 I'm Dan Rondi. I hold the Shrier Chair here at CSIS and I'm really grateful that everyone's coming here. I know there are other things going on today in Washington. There's the Interaction Conference and several other worthy activities. My colleagues across the way are also hosting a very interesting conversation. So I really appreciate people taking time out of their schedules to be with us. I also want to thank my friends at KPMG for making this event possible. They understand that we need to go further on partnerships, that when they talk to their clients and partners in philanthropy and NGOs, companies and governments, a big part of the discussion is how to do this better, how to measure this, how to manage risk. And so KPMG gets this, and so I really have appreciated their partnership on making this event happen today. It's also a part of the fact that we've come a long way on partnerships. We're in a different place than we were 10 years ago. When I first got involved with this, we're certainly in a different place than when folks like Bill Reece who was working on this before it was cool or when Kurt Reinsma was getting this started as part of the GDA 12 years ago, I think we're in a very, very different place. It's a, USAID has come a long way. We're recognized, the U.S. government is recognized by OECD in a recent review of the U.S. government as sort of a leader among OECD governments on the issue of public-private partnerships. And when I talk about partnerships, I want to use the term that AID uses, which is the mobilization of ideas, efforts, and resources of governments, businesses, and civil society in the broadest sense of the word, to stimulate economic growth, develop businesses and work forces, address health and environmental issues, and expand access to education and technology. And it's certainly the case that forces have changed the development landscape in the last 50 years. I think most of people in this room have heard the statistic about how the resource flows have shifted over the last 50 years. Most of you have heard this, so I apologize in advance to all of you that have heard it. But every time I say it, there's somebody in the audience that has not heard this, which is that in the 1960s, something like 70 percent of resources from the developing world to the United, from the United States to the developing world was official development assistance, and 30 percent was foreign direct investment, remittances, private philanthropy of some kind. That by today has completely flipped, and then some, something like 87 percent of resources from the United States to the developing world is some form of private economic engagement, philanthropy, remittances, foreign direct investment, and something like 13 percent or less, depending on the year and depending on how you cut it, is some form of foreign aid. So ODA, the technical term for official foreign assistance, is a minority shareholder in the business of development. But the way in which our systems in the US government are designed, our thinking, our planning, our incentives are built around the assumption that the US government, or whether it's the World Bank or DFID, or others around the world as official donors, is that official donors have the largest wallet, and therefore it warrants that they get to have the largest rulebook. However, what we need to do is shift from largest wallet, largest rulebook to a paradigm that is catalytic wallet and flexible rulebook. And so I think that's the thing to take away, and we're not yet there. I do think, though, in this administration, Secretary Clinton has been the driving force, was the driving force for much of the energy around partnerships. She gave a phenomenal speech in the first half of 2009 at the Global Philanthropy Forum on this topic. So she was really tremendous, and I think there's been a series of proliferation within the administration, both among career and political staff of supporters of the concept of partnerships. It's become politically correct to use the term public-private partnership and to at least rhetorically do it. It doesn't mean that people's time and money, and whether you allocate people time and money, has necessarily followed the rhetoric. But it has said, at least it's now politically correct, and I think that's a step in the right direction. I will say several challenges that I want to cite, and then I'm going to turn the floor over to Lord Michael Hastings from KPMG to make some opening remarks. But I was up on the hill six months ago. We did a report, I think that most of them have been picked up already, about our shared opportunity of vision for global prosperity, which was a bipartisan effort that included folks like Tom Dashel and Carly Fiorina and Vin Weber and Tom Pritzker, among many others, that looked at the issue of the power and the role of the private sector in development, and we had a whole series of recommendations about how the U.S. government needs to be a better partner to the private sector and to shoot for trying to make 25% of all the activities that the U.S. government does through partnerships, whereas I think if you noodled out what the U.S. aid, for example, is doing in the form of public-private partnership, it's somewhere around 3% to 5%, more or less, depending on how you cut it. And I'll ask Rob to correct me later if that's not the case. But that's my sense. So I think there's still, when I was raising this on the hill, I was saying, six months ago, when we were talking about this as part of our work for this, our shared opportunity, I got some interesting pushback from a senior staffer on the hill who talked about we're not interested in the privatization of assistance. So I thought there is still some sort of, there's still a little bit of education still among some folks, both in the bureaucracy, some folks who think about development policy, there's some reluctance or sort of, this isn't a comfortable thought. So there's still some work to be done on the mindset. But most of that's been completed. The much bigger problems around systems planning, procurement, measurement approach, incentives, and I think we're going to have a chance to talk about that in detail at this conference today. I mean, that's what this is about, is about what's the next generation look like? What do we need to fix? It's not group therapy. It's not about saying, oh, everything's broken. That's not the question. But it's about identifying, we know many of the challenges. We're going to talk about some of the challenges. We're also going to talk about ways forward on a number of fronts that I think are critical to pushing this agenda forward. At the same time, for partnerships to work, we also, as part of the rollout or buildup for this, we did a series of thought pieces. This one was with Anna Seto and Ellie Cote. So I think Ellie should be in the audience. And Anna will be joining us shortly. That kind of fed into the larger report about seizing the opportunity of public-private partnerships. And we think that it still requires, what we talked about in this report 18 months ago, is that to do partnerships that AID or the news government still requires workarounds, that it still requires finding shoestring and bubblegum and sort of clever workarounds and some very clever people who've been empowered to have figured out ways to do this. So we still need to fix systems. Well, anyways, I think I'm going to stop there because I think we're going to have some very substantive discussions today. I'm going to turn the floor over to Lord Michael Hastings. You have his biography in front of you. He's the global head of citizenship at KPMG, had a very illustrious career at the BBC, is involved with a number of very interesting initiatives at the World Economic Forum, is a leader and serves on boards of a number of development NGOs in Africa and in the UK. So Lord Michael Hastings, if you would please join me up here and please welcome Lord Michael Hastings. Thank you very much and good afternoon. I'll try and just make some, I hope, useful comments that will set a different tone of conversation for us as we think about this theme. I began my short visit to the US. I always like to keep them short because it's so difficult getting through immigration. I began this short visit with a board meeting in New York yesterday and I'm a member of the board of Jeffrey Saxe's Millennium Promise. We sat discussing over a two and a half hour period what the future of development will look like beyond 2015. And in quick summary, we concluded around the board table that the future of development is technological and based on partnerships between where technology can apply information and solutions and where investors will bring expertise and experience. It's a different way of thinking about what development might look like in the 2020s. Will the NGOs still be part of the question or even the answer? Will governments have the dominant role any longer, not if technology empowers and enables and at the core of the conversation yesterday was the place of civil society. This is a different form of partnership thinking and I'm helped in this by my good friend and I won't give you his full name because it has 25 letters and he's Indian. So of course I can't really say it but I call him Danny and he says, we just call me Danny and that kind of suits rather well. He's the general secretary of Civicus and writing an article passed onto me by Kate who is here in the audience somewhere. Last week he writes about the role of developing fatally undermined without a vibrant civil society. Now this is what he says and I found it particularly interesting. If development is going to work effectively we need to promote an enabling environment for civil society. Efforts to reduce poverty, tackle inequality and resolve conflict will be fatally undermined if civil society is not engaged and empowered. He goes on to comment that so much of the euphoria and optimism surrounding the Arab Spring has been lost amidst the chaos, corruption and clampdowns on civil society that ensued in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. And then adds further, a vibrant civil society supports development in a range of ways from community-based organizations that deliver grounded and cost-effective services to independent voices that can hold governments to account. The development sector knows better than any that without transparency and accountability the fight against global poverty will be fatally undermined by corruption and by waste. This is a new way of thinking about partnership. That partnership is not just the actions of bringing together the empowered, those with resources or those with decisions usually somewhere between development agencies and governments and maybe possibly business added on but the necessary voice of those who are the receivers of the impact of development questions. I was also helped in my thinking on this by an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper from London yesterday about a country which I have a particular keen interest in which is Angola because my father was Angolan and born just north of Luanda and because it talks about a famous British company which has interesting residents here in the US called BP. And BP has been exploring oil and gas off the coast of Angola for some considerable few years. Has invested 20 billion already in Angola producing some 200,000 barrels from particular well sites. Looks to invest a further 15 billion and according to the margins is producing a profit in the region of $12 million per day. That's clear profit. And this is what the Daily