's and the other multinationals are at the service of that. But the leadership is in the local scene. So we are very much in the executional part. We're very much insisting that the local environment is fully responsible for the execution afterwards. The local government, the local NGOs, the local private enterprises. I think that's extremely important. Maria and Seth, yeah. I'd like to give another example of how the government is working together with international companies, local companies, and the farmers in the field. In Uganda, SAB Miller and the other beer companies started using locally grown sorghum and barley to make certain types of beer. So that created employment in the countryside. And by having the international company behind the project, not doing the farming behind the project, it meant that the local industry started distributing seeds. They started distributing insecticides. There's some extension work going on because the extension workers know they'll be paid by the farmers. And it's all because of the certainty of the take up of the product. And what the government has done, what we did is to give them tax incentives to grow, to use more locally grown inputs for the beer. And my own personal contribution was to stand up to the T-Totola lobby who frowned on the beer industry getting lower taxes. But again, it goes back to saying to the government, say, how can we measure this? What are we losing in tax revenues? And what are we gaining? Even if not in taxes, but in people being employed and in a sustainable way, in a certifiable way where there's standardization and verification of the output. And I'm very happy with it. In fact, I want to talk to you all some more about Kassava because Kassava is a typically smallholder crop which I think we can grow in Uganda for beer, for industry, and as a food crop. And talking of- Dahos 2014, Kassava beer launched in Uganda. And talking of the regional aspects, South-South, what we're doing in East Africa, the five East African countries, I'm discussing with my colleagues, the other finance ministers, how we can harmonize the excise regime on such products across the whole of East Africa. So again, the international or the multilateral nationals will know what kind of environment they're working in over a bigger area. And DFID, for instance, has come in to help us set up trading posts, border posts to quicken the flow of imports and exports and just generally merchandise around the region. And what the governments did was to crack the whip on the revenue authorities and the port authorities, the police and the way bridges along the way to get them to get their acts together so that now goods can move from Mombasa to Kampala in as little as five days and before it used to take 20. No investment, just creating a framework for the private sector and the development partners to assist. That's a great story, Seth. You know, this is also, I think, something that's really in transition. I mean, I talked before about vaccine manufacturing moving to some countries, it can't go local everywhere given the cost of it. But DFID actually did a very interesting thing for us in our last replenishment. They set up a matching fund to bring industrial expertise in. And where has that become important? Well, for example, modernizing the supply chain. So here you have vaccines, life-saving, critical things, they require refrigeration, transport, good data flows, communications. We're using technology from the 60s. Certainly industry isn't. I mean, if you look at the way supply chains are managed, then you can't just take one of those supply chain management systems and put it necessarily exactly as is. But how do we learn? How do we work with them? And that includes not just global companies, so we're working with some global companies working on these issues, but also getting the governments comfortable to outsource some of their activities. So for example, one of the problems is vehicle maintenance. There are NGOs that are working on that, but there are many companies that could be outsourced to do that or refrigerator maintenance or other activities so that you bring the best of the skills of the private sector in working in partnership with government and not requiring the government to be doing the transport repair or the refrigerator repair or the communications. And I think around digital technology, we've seen how quickly that can come in with private business engaging and all the uses that that could do, but it hasn't necessarily made the leap as much as it could, not just for health, by the way, but for education and other areas. Olaf, you had something. Ma'am, I'm afraid we have to move to closing comments shortly, so just a minute. I just want to say that one, in order to break into silos, and we are touching on that on many areas here, but one thing is also to get sharing across companies. And in Sweden, for instance, CEDA, the Swedish Development Agency, has put up a program together with all the major Swedish export companies under a program called the Swedish Leadership in Sustainable Development. And in that forum, we then share the experience we do have and sort of the problems we might erase, the solutions, and by that also we can be more efficient because they're starts now to get a huge amount of experience in this public private partnership. It's a lot of peace there. So I think that's a very good thing to share. Justina, I think you have something to add in on this, and I just want to add a question to you because we're looking at a really interesting dynamic here where the business is more and more engaged and wants to be more and more engaged