> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://urd.gitbook.io/compass/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://urd.gitbook.io/compass/learning-and-adapting/practising-adaptive-management/equitable-partnerships-a-way-to-foster-adaptability.md). # Equitable partnerships: a way to foster adaptability? Adaptive management depends on the ability to make fast, grounded decisions — and that ability is shaped, fundamentally, by the quality of the relationships between those involved. When partnerships are unequal, communication is filtered, information flows upward selectively, and the people closest to the problem have little power to act on what they observe. The result is an intervention that cannot adapt, not because the tools are missing, but because the partnership structure blocks it. This page is about what equitable partnerships look like in practice, why traditional project management structures often get in the way, and what can be done differently. *** ### **Why traditional partnerships block adaptation** Traditional project cycle management tends to create structural barriers to genuine partnership. Three patterns recur:
Ineffective dialogue and design The intervention strategy is often designed by the organisation with the most resources and expertise, with local partners and affected communities consulted late in the process — if at all. By the time the project starts, the fundamental strategic choices have already been made elsewhere, limiting local partners' and actors' ability to shape how the project responds to what they observe.
Hierarchical roles and responsibilities Formal agreements often define relationships in terms of accountability flowing upward: implementing partners report to lead organisations, who report to donors. This hierarchy shapes what information gets shared, and with whom. Signals from the field that something needs to change are filtered through multiple levels before reaching those who have the authority to act. Capacity strengthening, an inherent component of equitable partnerships, is also too often looked at in one direction, and tends to focus more on weaknesses and gaps than on strengths and opportunities.
Lack of collective approach When partners work in parallel rather than in genuine collaboration — each managing their own activities, their own data, their own relationships with communities — the connections needed for collective adaptation simply do not exist.
> The question is not whether these structures create barriers to adaptation. They do. The question is what to put in their place. *** ### **Three foundations of equitable partnership** Equitable partnerships are not just ethically preferable — they are operationally necessary for adaptive management to work. Three dimensions consistently matter:
Equality — equal value in decision-making All partners have an equal voice in decisions that affect the intervention. This does not mean all partners have identical roles — it means that no partner's perspective is systematically excluded from decisions that affect their work and the communities they serve.
Reciprocity — mutual understanding, engagement, accountability and respect Each partner understands the constraints, capacities and expectations of the others. Accountability flows in multiple directions, not only from implementing partners toward lead organisations and donors. Partners support each other's learning and growth, not just their own reporting requirements.
Transparency — open and honest communication Information about what is working and what is not is shared openly, including between partners at different levels of the structure. Failure is shared as quickly as success. The norms around what can be said — and to whom — actively support rather than discourage difficult conversations.
*** ### **From traditional structures to adaptive partnerships** {% columns %} {% column width="50%" %}

From...

{% endcolumn %} {% column width="50%" %}

to...

{% endcolumn %} {% endcolumns %} One approach to restructuring project partnerships for greater agility draws on methods developed in software development, adapted for the humanitarian and development context. This method is called **Scrum model**. Beyond the name or its origin, it is how it works that is interesting and that should prompt us to reflect deeply on the nature of the relationship that organizations maintain with their partners in traditional projects, and on the adjustments needed to support the development of genuine equitable partnerships. The key idea of Scrum model is to redesign the relationships between three roles that exist in any project, but are often poorly configured for adaptation:
Cover image
Project OwnerThe community and local actors

Define the vision — what "done well" looks like for the people the intervention is meant to serve.

In an adaptive partnership, this is not a consultation step at the start of a project. It is an ongoing, structured role that shapes decisions throughout implementation.