Telegraph says. What impact it might have on the rest of Angola is less clear. The country emerged from almost three decades of civil war in 2002. It is already Africa's second biggest oil producer with oil accounting for three quarters of government revenues. But as the US Energy Information Administration notes much of the oil wealth in the country does not find its way to the average citizen. Some 36% of the population live below the poverty line. A short distance from BP's offices in Luanda, barefooted children, picked through mountains of rubbish in the slums. Angola consistently ranks as one of the world's most corrupt countries. And organizations such as Global Witness question where all license payments to Senegal some of which are designated for social projects actually end up. BP offers little clarity on the issue. It was once threatened with expulsion from Angola when it disclosed the value of a signature bonus. It now declines to do so, though campaigners say a new EU transparency law may force its hand. Now let me be clear on my own reflections on this point. I believe that BP is doing the right service and a good service for the people of Angola. There is no point wasting the resource that a country like that has and not allowing it to come literally to the surface. But the question is how to empower a population to be able to take account of that wealth and allow that wealth to deliver goods for the public it seeks to serve. Without an enabled and empowered civil society, what place is there between business and government that allows for effective delivery let alone important partnerships? Well, civil society is a conversation that is a new conversation that businesses are beginning to have. KPMG worked closely with the World Economic Forum on the production of this important report that was delivered at Davos this January, the future role of civil society. In this report, the World Economic Forum acknowledges that the changes that civil society is undergoing strongly suggest it should no longer be viewed as a third sector, that rather civil society should be the glue that binds public and private activity together in such a way that strengthens the common good. Let me give you an example of that. Next week I go to Cape Town for the World Economic Forum Africa Summit. That summit will be a very positive expose of the new mood of Africa rising. There is no question about it that there is exponentially significant growth across the continent. Much of Africa's growth rates we would envy in the West and I can particularly tell you in Europe. We'd be delighted to see rates between six to eight percent of so many African countries are enjoying and also delighted to see some of the significant progress on infrastructure and electrification that is taking place. But the center of our conversations next week is going to be how to bring about a kind of partnership that allows the public voice of effective, educated, empowered new Africans. In other words, the young generation who feel that this is a country to be taken, how to allow those voices to come to the fore. And our test to bed is going to be Kenya. So how are we going to consider that option? Well, we've begun to have conversations about the empowered place of where technology, particularly through the mobile phone, allows the public to both receive and express opinion. Now this was a partnership between the UK's Development Agency, DFID and Vodafone. I happen to be a trustee of the Vodafone Global Foundation so I take some delight in the fact that Vodafone with the UK's Development Agency established the EMPASA network some nine years ago. But now EMPASA represents 36% of the GDP of Kenya. There isn't a household that does not trade through the mobile phone, either banking related information or increasingly health insurance access, savings products and mortgage accounts. The opportunity technology has allowed where private sector engagement and public investment have brought about empowered civil society. So the public have a strong voice. The Kenyan people were able to take massive constitutional change in the most recent elections. Whatever we may make of the outcome or whatever we think of the rulings of the Supreme Court, the public voice was heard. It was heard and enabled with technology support. All of a sudden, democratic institutions begin to take authority. With that, not only are politicians but also businesses held to account. An interesting quote appeared in Time Magazine just a few weeks ago. This one under the banner of made in the USA but the quote was not really about manufacturing in the USA. It was Angela Merkel telling off Mr. Putin, both of which you'll note that Time Magazine had colored in yellow. And Angela Merkel turns to Mr. Putin and says, a vibrant civil society can only exist when individual organizations can work without fear or concern. Now this goes exactly back to Danny's point. If civil society, in other words, the voice of those concerned about the structures of the society they live in, that could be a business voice, that could be a government voice, that could be an NGO voice, it could be a complainant voice or it could be a democratic voice. It could be a public voice or an individual voice. But where that voice has the right to be spoken and to be heard, there is in effect empowerment. One of my other overnight readings was this interesting report from the House of Commons International Development Committee assessing the role of DFID and its expenditure plans for the period 2011 to 2013. As you can see, I do fascinating things overnight. And while I was reading through this report in the early hours in fact this morning, I came across an important statement from the permanent secretary to the Department for International Development in the UK who says the following, talking about the experiences undertaken recently in Rwanda and Uganda. He says, we also try to make sure we get the best out of our local staff in informing us of what is going on in the wider environment. I was, says the permanent secretary, in Rwanda three weeks ago and Uganda last week. And some of the best intelligence I got on what is going on and what we should really be caring about was not actually from President Kigami or President Museveni, both of whom I had good conversations with but was from the citizens of the country. This is a new and fascinating paradigm. All of a sudden, public voices begin to count. The public want to feel in countries like Angola, as they say, from where my father came and Ghana now too, where we have a significant interest and I say that as a millennium promise, board member with the UK DFID investing 18 million pounds, and by the way, that's an increasing currency, 18 million pounds, sorry about that, a little British joke at the expense of Americans, investing 18 million pounds in conjunction with the Ghanaian government in a network of northern villages, the intention of which is through partnership to allow villages, six villages of 7,000 people each to come to sustainable and effective independence in their own right. So what is the purpose of today's partnerships? It's not just to enable buildings to appear well or infrastructure to look shiny, nor is it to make sure that we can attest to development investment wisely spent. I believe very firmly that the most important power of partnerships is to allow the public the right to take account for the future of their own communities and their own countries, to enable revenues accrued through assets to be formed into tax value, for that tax value to support the infrastructure, education, health and services that are required, for the public to hold the governments to genuine accounts through serious knowledge and empowerment and for technology to be a root of support and source for all of that. So partnerships to me have a new twist. The twist is the voice of the public and the voice of the public could be that of the chief executive as much as the government official as much as the donor. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lord Hastings. I'm gonna ask my friends and fellow panelists to come up please. British, let's see who else, Bill is here. Paula and Ms. Mohapi, if you'd please come up. Thank you very much. Okay, this panel is gonna be on the record we're live streaming this and we're also recording it for posterity. I think you all have the biographies of the panelists in front of you but I think this is a very interesting group to help us set the stage for the rest of the afternoon. I also think Lord Hastings comments also think help inform and frame up the discussion that we're gonna be having. I wanted to pull this group together to get a sense of the state of play of multi-sector partnerships coming back to what we said earlier about that we've gone a long way in public private partnerships but I think that there are a series of challenges for us to confront if we want to take partnerships to further scale and also to use as Lord Hastings was saying for example, use the civil society and the nonprofit sector as the glue for these larger scale multi-sector partnerships. So without further ado, I'm gonna ask Bill Reese to help kick off this discussion and then I'm gonna ask Paula Lough to then go second. I'm gonna have British go third and then I'm gonna have Ms. Mohapi from MCA Listu to go fourth. Bill, please. Thank you, Dan. And Lord Hastings, our common friend, Jane Nelson was right, she alerted me that you would provoke us and frame the issue as well so it's nice to follow. In this case, it's good to follow you. And he is absolutely right. I'm gonna give a case study of sorts of one of the very first official Global Development Alliance projects that Kurt and Holly Weiss and Andrew Natsios and Dan Rundie helped get off the ground 13 years ago. I'm reminded that of the saying that it takes 10 years to raise a 10-year-old. And we do too many projects in the development world in three-year segments and hope that the world changes. I'm gonna tell you a story of one that's 13 years old now that is blossoming but it shouldn't be looked at as old. Development takes a long time to happen and what we need to see is scale and sustainability and effective practices all be invested at the same time. And if we're concerned about the voices of people, what's the largest cohort of voices out there? Young people, because we've got the largest cohort of people under 30 in the history of the world. And yes, higher percentages of those in Sub-Saharan Africa in the Middle East but high enough in Spain to make Spain not necessarily a sustainable country going forward with 50% of its young people unemployed. So let me tell you about a program that is core to what we do more as a case study of IYF creating with other stakeholders and multiple a long-standing project. But then I wanna draw at the very end of it. Dan has asked us to talk about the state of play. I think there's some lessons that can be learned not just for those of us who are involved but particularly for our government in a very respectful way. What have we learned? Because I do remember sitting with Andrew Nazios in his little office at the time because he hadn't been confirmed yet by the Senate and he said he was gonna launch this thing with Secretary Powell called the Global Development Alliance and in two years they'd have it up and running and then he'd mainstream it and it would be working and I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, bureaucracies don't change that quickly that you couldn't mainstream it. I don't think in two years and then have it functioning as if it's plug and play. And then