This presentation by Bartolomeu Soto was delivered at the 'Concessioning tourism opportunities in conservation areas and maximising rural development' workshop, held in Maputo between 19-22 March 2012 (Day 1, Session 3, Concessions processes)

1. Negotiating a Public Private Partnership
Introduction
Institutional Arrangement to Restore the
• Gorongosa National Park was one of the first protected
Gorongosa National Park areas declared in the country and became famous due
to its diverse and abundant wildlife;
• According to the legislation the Park was Administered
by Government until it was abandoned in decade of
80´s due to civil war.
• The Government returned to the Park in 1993 after the
1992 peace agreement.
Introduction The PPP Attempts
• The paradigm shift was determined by the forestry and
wildlife law(1999) that created a provision that forest , • In 1997 the Government launched a tender to
wildlife and protected areas can be delegated to an identify tourism concessionairs and received
administration of other sectors than public; a proposal which comprised the following
institutional arragement:
• Gorongosa Park was subject to three attempts of
negotiations for a Public Private Partnerships namelly: – The Mozambican company, the promoter
– Clivia and Investimento lda. (Clivia+Investimento lda);
– African Park – Government;
– Bernardo Pedro Ferraz
– Local communities;
– Associação Comercial da Beira
– Other Mozambican Investors
– Carr Foundation – This was the one that took shape
The PPP Attempts The PPP Attempts
• Unsolicited Proposal was received from African Park in 2003;
• The Council of Ministers did not consider that • At the same year government received other two proposals from
Bernardo Ferraz and Associação Comercial Moçambicana
proposal due to the following:
• The Government dicided to not engage AP due to following:
– The promoter failed to prove that could mobilise the funds – Interpretation of legislation left a grey area on the need or not of a public tender to
to Gorongosa Park; identifiy a partner to co- manage Gorongosa Park and direct negotiation were
suspended;
– Did not have any track record in working in Conservation – This was exacerbated by the fact that the Govenment was under pressure to attend
areas; other proposals Bernardo Ferraz and Associação Comercial Moçambicana
– African Park demanded that the funds that would invest in the Park should be
– The roles and responsibilities of partners were not well reimbursed to the mother compony by the revenue of the Park, which was not
spelled out; attractive to Government;
– There was no Mozambican participation in African Park, although AP has agreed to
involve them;

2. What is Negotiation? Preparation of Negotiation
• Negotiation is a process of interaction between
parties directed at reaching some form of
agreement that will hold and which is based
upon common interests (Spoelstra & Pienner,
1999);
• When approaching a negotiation situation it is
important to consider the aim of finding an
outcome where both sides could gain, even if it
means giving something else in the process
Preparation of Negotiation
THE PREPARATION FOR THE
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE MITUR AND
THE CARR FOUNDATION
The Preparation The Preparation
Carr Foundation MITUR Carr Foundation MITUR
Objectives •Provide financial & tecnhical •Receive financial and Legal Ensured that it was negotiating •Ensured that the partner was
support technical support for Implications with the right partner and got ideal for partnership
•take leadership in management of Gorongosa legal advice from Mozambican
management of Gorongosa •take leadership in lawyer
management of resources.
Tactics •Experienced negotiators •No experienced negotiator
Analysis of the Contatcs with Moz Embassy in MITUR got information of •Organised the Hotel Avenida •Experienced in protected
situation USA and authorities in Moz moral and financial as a Venue areas management
provided good impression streghthens from Embassy of •Drafted the text of the •Did not have venue and did
Moz in USA agreement not dicided for one
Feed Back Strong feed back in Feed back in performance was
Identification of •Provide support for •Ensure that the ownership of (Prepartion for performance being done, but there were
issues reabilitation of the Park the process remains with the the next phases) The performance was imroved concerns that were coming up
•Ensure that the support will Mozambique in following rounds most of time. (is there a
be sustainable •Ensure that the process is comercial interest? Are we
legal securing the ownership?)

3. Phases of Negotiation
• Exploratory negotiatin – wherein preferences and bottom
lines are discussed, information exchanged, consensus
reached as areas of conflitis and areas of consensus;
• Accomodative negotiation wherein the process of the
bridging of differences and easy agreements are negotiated
• Confrontational negotiation wherein hard bargaining is done
on the core differences between groups, where moment of
crisis often arise and reciprocal blackmail is quite common
• Compromise negotiation wherein solutions are found
through give and take, contracts obtained and general THE PHASES OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
consensus established (de Klerk, 1993)
THE MITUR AND THE CARR FOUNDATION
The Negotiations The Negotiations
• The Exploratory Negotiation • The Accomodative Negotiation
– Government and Carr Foundation established a MoU for 6
months to allow joint activities while the parties finilise a long
term agreement; – The negotiating team from Government made initial
– Policy or legal statements about partnerships in PA´s were attempts to convince Government to accept the institutional
scattered and not well understood; arrangement proposed by Carr;
– The parties agreed to draft principles of the relationship; – Government did not agree and was concerned about
onwership and soverenigty issue;
– There was no good information on each other Party. A
conflict emerged on the Institutional arrangement for the – Carr oferred to not interfere with legislation and establishing
partnership; a Warden who would deal with ecology and antipoaching;
• Government wanted to keep the arrangement, maintaing a – Carr wanted to keep the planning and management under
Government Park warden; his representative;
• Carr wanted to establish horizontal Departments with more power to
one Head of Department appointed by Carr Foundation
The Negotiations The Negotiations
• The Confrontational Negotiation
• The Compromise Negotiation
– Carr indicated that key premises to continue to sign any
agreement: – There were found the following solutions:
• Carr Foundation would keep the key position of planning and
• Needed to be responsible of planning and management;
government would appoint a warden who is dedicated to the
• 30 years implementation to give time to ensure sustainability; antipoaching but represents the Park with other agents;
• Inclusion of força major; • Steering committe composed by Greg Carr and a senior officer
• Governnment commit to pay part of the cost of management of the appointed by the Minister take decisions that are for the Park warden
Park; in Mozambique legislation;
• Revenues from the Park be retained directly by the Park • There are 6 Departments and each Party appointed 3 Heads of the
– Carr demanded that once negotiations are not completed by 31 Departments
December 2007 it would consider it terminated • The period of agreement is 20 years and an evaluation would
determine a need or not of additional 10 years;
– Government indicated key premises such as:
• Government committed to pay part of the costs of the management of
• Not ready to give up the role in planning and management; the Park;
• Wanted a short period of agreement 5-10 years; • Revenues from the Park are send to Ministry of Finance and returned
• Wanted the revenues to be channelled to FUTUR according to Moz to the Park instead of going through FUTUR
legislation and then to Gorongosa Park

4. Conclusions Thank You
• While government was talking about participative management,
clear guidance on how to establish it were absent;
• The Government had no experince in negotiating partnership
agreements. Previous failures were blamed to the other Party for
whom the government created suspicious about possible hiden
agenda;
• Government did not have enough preparation for the negotiation;
the text of the agreement was drafted by Carr and the venue
provided by Carr
• The negotiations took 2 years while both parties were antecipating 6
months, this indicates that both were over optimistic;