SOMETIME last year, I read about the CineGuyana initiative, started by the government of Guyana and supported by USAID funding and technical support from the University of Ohio, if I recall correctly.
Earlier this week, I read that the initiative is not only continuing independent of donor support, but has now attracted private sector funding. According to a report in a section of the local print media, Digicel has contributed one million dollars to the initiative with the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry contributing another million and Courts Guyana topping up with its own $250,000 contribution.
This is admittedly a fledgling effort, but within this  arrangement is the gist of what I want to propose in this week’s article: A reimagining of the paradigm of public-private partnerships, a topic I’ve dedicated several editions of this column to.
Within the basis of the CineGuyana arrangement is the blueprint of a public-private idea that is not exactly novel in itself, but one that can be applied and transformed here.  It is the model that links government initiatives with NGO execution capacity with donor funding and private sector buy-in.
For example, in neighbouring Brazil, the partially publicly-owned petroleum company, Petrobras, provides seed production funding for independent film production companies to make movies which are then both eligible for grant funding, and or technical assistance, as well as partnership distribution arrangements with commercial distribution companies, either directly or through their subsidiaries responsible for marketing independent/non-Hollywood films.

What I want to propose is that there be a similarly evolved union between public-private partnerships.  Now, as I have said in my previous pieces, such partnerships have traditionally focused on investment in public infrastructure, healthcare services and diverse other areas, from public education to the prison system.  My idea, however, is to marry two sectors that one would not automatically view as compatible – profitable public private partnerships (PPPs) and NGO work.  After all, the NGO sector focuses largely on voluntary or non-profit service provision, while PPPs usually expect high and/or long-term yield on considerable investment.
The differences between the two, however, are less than we would like to believe, particularly in the area of service delivery.  Pardon another reference to my previous work, but in several articles published over the years, I’ve explored the growing role of NGOs in the delivery of public services, with specific reference to the area of health.
The problem, however, is that such services are provided at a cost subsidised or borne entirely by the donor community.  The result has been that, over the years, the environment has become skewed, not towards sustainability, but towards temporary self-perpetuation.  I have seen several – too many, in fact – NGOs ride the crest of donor support, only to be dissolved completely with the closure of a particular source of funding, or even a phase of funding for a long-term project.
I’ll readily admit that this idea is something I have to return repeatedly to and refine, but what if donors – as a precondition for the release of funding, and a specific mechanism to ensure long-term sustainability post-funding – require NGOs to partner with private sector entities in their bid for funds.  The benefits would be divided thusly: The donor agencies would be assured a value-for-money mechanism, with corporate oversight into the execution of projects; the engaged businesses would benefit from what I would presume to be consultancy fees built into the funding; and NGOs would be able to build their capacity for long-term, independent operation, inclusive of, for example, the creation of operational revenue streams through the remuneration of services to corporate or governmental entities, even as they retain their non-profit status.  There is obviously going to be the bugbear of taxation, but this is something that can be resolved, I believe, with relevant legislative amendments.
In closing, as I continue to advocate, we need to be able to comprehend and adapt models of development to our particular situation; with enough refinement, this, I believe, is going to be another pathway towards that overall end.
Let peace and love reign in Linden and the whole of Guyana!