3. H-A-R Action Plan Implementation



The first two chapters of this Report used empirical evidence to identify the scope and specific nature of the coordination challenge in Cambodia. This broader perspective provides a clearer understanding of the development assistance context of Cambodia and contributes to understanding an approach that might be taken to strengthen aid management and the linking of aid to development results.

The primary mechanism for addressing this coordination challenge is GDCC-TWG mechanism. This Chapter considers some of the specific activities that have been implemented by Government and the TWGs, and attempts to assess their impact in promoting aid effectiveness in the context of the H-A-R Action Plan.

H-A-R Action Plan Implementation through the TWGs

The TWGs reported on their 2006 activities to the GDCC meeting that was held in February 2007. In the main, the TWGs appear to be progressing well, both in regard to implementing their own workplans and with respect to the H-A-R Action Plan.

Particular areas of progress were reported in:

  • Development of sector plans and policies, including legislation in some areas including telecommunications, infrastructure, agriculture and water, gender and governance;

  • Where these strategies had been developed they were often associated with capacity development strategies;

  • Joint approaches to monitoring and review.

Where TWGs experienced less progress, the challenges they encountered included the following:

  • Insufficient resources being identified to adequately finance the implementation of TWG activities;

  • Representation was not always at a sufficiently senior level to ensure that decisions could be taken while on other occasions issues under the mandate of a ministry other than the Chair of the TWG, including cross-cutting issues, could not be discussed as there was not sufficient cross-Governmental participation.

These observations relating to both progress and challenges broadly confirm the findings of the GDCC-TWG Review that was undertaken in the latter part of 2006. As discussed in Chapter Two, the Review resulted in the production of a 'Guideline on the Role and Functioning of the TWGs' and this was itself followed up with a meeting of all TWG Chairs and Government focal points in April 2007. This meeting discussed potential modalities of CDC support to the GDCC-TWG mechanism and agreed that a needs assessment be conducted to consult further with the TWGs on their aid coordination-related needs. The next sections of this Report therefore proceed to consider in more detail the activities that took place across all TWGs and the progress/challenges reported in implementing each of the five action areas of the H-A-R Action Plan, and may also be used to inform future areas of support that might be deemed necessary by TWGs.

H-A-R: The National Framework for Promoting Development Results

Ownership

H-A-R Action Plan Key Results Areas

Sectors develop NSDP-based programs and a sector MTEF

PIP feeds into the national budget preparation process.

Strategic Framework for Development Cooperation Management strengthens capacity

CDC provides aid coordination support requested by TWG Chairs

Government leadership in the TWGs is linked to the development of plans that clearly articulate national priorities. Good progress has been made at sector/thematic level in elaborating NSDP priorities as programmes/policies are established or are being prepared for health, education, agriculture & water, HIV/AIDS, mine action, energy, fisheries, land, governance, judicial reform, planning, public financial management, and public administration reform. The development of these strategic plans should provide a catalyst for increased programme formulation by Government, moving away from the trend of development partners developing most project proposals and leaving sometimes limited scope for revision by Government. The next phase of the Public Financial Management reform will also make a significant contribution to the linking of plans and budgets at macro and sector level as it will include a focus on the development of sector budgeting practices and procedures.

The Strategic Framework for Development Cooperation Management, which was approved by Government in January 2006, also attempts to enhance ownership and ensure coherent aid management at a macro level by elaborating the respective roles of Government ministries and agencies. Toward the end of 2006 these roles were elaborated in the 'Guideline on the Role and Functioning of TWGs', providing more detail on PIP/MTEF linkages and responsibilities at TWG level, and in providing clearer direction on the supporting role of CRDB/CDC. The Guideline also clarified the leadership role of Government, emphasizing the supporting role of TWGs which provide a forum for dialogue and review.

Alignment

H-A-R Action Plan Key Results Areas

Development partners review and align their support

MEF continues to implement the PFM reform program

PFM and procurement systems are mutually assessed

Development partners provide multi-year indicative commitments

CDC surveys PIU/ and develops an integration strategy

Sector plans include an assessment of capacity gaps

TWGs prepare/implement a capacity development program

Development partners support the application of MBPI/PMG

CDC surveys tied and untied aid

Based on the sector plans and programme-based approaches that have been established, development partners are requested to align their support around the priorities that have been articulated. The alignment of development assistance around NSDP priorities was considered in some detail in Chapter Two, which concluded that development assistance, in the main, is relatively well aligned to national priorities, although alignment must take place at more than an aggregate priority level if a real impact is to be assured toward meeting the Cambodia Millennium Development Goals (CMDGs), in particular on maternal mortality. The new Agriculture & Water Strategy, which was completed at the end of 2006, provides a good example of such an approach and builds on the established successes of the education sector, which reports that all support is routinely aligned