at the same time, I would say, in the politics, there's a lot of concern around inequality. There's the occupying movements of the world. There's a concern, you know, what legitimacy do they have? And so you, as both a minister and a co-chair of this global partnership, there's a balancing act between ensuring accountability but also promoting engagement, which is really at the heart of so much of this. How do you balance that tension in the way that's most productive? I think it's really simple. There are significant aid flows going into developing countries, but they're dwarfed by private sector investment and we either work together to shape it or it will just happen anyway. And it may or may not drive inclusive growth. So I don't think we've got a choice about whether we work together. I think we absolutely have to. And I mean, just I wanted to say, I agree with what everybody said and particularly some of the work in East Africa on reducing trade barriers and just the nitty gritty of getting business done and reducing the cost of moving your goods around. It's transformational. It's like most companies, you change a million things that will save you one cent. It adds up to being a market leader. But the other thing I think we shouldn't lose sight of is it's not just about private sector. So some of the work that DFID's now doing is with the London Stock Exchange. We took the London Stock Exchange to Tanzania. We're now linking them up with the Tanzania Capital Markets Authority. And actually, if you look at the prospect for homegrown growth, if capital markets function effectively, that can be massively powerful. And one of the things that we'll be doing at the Mexico meeting is looking at development impact bonds and that sort of impact investment that can really get money into helping companies grow at a grassroots level, not just at that sort of five, 10 million level, but at that smaller scale level that really, for many economies, we're talking about is the bedrock of that day-to-day economy. And I think for me, if we can start to correct that financing piece of it, then I think you get a really exciting prospect of potentially quite rapid and quite inclusive growth because actually people can start to grow their own companies and create jobs themselves. We just have a minute and a half left and we have to be punctual, but I would like to ask each of our panelists and I'm going to suggest, what's one thing that you'd hope this audience takes away about where we need to go on public-private partnerships? Each of you has such a different perspective. Each of you sees a different piece of the puzzle. If there were just one memorable thing in 20 seconds that you could share, what would that be? And while you're thinking about that, I do just want to add, I'm going to start with you Seth, so you're first on the spot. This is one part of a much broader conversation that the forum has been convening. I think we're number three in a four-part sequence, even in this, there was a session yesterday, there will be a dinner with many people tonight, there's a broader event tomorrow and there's going to be a public conversation with, I know, David Cameron and I think Bono and Jasmine Whitbread, that'll be televised, so this is not a one-off conversation. We know that, but I want to salute the forum for its commitment to really not just convening and launching, but facilitating a lot of these partnerships to come to fruition because it's in this type of multi-stakeholder environment that we can have the frank conversations that lead to it. So with that, I've given you time to think and Seth, bring us home, and we'll come down the line. The great problems of the world are not going to be solved by any one sector alone. It's going to require this type of work and working together in innovative ways. And I think the one thing I'd say is that I was a little dismayed by some of the low scores that we had on public-private partnerships. I actually think there's a lot of good examples now. It's not 100%, and this is something that's growing and we're learning. It has to do with trust, it has to do with working together, but that is how we will solve these problems and we just need to keep at it and making sure we continue to prioritize this very important working together. We have a branding exercise. Olaf, thank you. I hope that everyone has the same feeling as I have that the silos are cracking one by one. Great. Maria. I think each party needs to stick to its competitive strengths, like the government needs to regulate, to provide the macroeconomic stability and to finance those public goods which people mentioned that have a long gestation period which is infrastructure and human health and productivity. And for the private sector, they need to work efficiently, effectively and with accountability. Thank you. Peter. Well, success has been set. Success is going from failure to failure, but improving each time a little bit and I think we are in a good way in this thing. I think the success rate of those private public partnerships is getting better and better and we have to continue to improve. Thank you. I would say that the whole issue of trust and process and objectives are critical to the success of private public partnerships. Justine, last word. I think that the private sector, I think companies don't have an option but to get involved. I think the only question is when and my advice is to get involved. Soon so that you can shape and not later. So it works. The silos are coming down. Stick to your strengths. It keeps getting better. Focus on trust and get involved. Please join me in thanking a terrific panel.