In both cases, GROW reserves the right to terminate partnerships for a number of reasons, even if the partner does not maintain its contract. The agreements clearly show that fraud is one of the reasons for an immediate cessation and possible legal action. The “lighter” agreement is intended for companies that are generally small and semi-formal and have relatively low capacity. These agreements generally include less money and GROW`s contribution is paid directly to an external service provider and is not transferred directly to the partner. The terms cover almost all the same points as the “fully loaded” agreement, but they are much shorter and simpler, and unnecessary clauses, such as public procurement directives, are removed. This is because these partnerships are less risky and need to be easier to understand for businessmen who often have not had formal training. Grow often uses this agreement with small and medium-sized traders, for example in the vegetable sector. While agreement on what the partner and the programme should do is not yet clear, it is shorter than the full-capacity agreement. If the proposed partner and GROW are approved, they then negotiate a partnership agreement.
Grow currently uses two basic models for partnership agreements, although this may change in the future. In the event of an announcement of the death of a PARTNER, the communication is considered a total withdrawal from the partnership. MoUs have a short and simple structure. The MoU provides a background to each party and its relevant objectives; it contains a brief explanation of the context of entry into the MoU and then lists the roles/responsibilities of each party, as well as the expected results. As a general rule, these agreements do not involve the exchange of funds. Sometimes MoUs are also adapted to the cooperation of local authorities, but it is sometimes preferable to consider government authority as a market player and sign a comprehensive partnership agreement. One of the advantages of using a mechanism with governments is that its non-binding nature facilitates authorisation through bureaucratic procedures. Sometimes, however, the program wants something more complete than a slacker; in these cases, the model can be adjusted to find a balance.
In the end, this may be more like the “lighter” version of the partnership agreement model. In both cases, it is easy to modify partnership agreements with a simple endorsement, which ensures that simple and more detailed agreements are flexible and can be adapted to changing circumstances. The addition simply indicates what needs to be added or amended in the partnership, and both parties sign and complete the original agreement. The partnership agreement usually requires a few iterations, as TANT GROW that the partner clarifies what is expected and explores the possibilities more concretely. If the Chief Of Intervention is satisfied that the partnership has potential, a partnership document is sent to the Senior Program Management Team (TMS) for review, whereas, as a general rule, a TMS member has already attended the partner`s meeting and the chief intervention`s advice. Together, the TMS discusses and sends the document containing comments and questions to the response team, followed by a meeting with the team. The reasons for the partnership can come and go on several occasions, as the response team collects missing information or takes into account all the issues raised by the TMS. And don`t deny the need for a partnership agreement, since your proposed partner is your good friend; Some of the ugliest partnership breaks I`ve ever heard or experienced have occurred between friends who think they knew what their boyfriend was thinking or was going to do.