if you think about engineering some brand new partnerships, you won't have the agreement signed for a year and then it'll be a year or two after that you get your first results and there goes your two year window. So let's think about extending this thing out. So a program that our foundation in the Inter-American Development Bank was creating at that time, we took to the GDA office and said, how about learning with us about partnership building and management by getting on a train that hasn't left the station but is halfway out and if you get on you couldn't get some good leverage and it was called then Entra 21. And the logo of the program was your enter button on the computer that in Spanish and Portuguese would be Entra and these were the IT skills and what we defined as life skills, the skills that young people are gonna need to enter and be successful in a 21st century job market or workplace. And we were interpreting enter in a broad sense not just a young kid getting his or her first job but hopefully that job being one in which you'd have some sort of upward mobility that we can take for granted in a middle class, OECD type country but in many parts of the world the first job might be the best job a young person may ever get. Entra 21 taught us a lot of lessons. It was created by our foundation in the Multilateral Investment Fund of the IDV which itself took a major risk and a new way of doing business. At that point the myth had been making had made about 400 grants of about a million dollars a piece. This is actually a fund that lives within the IDV obviously then only for IDV eligible countries in the Americas but it was a fund to support the private sector not support governments private sector growth and all. This then became the first project they ever funded for youth. Enrique Glacius the president of the bank had a real interest in youth but the myth would have only been interested in if it had a private sector component. Well then why don't we go after these out of school out of work youth and back 13 years ago we weren't calling them Ninis then like the Latinos do or Neats now as we've called it in the United States neither in school or in education or employment or training. So Nini went to Neats in English. That was our cohort. The bank put up 10 million dollars and we had to raise dollar for dollar cash 10 million to match it. And we were to train 12,000 young people for jobs and employ 40% of them. Now you might think 40% is awfully low but the job training programs that the bank had been financing through loans to Latin governments were ranging from 15 to 25% employment rates and some of our own job core programs in the United States because you're dealing with a tough cohort. And so 40% was the marker. Suffice to say that we raised 20 million dollars to match the myths 10 trained 20,000 people. Those are the numbers. Aid came in and put $3 million down and we literally signed some blank pieces of paper at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that day because the MOU hadn't been formally written but this was the coming out party of the GDA and they wanted to look like we were signing something. So I give all the credit in the world there for wanting to be part of this. The interesting thing for the bank because the bank itself was breaking its mold. It had never made a multi-country, multi-project grant. If they had made 400 grants for about $400 million, here was one where they were gonna fund conceivably 30-some projects in 15 or 20 countries and IYF would run the umbrella, a regional program. That was new to them, they had never done that. But what we convinced them to do is, well if you normally would put 30 or $40,000 aside to evaluate these little projects of a million dollars a piece, if we're gonna raise $20 or so million dollars to fund a series of workforce programs, let's do an evaluation across the 35 and compare, they had never been able to compare their different projects because each one was funded and managed separately and evaluated separately and how do you learn? Well you only learn by doing a bunch of things and then being able to compare it. That was probably the most revolutionary thing of that program. Suffice to say, oh and let me just say too, that the program was so big and different that I was asked to come to the bank and speak to the vice presidents of the bank who are and the executive directors who are the donors committee basically of the MIF and they wondered of course to rehearse me because they probably didn't trust an NGO even though they'd given us the money already to come in and speak properly to these important people. And as I was getting into my rehearsal, I mentioned that we were gonna, we believe very seriously in the life skills, showing up every day, communicating well, working in teams, taking orders, solving problems, maybe giving some orders, those things that one has to do day to day on the job to get your job done and do it productively. And one of the guys said, time out, time out, you're an NGO, you're gonna do all that blah blah blah BS that NGOs do, that humanitarian stuff about life skills. This is an IT program. And don't talk about it, it's an IT program, that's the way we're looking at it for young people. And all that life skills stuff, you can do it but don't make a big deal of it. The same person came to me about a year later and said, I wanna apologize. And I had basically forgotten. I said, whatever you want, you're giving us that much money. You don't want me to talk about life skills, I won't. He came back and apologized and said the employer surveys are saying that that's the most important part of this program, the IT stuff you're teaching them for 21st century skills, rather than teaching young women to paint nails and boys to pound nails. This was, these were IT skills we were gonna teach but they were saying, we get it now. That life skills are important because the employers are telling that from the surveys we were doing of the employers who were hiring these young people, saying basically the IT skills were good but we can't teach them these other things like showing up every day, working in teams, communicating well, solving problems, managing your time and all the rest. Well, it worked. And the bank then made, five years later, the same bank that didn't make multi-country grants under an umbrella, never made second grants to anyone. They made a second grant for another $10 million so these were the largest two grants that the MIFF had ever made. I say that because all of these big multilaterals and bilaterals I think have learned a great deal and we've learned together how to structure some of these things and I just wanna keep that learning moving so that we don't have to reinvent the wheels further on. The second program, the second phase was to do some things differently and the two things that would be different, it would also be a competitive grants program to maybe this time 20 or so projects around which we do an umbrella learning piece that was contracted out, wasn't done by us, contracted out to Latin consulting firms or Latin universities to come in and do a serious, the type of M&E that we talk about today is if that's just the way we always have done business. The two differentiation points here were that we were gonna try to take as many projects similar to ones in the first round to scale and then try to learn from that. How do you scale projects? And to some of us, if we're not doing scale and development, what the hell are we doing? I mean, enough of these pilot little projects if we can't learn what works and how to scale it and move it on because the numbers are too staggering. At least they are with the youth cohort the size it is. And then secondly, to get at some harder to reach young people. Now, frankly, a 15, 18, 20-year-old who's neither in school, neither in work has gone to four or five or six years of schooling isn't, in other words, illiterate and whose family is earning less than two minimum salaries which means each person is maybe getting about a dollar a day. That's pretty hard to reach right there, I think. But we agreed that we would go to some harder to reach folks and those would be in more rural areas. Of course, it's hard to do scale in rural areas sometimes and disabled people, ex-combatants and gang members or would be gang members in Central America. So it gave us some different cohorts to continue the learning because out of this we weren't just trying to train a bunch of kids for their first jobs, but to learn from this that we could share those learnings across the region, which you can do if you're doing it in an umbrella fashion, and whole learning conferences with public and private sector folks so that you learn what is working in these projects but also working, frankly, to build public-private partnerships. So the public-private piece is that companies from all over the United States but also Nokia and Samsung and Deutsche Bank and others put money into, match the myth and the aid money. But we were also trying to model public-private partnerships so that Brazilian and Colombian and Honduran companies would come in. Now some of those Brazilian ones today are working with our foreign aid program because they're Odebrecht, they're Comargo-Cojea, they're Petro Brice that are gigantic multinational companies. But beneath all these things, just like in our own country, who are the richest, what's the richest segment of our economy? It's smaller and medium-sized businesses. Why are public-private partnerships the province only of major global companies? And if we could begin to model that, that would be the real sustainability for funding and political, or call it today as we call it, country ownership. If the country's indigenous business sector and its local governments can get on board with these things through seeing and being part of functioning and well-monitored programs, then you can build the scale and sustainability we all want. Suffice to say that second phase is supposed to train 50,000 people, it trained 100,000 people. The scaling up of governmental stuff, a project in Medellin with the mayor of Medellin had been supportive of in the first round, went from 500 to 7,000. A hospitality program that we did in Bahia, Brazil, the Ministry of Tourism came in, not the Ministry of Education or Vocational Training, the Ministry of Tourism came in and said, can you take that Salvador experience to 11 other state capitals, all of which are destinations for international folks, but particularly Brazilians themselves and hospitality is the largest employer in the world. So some real learnings were done there about scale and sustainability and working with governments. Along the way, this program won GDA's 2007 Global Development Alliance of the Year award, which we were very proud of, but frankly what we were proud of was the GDA, this fellow had the wherewithal to give us a certificate, but to give Microsoft and Nokia and General Electric and all the rest a winning certificate saying you're the partners in this with us along with the myth. And just this last year, the AG Fund, the Arab Gulf Fund, which is a large philanthropy in Saudi Arabia awarded Enter 21, it's largest global prize of the year because youth unemployment is important to them and they were looking at a 10, 12 year track record and wanting to scale it up and take it to other parts of the world. But an Arab foundation awarding an American institution for doing work in Latin America, I thought was pretty terrific. Let me just talk about rippling out of some of this stuff then. One ripple out is that the World Bank in its 