7.png
Interface (Scrum master)The facilitator who can be an INGO, a local NGO, or a shared roleFacilitates processes and communication between partners. Their function is to make collaboration easier, remove obstacles, and ensure that information and decisions move efficiently between levels. This is distinct from a coordination role in the traditional sense: the facilitator serves the partnership, not the hierarchy.8.png
Project TeamOrganisations, authorities and donorsWork together as equal partners, each contributing their specific resources, knowledge and mandate — rather than in a hierarchical chain where some partners set the terms and others execute them.9.png
This structure shifts decision-making authority closer to where the intervention is happening. It creates space for community representatives to define priorities and flag concerns throughout the project, rather than having their inputs filtered through a reporting chain. *Source* : Pellowska, D. (2023). *Localisation in practice: Facilitating equitable partnership in humanitarian project management*. Centre for Humanitarian Action. () *** ### **What this looks like in practice** Moving toward more equitable partnerships requires deliberate choices at key moments in the project cycle:
At design stage * Define objectives and vision jointly, with community representatives and local partners involved from the beginning — not invited to validate a document that has already been written * Be explicit, in partnership agreements, about decision-making processes and overall sharing of roles and responsabilities: who has authority over what, at which level, and what happens when partners disagree * Ensure that project stakeholders share their desired vision of the collaboration framework and the criteria for monitoring the quality of that framework * Ensure that the project has anticipated setting up regular, collaborative, and transparent opportunities for interaction between the project team and the project owners (with time, resources...)
During implementation * Create regular, mutual, transparent exchange platforms across the project team — not just reporting moments but genuine two-way learning spaces * Regularly monitor the quality of the partnerships relationships and share the results of this analysis with stakeholders to take corrective action if necessary * Assign a facilitator role explicitly, rather than assuming coordination will happen through goodwill and informal communication * Attribute explicitely a "project owner" role — the group or organisation primarily responsible for ensuring the vision remains connected to the realities on the ground — that is not automatically the organisation with the largest budget
In managing information * Ensure that local partners have access to the same monitoring data as lead organisations — not just the data they collected themselves - and that analysis and conclusions drawn from data are shared with all partners * Develop data-sharing agreements that reflect the principles of minimisation, consent and responsible use, not just compliance with donor requirements *(See CartONG toolbox on responsible data management for practical guidance* [Cartong Learning Corner](https://cartong.pages.gitlab.cartong.org/resources-center/en/learning-corner)*)*
In accountability * Hold all partners accountable for what they have achieved in relation to agreed objectives — not only for whether they followed procedures * Do not view accountability commitments (narrative and financial reporting, information sharing, transparency) as a one-way process: from implementing organizations to recipient organizations. * Ensure maximum transparency among the partners, particularly with regard to the budgetary and administrative management of the contract which is highly sensitive but essential to ensure transparency and confidence among partners * Ensure that partners remain united and mutually engaged throughout the project, regardless of the results achieved, successes, or failures * Ensure that feedback from communities reaches decision-makers directly, not only through the filter of implementing partners' reports
*** ### **Why this matters for the CHS** Equitable partnerships are not only a matter of operational efficiency. CHS Commitment 6 — on coordinated and complementary support — explicitly calls for working with partners through clear agreements that respect each partner's mandate and independence. CHS Commitment 1 — on participation — requires that communities can exercise their rights and influence decisions that affect them. And CHS Commitment 3 — on resilience and local capacities — depends on partnerships that genuinely strengthen local actors, rather than creating dependency. An adaptive intervention cannot deliver on these commitments if its partnership structure systematically concentrates power and decision-making authority at the top of the chain. *** ### **Key points** * Traditional project management structures tend to block adaptive management by concentrating decision-making authority away from where the intervention is happening * Equitable partnerships rest on three foundations: equality in decision-making, reciprocity in accountability and support, and transparency in communication * Redesigning partnership structures requires deliberate choices at design, during implementation, and in how accountability is managed * Equitable partnerships are not just operationally useful — they are an expression of CHS Commitments 1, 3 and 6 ### **Links and toolbox** {% content-ref url="/spaces/8VQvJtfuTFNUeSv1dIbV/pages/r0ZYgBncaIZwoiOnEFjd" %} [Adaptive management](/compass/documentation/adaptive-management.md) {% endcontent-ref %} {% embed url="" %}