Emerging Good Practices

Public Financial Management

The PFM reform programme has made good progress toward completing its first Platform that focuses on the credibility of the Budget. The PFM also represents a number of good aid management practices, including:

  • Partnership principles

  • An integrated PIU

  • MBPI incentives

  • A clear managing for results approach to TWG reporting

  • A coherent funding framework and donor group

These practices do not only embody good aid management practices, they also provide an efficient modality for providing support and for allowing Government to lead the reform exercise.

with the Education Sector Plan (ESP). The Gender TWG also points to some success in its development of Gender mainstreaming Guidelines and their introduction across the TWG mechanism. By contrast, other TWGs, including Fisheries which has incorporated the H-A-R Action Plan into its own workplan, noted that many aid effectiveness principles prove to be 'difficult to get consensus especially from the donors who have their own policy instructions and interests'.

The alignment of support with national systems has proved to be much more challenging. The Paris Declaration survey (discussed in Chapter Four), which also served as an opportunity for development partners to review their support, indicated that very little support uses the Government budget (10%) or procurement systems (6%). Encouraging signs of progress have been reported, for example, in the strategic area of decentralisation and deconcentration and the National Committee on Decentralisation and Deconcentration will shortly begin the process of designing the D&D Fund for pooling resources. Where development partners do use these systems, it was also noted that the Government itself faces significant problems in actually recording this support in its systems. This presents a challenge for both partners and Government in strengthening national systems and in then ensuring that they are used with information adequately recorded for budgeting and financial management purposes. The PAR and PFM processes therefore remain of strategic importance to the aid effectiveness agenda as well as for the management and monitoring of the NSDP.

This relates also to efforts to identify multi-year commitments, which the CDCF meeting will attempt to do for the first time with information then recorded in the CDC Database. Chapter Two considered the predictability of CG pledging, for example, and found that in 2006, the first year of the NSDP, recorded disbursements were 83% of pledges made at the CG meeting in March of the same year. This compares quite favourably with the data from 2005 (identified in the Paris Declaration monitoring survey) that indicated that 69% of funds recorded in the Government financial framework at the beginning of the year were then recorded as disbursed in the national system (although it must be noted that the methodologies for measuring these two figures are markedly different). The CDC Database also now allows for predictability to be monitored over time and, based on discussions in the Partnership and Harmonisation TWG, there may be a need for further analysis of this issue to identify and explain challenges to timely disbursement as well as to the accurate recording of aid flows in RGC systems.

The H-A-R Action Plan also envisages the production of a comprehensive capacity programme at sector level, as well as the reduced use of stand-alone PIUs. The OECD survey precluded the need for a national survey and noted that coordinating the provision of capacity development support remains a significant challenge. Although significant sums have been directed to capacity through the broader reform effort (Governance and public sector reform received the second highest level of disbursements in 2006), there is therefore some concern that this support may not be complemented through the provision of coherent support at sector level. It is therefore encouraging to note that sectors and TWGs, including Partnership and Harmonisation; Agriculture and Water; and, Forestry and Environment, have developed comprehensive capacity building strategies in the context of their sector plans.

Closely associated with capacity development, the issue of technical cooperation has been of mutual concern to both Government and development partners for some considerable period of time. A survey was commissioned in 2004 but continued concern in 2006 has resulted in further analytical work being commissioned for later in 2007. This work needs to be placed in the context of the aid effectiveness agenda as the new aid environment, characterised by Government ownership and the use of modalities such as programme-based approaches, may require that the use of much technical cooperation and capacity development support must be reconsidered. Important new issues such as the management and accountability lines of technical assistance personnel, and the possibility of diminishing returns to scale setting in where too many donors are seeking to provide technical assistance to a sector are examples of how technical cooperation, in its broadest sense, must be viewed through the lens of the Paris Declaration and H-A-R Action Plan.

The discussion in Chapter Two on technical cooperation has also emphasised that much more needs to be known about aggregate technical cooperation provision, both its source and the sector of use, if this resource is to be managed in a way that is likely to ensure that it has impact on capacity development and the strengthening of national systems.

 

Not Such Good Practices?

Capacity Fragmentation

CDC learned in 2006 of one case in which a Government agency had offered a position to a national professional, with terms of employment agreed. A short time afterwards, however, the national professional withdrew from the offer as a development partner had offered a job on more attractive terms.

This common example of capacity fragmentation suggests that moving toward programme-based approaches that consolidate capacity within Government, as opposed to locating it within donor offices, may be a more useful approach. It is also noted that Government agencies often resort to the hiring of internationals, at far greater cost, as they have more flexible budgets for these personnel even though they may prefer to hire nationals.

One consideration for development partners is to work with Government in agreeing new principles for the management of TA, recognising that in a new partnership-based environment TA must display an increased ability to play a convening role and to serve as a bridge between Government and development partners. International TA personnel are expensive and it is therefore reasonable that they should be expected to display the commensurate skills that are suited to the Cambodia development context, i.e. partnership building with a focus on capacity development and knowledge transfer. The effectiveness of TA can also be promoted by establishing clear deliverables together with modalities for jointly monitoring performance and impact.