2007 World Development Report on youth called Development and the Next Generation, which almost says it takes a generation to develop that adult you want out of a, the outcome of a youth development program I like to say is a healthy, civically engaged and employed adult. And when societies, whole of government, whole of country do that well, society gets a 50 year return on investment from a healthy 20 year old becoming a viable citizen, parent and worker. An unemployed 25 or 28 year old probably will never get really employed or well employed. That person won't live for 50 more years probably because he or she will be unhealthy, won't have a productive family, certainly won't pay taxes. And you've got a drag. So development in the next generation which was the title of that World Bank Report is a great way of framing it. They created then a global partnership for youth employment of which we're the secretariat to take those learnings from Metro which they called one of the few proven practice programs that they could find to write up in their 2007 World Development Report and say how can we take some of that to Africa in the Middle East? I have been in parts of Africa in the Middle East where English and Portuguese and Spanish are not spoken but they will tell me can you bring us some of that Entra 21 stuff? I don't know where they've heard about it but the brand got out there and they say we've got some of the same issues and they'll have to be adapted of course but bring it on. Microsoft then published with us about a year ago a white paper called Opportunity for Action and the opportunity is to put a positive spin on it if we can get this younger generation more employed than previous generations there's a demographic dividend to be paid for if you've got that larger cohort of young people but if we don't and I don't wanna go to all the negative stuff a more unemployed largest cohort of teenagers and young adults in the history of the world and certainly in certain parts of the world we'll be destabilizing politically it's not just a human issue it's not just an economic issue we'll be a stability and security issue. That hospitality case I talked to you about well we took to Davos this last January a paper that we wrote with the Hilton company called Hospitality, I'm sorry Opportunities for Youth in Hospitality stating that that industry hospitality and travel will employ in an even a still slow growing global economy 73 million new people over the next 10 years who are most of them gonna be people at the base of the pyramid young people they're not gonna be 73 million people with masters MBAs in hotel management they're gonna be people who come in at the bottom of what can be an upwardly mobile industry how can they come in with the life skills that they need as Chris Decetta who co-wrote the paper with us the head of Hilton Worldwide said I can train people to work in the hospitality industry and we'll do that I can't train them in the life skills they have to come here with that already can you provide us with this it will fund an expansion if you will of Entra 21 and all for hospitality we'll help fund that but I wanna bring in too he said my other members of the hospitality industry this isn't a Hilton CSR this is our industry now if we can talk start talking about employment as an industry and not just one company at a time again then you're going to real mega scale the last two things I wanna talk about just to show the rippling out of this so Entra 21 had two phases one and two that I told you about the third phase is what we announced in Cartagena last April just a year ago now at the Cartagena Summit of the Americas where all the democratically elected heads of state come together youth unemployment was right way up there on their agenda well we announced the third phase and of course by that time you need to give it a new name so it's called new economic opportunities for youth and this was something that the president of the Inter-American Development Bank Luis Alberto Moreno Cemex the Mexican gigantic cement company Microsoft Walmart Arcus Dorados which is Golden Arches but this is the wholly owned company private company that owns all the McDonald's franchises in Latin America that employs 80,000 new people a year and what's the fifth company Caterpillar committed $50 million to announce the first phase of NIO well that's the third phase of Entra and that I think is a story then about scale sustainability proven results and true private sector buy-in and just as Lord Hastings the World Economic Forum is terribly important and we're happy to know that they're wanting to make now youth employment and I'll be going to Geneva in late August to figure out how can we put this more on the agenda of the January meeting next year and not about woe is me the sky is falling look at all these demographic indicators and all but how can we talk about the scalable public-private partnerships that fit your definition learnings from this let me just say the word co-creation was used I think by Lord Hastings and Dan the essence of what we have built here and others are doing too is truly a co-creation and it's triangular or sometimes it's might have more than three edges and to it it's multiple governments at times or multiple layers of governments and multiple companies I would my suggestions to the US government with all due respect for what they have done into mainstream and model and all this is to not think though that public-private partnerships can be pre-engineered and pre-designed only in government and then government invites in people to help pay for it that's okay and it will work in some cases but I think there is a real role for government to just react like VCs would react VCs don't have the idea VCs have the money it's this young entrepreneur that brings the idea then the VCs sorted out and say well we'll give you a little or we won't give you a lot or come back a little bit later or we'll give you a bunch and I think our government somewhere in there between state and aid and some of the other agencies that play around in this area need to make sure that they don't try to pre-engineer and drive everything from the governmental side and be open to the creative ideas that come that would be one thing some would call that walking around money I don't call it that I think it's frankly it's second stage is mezzanine funding it's the type of thing that governments could do when an idea looks pretty damn good and maybe even has some initial findings and now that governments could come in and leverage but help scale it governments have also the need at times and I use the word quick wins but it's not my word we've been we worked very well with AID in the State Department but it's come into our vocabulary their vocabulary in the last few years let's get some let's start something big but let's get some quick wins and that frankly is antithetical I think most of the time to getting good things done that and particularly public private partnerships with a bunch of stakeholders have to have the patience to get it designed right and quick wins actually don't argue for that and just to close I'd like to say again what emphasize again what I said earlier public private partnerships aren't just the province of the KPMG's and the big global companies we need them as models and yet they have their subsidiaries when the subsidiaries can buy in it's almost a local company and they can bring in their B2B partners at that local level because truly the wealth out there in most of these countries is not in our global companies that are doing business in their countries although they're pretty wealthy but also if we can get the local private sector in you not only get mega bucks resources but it buys you that sustainability political will and country ownership that I think we're all looking for if developing countries are gonna sustain their growth. Thanks, Dan. Thank you, Bill. I'm gonna ask Paula to speak next. Paula you've had several lives your most recent as your vice president of corporate social responsibility that has corporation and you were a great partner to us here at CSIS as a council member for our development council that helped us produce the our shared opportunity report. So Paula I hope you'll speak to the private sector perspective on this conversation. I'm feeling really old because I realized coming down here on the plane that I've been in this field nearly 20 years. You started as a child prodigy. It was five, yeah, I was five. But what's interesting in hearing Lord Hastings and Bill and you Dan is that my career has sort of paralleled this evolution from random acts of kindness and philanthropy to strategic partnerships where there are many voices at the table. When I first got to Pfizer I didn't even know what the private sector was. I came out of the NGO world, as you know Dan and Pfizer was very I think very forward thinking at the time. They wanted to build a department that built strategic and meaningful partnerships with civil society that could point to real outcomes and measure them over time. And they felt that to do this they didn't need a corporate communications person or someone from in-house but really to bring in people from the NGO sector who knew how NGOs worked who could speak the language and serve as interpreters between the sectors. And so 13 years advisor began with that. When I first came into this field I think we were just at the cusp of talking about public-private partnerships. And I think at the time business was interested. They realized that a lot of money was walking out the door in $5,000 increments and at the end of the day they couldn't really talk about what they had accomplished. And so there was a switch to say, okay, well, if we're going to be spending significant money in the community we'd like to be able to say that over time we've achieved certain things. And they realized that to do that they needed to partner with NGOs to that end. But I think that the conversation in the late 80s, early 90s was largely one way. It wasn't really voices around a table reaching consensus, but it was I'd like to make an impact in education and pick your country. I think I'd like to build schools. I'd like to work with you because you have a track record of building schools. We'll let the government know what we're doing and then we'll hand over the keys. And talk about unidirectional thinking. The reality was I think lots of good projects happen but there's not a lot left in terms of long-term sustainability. And I think people were naive in thinking about what sustainability would be. It's not about the school still having a fresh coat of paint. It's about what kind of intellectual capital have you built in a society. Learning never gets rusty. Capacity never needs a coat of paint or a little extra cement. So I think that was a big learning. Then I think over time, particularly when the AIDS crisis happened in Africa, I think companies like my former company realized that if we were not at the table with stakeholders, really rolling up our sleeves shoulder to shoulder and coming up with solutions together to intractable problems that none of us as an individual sector or player had the solutions to, then we would be on the menu for lunch and deserved it. And so I think that was a huge wake-up call. It wasn't just about this one directional kind of conversation I would like to do and I'd like you to implement. It was really around engaging with stakeholders and listening to them. What a concept, listening to people, listening to what their desires were, what they thought sustainability and meaningful impact meant. And together with PEPFAR and other partners, I think at least the pharmaceutical industry, I think made great strides in beginning to listen. I remember when I worked for Pfizer, I was on a site visit in Zimbabwe to an HIV program with the Ministry of Health. And when I was in one of the back rooms, one of the record keepers was showing me the various logs that they had to keep for the various donations programs and I think they were part of maybe five or six and everyone with different reporting requirements, et cetera. And I began to think surely there's gotta be a better way of extending services and meaningful services to people at the field level. And so I began to think it's probably time to start making people customers and to stop this language of recipients and beneficiaries and program participants but really think about how do you engage societies and countries as customers, as true partners in development? If you can do that, then you do build something sustainable. Now I'm in the oil patch and we have a number of large long-term partnership programs where we operate and I think what's interesting about the company I work for now is that it's not a very big oil company by oil company standards. It is Fortune 100 but compared to an Exxon or a Chevron, it's quite small. Yet we're competing for many of the same assets and so our management feels that stakeholder engagement and meaningful partnership with civil society and with government is sort of a competitive advantage for us. I think our management would like a country to say to another country, hey, you should look at HES because they'll leave your country better off for having been there. So it's a very different proposition. And while these partnerships that we have going whether they're in education or healthcare are very meaningful, in and of themselves they're not sufficient to ensure development. So what are the other things that companies do? Well, we may spend five or $10 million a year at an asset on a philanthropy program. We probably are spending over a billion dollars a year in capital, in hiring people, in paying taxes and other long term commitments. And so through our supply chain and through our business activities I think we can make an even more enormous impact than through the philanthropy which is critical but not sufficient in and of itself to make a lasting contribution. And to have that country say they'll leave you better off for having been there. You know, one of the things that not only have the voices come to the table in my 20 years in this field but to Dan's earlier point, the balance has shifted. We're not talking as much about foreign assistance although it will always have a very, very valuable place in the toolkit, no question about it. But really it's now about foreign direct investment and can you make a country and the people your customer? Can you become not just a multinational but actually a national company where you operate and be there for the long haul? So that's kind of the change I've seen and let's see if I make it another 20 years. We've got a long way to go for sure. We're not there yet. But I think that if we can have meaningful dialogue and really get a handle on the full pantheon of tools at our disposal, together listening to each other, really collaborating, the world will continue to develop and maybe we'll even get to the bottom of the pyramid and lift it up to the top. Thanks Paula, thanks very much. Very grateful my friend, British Robinson who's a Senior Vice President for Innovation and Strategic Initiatives at Women for Women International. I agreed to join this panel. British, as many of you know, had a past career in government and I'm hoping she'll speak to both sort of the, little bit of the government perspective as a recent alum but also sort of an outsider looking in and sort of providing a little bit of an outsider looking. Now that she's crossed the divide and is now a Senior Leader at Women for Women, she'll be able to take a little bit of an outside take as well, British. Great, thanks Dan and good afternoon. Lord Hastings, thank you so much for your comments and Bill and Paula. I kind of gonna make this a little more tactical I think you both were at a very high level and provide some of my thoughts while in government but also as Dan said afterwards. I wanna kind of take us back up to the top, kind of how did we get here? I think there are a lot of people that are working in this space that are starting to enter the space or have been in it for a while. Well, how did we get here? I think Paula alluded a bit to this and it really touches on exactly where Lord Hastings started, which is civil society. It's the voices as Bill put it and it's the stakeholders as Paula put it and that's where I wanna start. I wanna take a minute to go back. So this movement, Dan asked me to talk a little bit about the evolution of public-private partnerships and the trends. Prior to my arrival at the State Department, I actually worked in SRI or Social Responsible Investing with a large institutional investor, faith-based institutional investor and a lot of that work that was done, stakeholder dialogue, institutional heavy, institutional investment, taking into account those voices in civil society really got started in probably the late 80s, early 90s, where you saw actually billions of dollars, including not only faith-based institutional investors but pension funds, large pension funds, hospital systems, those sorts of things. We're putting trillions of dollars actually in the mid-90s, late-90s and had significant power and influence over where this space, if you will, this theory of change is now and is going and I'll come back to that in a minute. So you had the ICCR, the Interfaith Corporate Council on Social Responsibility, you had institutional investors and we were responding, those groups at the time and I was part of that large institutional investment community, we were responding to the HIV-AIDS crises in Africa, to environmental issues, to issues around sweatshops and child labor and things of that nature and then also dealing with extractive industries, vis-a-vis sort of civil conflict. So that's how we started. The SRI sort of portfolio or base, I believe, the social responsible investing space really paved the way for companies to move from charity and philanthropy to what we now call CSR programming. They figured out that you couldn't just keep giving money as Paula was saying, it wasn't getting you anywhere at $5,000 increments but to actually responding to those stakeholder voices, civil society voices saying you have to be a better actor that you can do well and do good, right? We all know that sort of information but that came from this movement that preceded this concept called public-private partnerships and I think those of us who have worked in this space have not given enough credit to the SRI movement. I don't believe we would be here today. I don't believe that GDA would have been enabled enough to be even created within USAID had those folks not gone before us, had we not listened to civil society, had we not engaged in stakeholder investment as large institutional investors, so that's one. Once that happened, and everybody talked about the triple bottom line and things like that, once we moved through that, then we started to see this confluence of relationships building, the institutional development actors, so DFID, USAID, the State Department, World Bank, the UN family, et cetera, et cetera, started realizing we couldn't do this alone, corporate started to realize they couldn't do it alone, and then these things called alliances and the classic USAID sense started to form, right? And you had really smart people thinking, building, taking risks, pushing the envelope to get us to that place. Then we moved from, we all talk about our wonderful colleague at Harvard Microporter, incredible work, so we went from SRI to philanthropy and charity slash CSR to in the early 2000s, thanks to the leadership of GDA and USAID, to this core competency space, and those of us at State Department and PEPFAR and MCC, we all started to pick up on that. We don't just wanna partner with you because of your check writing ability or the cash, but we now want to start to build capacity of civil society. We want to empower people. We want to work with you through your business line. Where do you good at Coca-Cola? Supply and value chain. Pfizer, where do you good at getting pills in people's mouths? So we began to change our way over the last, I would say 10 years of how we do that. And now here we are today, Michael Porter has defined it at the top of the pyramid as shared value. That's where we are today, and I wanna come back to that shared value question. So all of this was attractive, not because you were getting bad press around sweatshops or HIV AIDS, you weren't acting or whatever, but now it was big business, right? It was a win-win for all of us. And that as the US government and DFID and other big donors, we realized there were the five C's, right? We came together around, we all had capital, capacity, creativity, connectivity and credibility. And we were actually now equally yoked. USG donors were equally yoked in some ways with corporate sector, private sector and even foundations, I would argue. Foundations, the big old foundations, right? The Rockefellers and the MacArthur's. We're kinda doing some of this alone in the 60s and 70s and 80s. Well now they had a new partner, but we as US government, as different as UN, we were starting to do development differently. Just the concept of GDA said we're gonna do something different, right? And we're gonna push the envelope. That alone enabled this environment of more creative thinking about how we count things, how we move from just outcomes to impact. So there was an ecosystem kind of going on that was starting to build over time. So now sort of 10 years later, after we move out of kind of the 90s, if you will, into the mid 2000s, I think that after we moved from big business, after we started doing development differently, I was struck when I started in the government in 2005, 2006, that as the US government, State Department, USAID, we actually in some cases started to act as an angel investor. This is the way I was talking amongst my colleagues, Dan and others at state. We have, and I specifically worked for PEPFAR in the US government, which I think we all know now is a 50, basically a $50 billion program. With that kind of money, where we actually required to, we had to go farther than, and we had to look at ourselves almost like investors, right? When you have a check that big, you start to look at yourself differently. And with the private sector, help us look at ourselves differently. So we really became innovators in some ways. It shifted from sort of pool role to push role. And that I think was remarkable for the US government. And I want folks here to be really clear that I think USAID and State Department and PEPFAR had a huge part in that now what we call push role. So you see things like PEPFAR, MCC, State Department, looking at Asia and Africa and creating women-owned businesses and training and mentoring that hadn't been done before really, right? So we looked at ourselves differently. And now I think the real entrepreneurship approach with grand challenges at USAID, another evolution. Looking at USG, looking at itself as an investor, as an innovator, the same way as you were pointing out sort of the venture the BC folks would look at themselves. Types of partnerships have changed as well. So we're seeing more mentoring, more training, more training, more succumbents, more capacity building. Leaders like Pfizer, IBM, Intel, Google actually succumbing people into the US government so that we have better outcomes on our development work regardless of its maternal child health, HIV, environment, economic growth. We're seeing that shift. The style of partnerships have changed. And I would say the style has changed literally probably in the last three years. And here's what I mean by that. Companies are saying, guess what? You don't get to sort of design it, bring in the implementing partner. We are going to co-design this with you. And we're gonna be pretty tough about it. I mean, really tough or we're gonna walk away. So there's this movement of co-design which I think is a really good thing. There's also almost creating, and I think Dan and GDA did this early on with a couple of things, some interesting initiatives like Gain and things like that but creating almost like boards or secretariats or consortiums. That's sort of coming back because it's part of accountability, the accountability framework, but it's also part of the co-design. And we believe that it will get us to more sustainability, hopefully. The other thing is the next thing on the style of partnerships is we, I know it stayed and we did a number of co-designed partnerships with GDA was we did a big initiative around food and food security with General Mills. Well, it was PEPFAR, USAID and General Mills. Well, we didn't just, it wasn't just the three of us, but we intentionally built into this public-private partnership that we bring in other food companies, local, back to your point, local private sector, wholesalers, and also other sort of the big boys, if you will, the Fortune 100s. And so that was something that we learned that you don't have to just stay within the way you started the partnership but that it can evolve in and of itself into bringing other folks into the sector so that you even bring competitors together. And at first I think as USG we really pushed on that and there were some interesting conversations internally which I won't share now, but we kind of figured out let's push the competitors there because we're gonna get better development outcomes. And I think we have on the book some deals that didn't go so well, but we have a number that went really well and the General Mills deal is still going very, very well to your point. And it takes longer than two to three years. That's now almost probably four or five years old. So we have to be patient. There's a patient capital piece here. I think I wanna move just for the last couple of minutes on trends. So as I left State Department about it just about a hair over a year ago, we were starting to see that companies and foundations were pivoting and slightly starting to bypass USG or DFID or donors and saying, hey, you know what, we're gonna cut out the middlemen. You guys have a lot of bureaucracy, you have a lot of paperwork, this is getting complicated or I'd like to say we top them very well. We top them how to do it. And that's gonna get to a really big trend that I think we're seeing that I'm now seeing being a part of the NGO community is that we top them so well they're almost able to do it on their own. Goes back to Lord Hastings perspective. They're going right to civil society in these countries and they're cutting the deals with civil society. That's not necessarily a bad thing but I think as US government and those working on both sides, we need to understand that a little bit more. Second thing is I think that there's another trend that's emerging, that's been emerging for a while. I think as US government folks are questioning the value and the worth of public private partnerships. You know, in other words, is the juice worth the squeeze? I think corporates and foundation folks are doing the same thing as well. The other interesting trend is that we're seeing more partnering with social entrepreneurs and impact investors. That's about sustainability. That's about really getting on the ground and staying on the ground and enabling that local environment or creating local businesses so that it's not just the multinationals but there's something that sticks and that we truly are building society and ultimately building up the economics of that society. The other thing I would say if the last pieces, I'm seeing them go on their own but also as they expand their businesses and these emerging and frontier markets, they're saying USG, you're not moving fast enough. We want faster, better, cheaper, right? That's the mantra. And so they wanna see better outcomes and better results. So you're seeing the likes of very successful programs and USG, State Department, USAID, DFID actually enabled some of these companies to create some of these programs. We were in a way investors and let me tell you who they were. Stars, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women's Program. Walmart.com worked a lot with my colleagues at USAID on organic cotton and all sorts of interesting things. Coca-Cola, Mutar Kents 5x20. The Global Women's Issues Office at State Department. Huge role on some of that. Nike and the Girl Effect, huge role. Starbucks, Dan and the colleagues at GDA really helped enable Starbucks environment when they did some original GDAs in the early 2000s. So we're seeing return in some ways on our investment as development folks as USG. I think we have to recognize that return on investment. I recently saw it with Merck in cervical cancer working with PEPFAR. So all of these things driving towards better lives, economic growth, building up the SMEs in the local private sector. But as development actors, is this new way okay? Was this, in some of these lessons learned in some of the evolution, I don't know that it was our intended outcomes, but I find it absolutely fascinating that this is where we are in 2013 and that we know it will require all of us to continue to act and do together. But that is USG, we have to recognize some of the unintended consequences that we've done such a good job maybe, even learning lots of lessons that we've allowed corporate sector and foundations to go it alone. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. But I think as US government, you'll have to constantly be redefining place in space in this theory of change as it grows. Thanks, Dan. Thanks, British. We're very fortunate to have Ms. Sophia Mojapi who's the CEO of the Malayum Challenge account in Lesotho, who happened to be in town for a conference that MCC was hosting on Monday. And I understand that she held her own with former Secretary Condi Rice, so we're very fortunate to have you here, Ms. Mojapi. I'm gonna ask you to just share a little bit about your experience with MCA Lesotho and how you've, the work that you've been doing, how it's been supporting the private sector more broadly and how you've engaged with the private sector. The floor is yours, Ms. Mojapi. Thank you very much, Danielle. I think speaking last is an advantage in the sense that I've had all the good things that have been said up to now by very experienced people. I think countries such as mine, which have benefited from support by the US government under the Malayum Challenge Corporation should consider themselves very fortunate in the sense that we are now benefiting from the shift that British has referred to in that we are operating under a new model, the MCC model, which is quite different from the approach that previous donors or development partners have used in the past. The MCC model is quite refreshing, I have to say, in the sense that it promotes country ownership. It enhances partnerships between governments and the Malayum Challenge Corporation, which is the agency of the US government. So I'll speak quite briefly about the way the model or the MCC intervention has enhanced the way we do business back home. The focus or the benefit of the intervention has really been in the area of information technology. As you can imagine, some parts of Africa still rely on manual systems. But in this day and age, I think we all agree that that's too arcade if we want to make progress in this world. So the intervention by MCC has helped my country in a way to progress faster in information technology. Connectivity has been a problem in my country, but we are now working on it and thanks to the MCC support. Our site areas in which information technology has moved a step in the right direction. In the health sector, for example, we are building or we have rehabilitated about 138 health centers throughout the country. And for those who know Lesotho or have heard about it, it's a very mountainous country. I don't know whether you know Lesotho or you've been there, but it's a mountainous country. And the terrain is quite challenging. And therefore connectivity has been one of the big challenges that we've had. What is being done now is that the health centers in those remote areas have to be connected to the headquarters which is in the capital city in order for medical records to be transmitted to headquarters quickly so that planning can take place about what needs to be done so that the Minister of Health can be able to provide services to the remote areas. That's one area where the intervention has assisted the Minister of Health to improve in its service delivery. We are trying also to, let me say, there's been a pilot study in one hospital where the system has been installed on electronic medical records. Now that's an innovation which was unheard of before the MCC intervention because patients used to have little books when they came to the hospital for service. And if you came to the hospital and you didn't have your book with you, the doctor wouldn't have your medical history. And that was a big problem. But with this system under the pilot, the patients just come in and they put their finger and their medical history comes up on the screen. It's refreshing. It's something that we haven't seen in the past and all because of the intervention by the MCC. Now there's medical waste which is generated in hospitals as we all know in clinics. It's a big problem. What has been helping in the past is that it was just being disposed of in whatever way. But the pilot study was undertaken to say, hey, let's adapt to the international standards. Let's deal with medical waste because it's hazardous. And therefore this pilot study is at the end of completion and it will be rolled out to the other hospitals to say let's deal with medical waste in a proper manner. Let me move on to another activity under the compact, the civil legal reform project. In the local, in the course back home, records were manually written. It was not uncommon for a file to disappear in a court. And the registrar would probably just not know where it went to. But with the system that we now have, we are saying let's automate everything. We are now automating all the court records and no file will go, you know, will disappear in future. It's a great help. We have a US company that has been working with a local private sector IT company in Lesotho to install the system of the automation. So automating records. And we see that as a big help in the sense that when the US company leaves after installation of the system and it's operational, the local company will be in a position to maintain the system going forward. And that's the benefit of having worked with their local IT company. It wasn't a question of company coming in, installing the system and system and walking away. No, they worked with a local company. We have another project under the land administration to form. Land titles, insurance of land titles was a big problem. And people could not in a way use their properties as collateral in the event that they wanted to obtain loans from banks. But we are now installing a system that will maintain records of all titles that have been issued to land owners. Again, a move in the right, a step in the right, in the right direction in terms of using technology to improve the welfare of our people. One other big example that I have is the, believe me, we don't have a credit bureau in Lesotho. Can you imagine? A credit bureau, we don't have that. But under this intervention, MSI intervention, there is a credit bureau that is going to be established. And the regulator is the central bank of Lesotho. So the central bank of Lesotho is in the process of engaging a consultant who will develop a system that the central bank will use to monitor the activities of the service provider who will be from the private sector. So again, there is an example of a government intervention that has helped to enhance the participation of the private sector in my country. Lastly, I just want to touch base very briefly on the water sector. We are building a dam in Lesotho that will increase the supply of water. In the rural areas, in all the 10 districts of the country, we are building water systems for the local rural population, which up to now has not had access to clean water. So we have examples of rural communities that have already benefited from the supply of water to the extent that they are now able to grow vegetables in their gardens, to feed their children and even go to the extent of selling the surplus that they have. The other aspect has to do with the availability of water for more wet industries in our country. Believe me, the US is one of our biggest customers for products that are produced in Lesotho, for the US market. And we would like to see wet industries increase, and there's a good possibility that with more water supply, the private sector will be able to come in hopefully and establish more factories and thereby create jobs for people. So ladies and gentlemen, in the nutshell, that's the story I have, and we are very grateful that the Milonam Challenge Corporation was able to assist Lesotho, and we are hoping that our people will improve their well-being and that in the process, they will be able to have better health with all the health interventions that we have received under the Milonam Challenge Corporation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Mhabi. Lord Hastings, would you mind if you, we're hoping you provide a response to the panel, if you would please ask questions, which is to say how incredibly refreshing I found every single comment that came from the panelists, because these were stories of difference. These were not short-term projects. These were not minute-by-minute little interventions. This is a real move from projects to prosperity building and that prosperity building so brilliantly emphasized in Lesotho and also in the development of the skills of the young because they're going to decide for themselves how resources that they will make from the bottom upwards are to be invested in the remaking of their countries. So thrilled. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Hastings. I think I could pull out various strands of this myself, but I suspect there are a lot of knowledgeable people in the audience and so why don't we move directly to question and answers from the audience. We have some microphones here. Andrea, you seem here from DevX. And then the woman back there, but first Andrea. Why don't we do this World Bank style so we'll bunch several of them together? So Andrea, go ahead, please. Great, thanks so much. Andrea, you seem from DevX Impact. It's a site all about partnership, so please visit. The question is a follow-up on your comment, Ms. Robinson, about sort of taking the P out of the PPP. So what happens when companies sort of do it themselves? And you posed the question, what does this mean? So I would love to hear from all of you. What does that mean? Is it a good thing? And then what is the role for government in that? So thank you. Okay, let's get the woman's comment back, question back there. Hi, my name is Dina Kielani. I come from Jordan. I work for the British Embassy in Amman as the head of program leading on political and governance projects. My question actually is to Hi, William. We remember we met at Peter Millett's office. My question is, and actually it's a comment to British and William, coming from a country that also receives aid from three major donors, US government, UK, and also the EU. We all understand that they all have interests in Jordan for all obvious reasons. But the issue in a country like Jordan is not the interest, it's basically the approaches that these three countries have pursued to basically get to their interests. And I would really like to focus on the how the streets perceive the aid that is coming from the US, mainly the US and US aid. And the point about public-private partnership. I mean, so many banks, for example, we have the standard chartered bank. They do a lot of corporate social responsibility in Jordan, but they refuse to work with on any project that is co-funded with USAID or even the British government because they know that the recipients will refuse to take part in this project because you know that conspiracy theory has become a business in this part of the world. So basically, these corporates or these banks, they actually, they chose to work away from the government because they know that if they associate themselves with the US government or the UK government, their business will not succeed and they will not be able to do projects in these countries. Tom Ward back there, Chelsea back there. I'm Thomas Ward. I've been working a lot on the PPPs and I know there's some miscommunications sometime on the PPPs because this seems to be much more on the donor side of things. A lot of PPP is like the UK vision of PPP really came from the financing and procurement as a vehicle and it's getting into how do you actually do investment into given entities and the idea behind it is an investment that then returns and grows and the government can then be out of it or donors if it's heist or whatever who's in there who they can pull out and it can be self-suffining on its own. Instead of a project financing, it's turning into life cycle. Three different questions. Why don't I just ask each person to take those comments or questions that they want to take? Bill, why don't we just, we'll just go down the row here. Bill. Okay. Now your first question was about the street and what basically people are thinking of USAID or right and then what companies think of partnering with. To be honest with you, I mean, I think conspiracy theories are fascinating and fun to listen to at times but and I could be wrong. You know your country better than I do. I find those are theories that are kicked around at cocktail parties and down where the work is getting done. We haven't found any in the slums of which are really old refugee camps. The kids are bereft of activities, out of school activities, after school activities, civic activities, types of things that would get them engaged with the community and while doing so, preparing some for work. We haven't seen any pushback really on that that I think is significant nor in a company. I get it. Companies wouldn't want to be connected with one government or another or sometimes the major superpower of the world but I think I think, I haven't seen that happen very often to be honest and we haven't seen it happen in Jordan where Jordanian companies and other multinationals have come to work with us. It's clear that the program, there's so much foreign aid money in Jordan. Other companies are jealous of you but haven't seen a lot of that even though the aid brand on what we're doing and others are doing is pretty noticeable. British. Sure, I'll tackle the first question sort of the pee that's missing. I think that I've seen it in a couple, I don't want to call out the companies but I've seen it in a couple of cases where I think the role of government changes from donor to local government and that's back to Lord Hastings point. I don't think that's a bad thing because what happens is we start to move towards true sustainability and there's been this sort of almost organic exit strategy, right? And in some cases that's not a bad thing. I think that's a good thing. And that also frees up in some ways the diffids and the USA IDs to do other things that are truly intractable because if the companies are handling, I'm not gonna say easier things but they have a different approach like technology and things like that that they're way ahead of USG on. USG can deal with these intractable poverty, deep poverty alleviation types of things. So in some ways, public private partnerships is starting to, I mean I'd say in another two years if this trend continues, are we actually almost building ourselves out of something but also building clear markets or clear niche for us when we go into us? Oh my God, I've been out of the US government for a year. Excuse me. When the US government goes out of these partnerships, maybe it starts to define and carve that role a little bit deeper and that's wonderful because that means that this space is truly evolving but it also says again that we've done a good job of teaching foundation sector, corporate sector and that they are able to handle it kind of frankly on their own directly with local government. The other things that they're doing is they're very smart about and very clever. I mean they've hired almost like interlocutors or folks that sort of act on their behalf and they sort of make sure that yays and make sure that the eyes are dotted and the teas are crossed kind of the way the US government would have played that role they're almost outsourcing it and again I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing so I hope that answered your question. I've seen some real success particularly on the health side I'll speak to that's really more of my content background. On the other point that Tom made around the DIFFIT approach I think that's right I think USG has learned a lot from DIFFIT I think there's been a number of very successful investment models it's back to my earlier comment I think those of us who are all working together many of us in this room I think the MCC model in and of itself turns development on its head and that's where I was going earlier I think the MCC model, PEPFAR even PMI things like that I think we're starting to move towards that and that's another piece of the evolution I think of public-private partnerships and where I know my colleagues who are now still in this space are moving towards and even things like grand challenges I think gets you closer to where kind of looking at it from the DIFFIT perspective and I think that's point of fact the right perspective. Okay Paula. Just quickly to build on the PPP theme here public-private partnerships aren't some cookie cutter homogeneous entity and I think there are a number of ways of going about them and each one is unique and depends on local circumstances and the partners involved I can say though that sometimes as speaking from the private sector it is extremely difficult to figure out among the 1660 whatever it is agencies in the US government that touch development home to approach how to approach them with whom I have to speak and then getting around all of the various barriers from procurement to staffing to a whole host of to contracting it's an enormous effort to work with the US government it really is and for a company of our size if we're finding that difficult with the kind of staff we have who understand government and NGOs imagine for a small to medium sized enterprise to Bill's point the future of really growing partnerships in a meaningful way how difficult is it for them so that's one thing that I think is difficult. I think the other thing as companies become established in various host countries and nationalize their staff their local staff have relationships with key players in country whether that's NGO leaders whether you're talking about the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Health and so there's perhaps they see less of an affinity to US AID or others and perhaps less value in that kind of intermediary role that AID does play and has played for example very valuable role in many cases. Well so my friend Ms. Mohapi had to leave because she's going to the White House so thank you very much for coming and that's a good reason so thank you, thanks for coming. Let me just take the issue that Tom raised about there are various when people talk about public-private partnerships if you ask the IMF or you ask infrastructure companies there's a very specific sub-definition of the conversation about public-private partnerships around build, operate and transfer and it's an infrastructure-focused conversation and when I said at the beginning was let's we're going to use the definition that AID uses for this to kind of set the stage for this so my thought is is there is some intersection between both the larger conversation that we're having here and the sub-conversation around infrastructure in areas such as the development credit authority some of the ways in which MCC is investing and making investment decisions or the way OPIC operates and the way IFC is operating so I think that there is a Venn diagram covering both so I appreciate the comment, Tom. I'm not sure if as the ambassador arrived is the ambassadors here you know I'm just thinking what we should do is just to stay on time I'm going to ask the ambassador the DCM from Sudan to join us up here on stage I'm going to ask my colleagues from the panel to step down as the ambassador comes up we're very fortunate to have ambassador Obango who's the W.E. Chief of Mission for the Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan who's going to make some comments about the role the private sector in development of South Sudan we're very fortunate to have ambassador please what you can either speak here or maybe you can just sit down that'd be fine yes absolutely absolutely good afternoon all my name is Dano Obango in short because my mother loved called me Dano I've already you have seen my biography I'm from South Sudan the beloved new born nation on earth why South Sudan South Sudan economy is booming and briefly as some of you may be aware we got our independent from Khatum Sudan in July 2011 so I say to Dan that I'm not from Sudan I'm from South Sudan the country is called the Republic of South Sudan the nation from South Sudan from Republic of South Sudan is called South Sudanese so these are a few things so let me take this opportunity also to thanks my friend Daniel and the leadership of CSIC for inviting me and inviting the Embassy so I thought we'll be very brief and to the point if you have question later on you will ask so as I say why South Sudan the economy is booming driving up demand for goods and services some of you have also known South Sudan has been marginalized politically economically socially for more than 100 years by the Arab Islamic government's regimes in Khatum so we are starting from scratch South Sudan have a lot of opportunities financial and professional services hotels and tourism transport and logistics retails and health sales we are neighboring nine countries in the east Ethiopia in the north Sudan and then the west central republic of Africa and DRC and then in the south Uganda Kenya in my beloved country the council of ministers on the 2011 off-roof the strategic policy framework for the ministry of commerce industry and investment the ministry of commerce industry investment develop a strategic policy for three years action plans to spearhead the economic growth in south Sudan the strategy is developed in conformity with the south Sudan development plan who is economic sector objective is to advance and accelerate broader based economic growth and sustainable development led by the private sector in south Sudan and with partnership with international private sectors the ministry of commerce industry and investment has diversified private sector let economic growth and sustainable development that improve lifehood and reduce poverty and creation of employment for the people of south Sudan who have voted for 99 percent for independent and for the youth who are also a problem in south Sudan and you know south Sudan have 60 ethnic group and these things is a part of the nation building which is also a challenge to us so we have about 20 banks in south Sudan one agricultural bank as I in south Sudan is potentially very rich with the resources in in various areas we have about 30 million hard cakes herbal land with only 50 percent currently used range of economic of climate zones and rainfall providing water we have 12 million cuttles and 25 million sheep available so excellence conditions in tree plantations we have uniles is passing through south Sudan to the north we have animal productions opportunity we have export cash crops we have fisheries we have forestry forestry we have a lot of opportunity for those who may be interesting and especially private sectors there are infrastructure shortages in areas energy shortfall mean extensive opportunity in power generation ambition and achievable countrywide roads and building and also growing and more prosper population mean house building house building is priority and of course the government priority is an agriculture and you see south Sudan is potentially a big land but agriculture is priority and when the government interests is to see that whoever come there then agriculture should be the priority and resources we have oil gas production oil refineries pop lines mining and minerals so infrastructure we have we need power roads railways airport housing manufacturing and services construction materials consumer goods financial and business services retails transport and logistics so we are starting from a scratch so the opportunity is you is yours we have a corporate council on Africa already on the ground from USA here we have oversee private investment cooperation OPEC is on the ground there and is the grant tool for the private sector from USA want to work in south Sudan and some of you who have follow up in the media recently on the 16 and 17 the United States UK other partners have organized the south Sudan economic forum how to help south Sudan with this few months while we are organizing our oil to go to the international market and the last day was given to private sector where our minister for commerce industry and investment address investors and encourage them so I want to feel to all of you if you have few some American dollars or you have some friends you are welcome to your second country south Sudan thank you for listening ambassador obango thank you very much for being with us I can't miss the opportunity to reference the fact that my very good friend and mentor Andrew Natsios was the president push a special envoy to south Sudan and I know that the United States in a bipartisan way both under president Bush who was very committed to the birth of south Sudan as well as under president Obama there's been a huge push USAID had a huge role to do with it including the I guess it was the juba mountain peace accords the AID had a big role there the Norwegians the United Kingdom also had a big roles to play and my friend Kurt Reinsma and one of his past lives was the office director for the office of Sudanese and south Sudanese affairs at AID not sure it was necessarily called that at the time but now it would be called that now but I think that we really are grateful that you would take time out of your busy schedule to be with us I just want to just cite one investment in particular that I found very interesting one of the very large you have a very large foreign direct investment the largest foreign direct investment in south Sudan is a beer company if I understand it correctly you just share with us just AID if you talk a little bit about some of the investors that are coming to south Sudan and just spend one minute more about the energy sector because I think we're going to be hearing a lot more about the energy sector in south Sudan in the near future if you just well as I stated at the beginning that we are started from scratch from zero then the power and energy is very important despite that we have the water there and we have also a sunshine weather there but this has not been used for many years so and also we are starting now to go to in some industry and as you know the technology cannot work without power so you go to juba you will hear a lot of generator you will not sleep well so that is mean that that area it need to be addressed so and it is very important as a newborn nation to learn from the previous countries and then move forward so this is the area the government have a plan with these water coming from Uganda to build some dams so that can generate some water and power but I think it will take a little bit few years but with that gap then there is need for private sectors to come in so that they can also narrow the gap that the government can play a role there then they can play with partnership with the private sector and public sector together Ambassador just one more minute if you just share a little bit more about the energy the oil and gas talk about the oil and gas for a minute well the oil as we since we separated then we took with us 75 percent with us in South Sudan but unfortunately all the facilities are still in Sudan and also we are a landlocked country so what we need all the facilities are refinery the public lines going from South Sudan to Khatum from Khatum going to Port Sudan which is the port then we have to pay we have agreed on the 29th September so that we work out how much we can pay Khatum was asking us $30 for a barrel we say that is too much but at last we have reached to compromise so in gas we are still potential we are asking some expert to go and do a lot of mapping and do some research in that area because South Sudan is very potential I will leave some some papers here around for some of you to go through it so there is a lot of thing to be done as you are aware we are only 20 months old so and we are struggling with a lot of things the nation building and et cetera and et cetera ethnicity and all these things so it is not easy that we need your help as an American you have been a friend of South Sudan before independent and you help us to liberate ourselves so don't leave us alone so let us let struggle continue Ambassador will you be willing to stick around a few minutes if people want to say hello to you and get your business card so I encourage you all to shake hands with the ambassador and get his business card and I suspect we are going to be hearing a lot more positive things about South Sudan in the near future and I am very much looking forward to going to Juba myself because I love visiting countries that are very pro-American and I know South Sudan has got to be 100% pro-American so I am planning to go thanks very much please thank our friend Ambassador Obango for being with