With regard to PIUs, the Paris Declaration survey recorded only 49 PIUs, although this number may be a significant under-recording as the data collection exercise for this Report indicates that there are at least 152 (see the discussion in Chapter Four). Progress toward developing a strategy was made through the development partners who participate in the Partnership and Harmonisation TWG, and progress toward some form of a Guideline may be forthcoming in 2007. One related aspect of PIU integration concerns the need to streamline incentive payments. The Council for Administrative Reform has issued a Sub-Decree of the harmonised application of performance-related incentives. While some Government agencies, including MEF and CRDB/CDC, were able to establish these schemes with development partner support, others, including the Ministry of Health, have found the process to be rather more challenging although a Performance management System has been established.

Tied aid was also recorded during the Paris Declaration survey with 86% being recorded as untied. This suggests that the issue of aid untying, which is in any case a concern that must be addressed in donor capitals and headquarters, is not of concern and need not occupy excessive amounts of time in the Cambodia aid effectiveness dialogue.

Harmonisation

H-A-R Action Plan Key Results Areas


Establish joint targets on ODA to be delivered through PBAs

TWGs prepare a plan to increase delegated cooperation

TWG prepare a calendar of missions and analytical work

Development partners report progress made on H-A-R

EIA procedures established at sector and national level

Common guidelines on cross-cutting issues

The analysis in Chapter Two more than adequately emphasised the challenges of deconcentrated and fragmented development assistance. The result of many development partners working in many sectors may be that: (i) the demand for local expertise is high with consequences for coherent and effective development; (ii) priority sectors may exhibit significant coordination problems that undermine the ability to manage and lead; and (iii) there is a risk that partners focus on their own results and profiles, distracting attention, resources and effort from the NSDP effort. The need for development partners to harmonise their support so that a focus on achieving results, as opposed to simply managing aid, can be promoted can hardly be overstated. The expected commencement of a Budget Support programme in 2007 is therefore welcomed by Government as a potentially effective response to this challenge.

Emerging Good Practices

Partnership Principles

Partnership Principles are seen by some to be useful as they establish a consistent and codified approach to partnership-based work.

Principles should be linked to the development of a programme that emphasises Government ownership and leadership as a guiding principle.

Government must be convinced that there is a clear value-added to the exercise in terms of strengthening partnership, reducing the transaction costs of aid management, and in delivering results.

Vague language regarding intentions should be avoided and the monitoring of specific commitments is encouraged if these Principles are to add value.

The H-A-R Action Plan identifies programme-based approaches and delegated partnership arrangements as additional responses to these challenges. The initiative of TWGs such as Land to commission training on the use of programme approaches is therefore useful and further Government training will take place later in 2007. The section on ownership identified the progress that has been made in establishing sector programmes and policies and their implementation, if they are not simply in addition to the existing project portfolio, may be expected to reap significant dividends. A related practice in sector programmes has been the development of Partnership Principles and these may also promote increased efficiency as well as a focus on achieving results.

The shift to Budget Support and programmatic modalities of development assistance are therefore expected to go some considerable way to promoting the harmonisation agenda and to lowering the management costs of aid. Having noted the perceived benefits of this support, it is also necessary to maintain some balance in the discussion on modalities and to recognise the continued role for project assistance. While it is most certainly true that modern public services in wealthier countries were not built through a series of multiple projects supported by a large number of financiers, the project approach does retain significant utility. The challenge is therefore to ensure that projects maximise their perceived advantages of providing flexible and dedicated support, for example in piloting new approaches, in supporting large-scale capital investments or in delivering discrete packages of capacity support.

Partnerships

One good practice in harmonisation that promotes the efficient delivery of development assistance is through delegated cooperation or co-financing arrangements. These partnerships between development partners enable both ideas and money to be pooled so that support, including for capacity development, is provided to Government more efficiently than would be the case for a series of smaller packages of technical cooperation and investment support. With appropriate care being taken at the programme design and review stages, and with the lead partner taking full account of good practice in aid delivery, it is also possible to ensure that there is no 'innovation loss' by working with a less diverse set of partners. The Government's position is that these delegated cooperation arrangements can represent significant efficiencies in aid delivery and that they are therefore to be encouraged.

Table Twelve. Partnership Analysis: Identifying Co-Financing and Delegated Partnership Arrangements

The methodology in this table is to use implementing partners as the source of data on partnerships; this reveals that some partners who have not reported project activity in 2006 (e.g. OPEC Fund, Norway, Netherlands) are shown here to be the source of some project activity. There are also a number other co-financing partners who have not recorded co-financing support in the CDC Database (e.g. USA, Switzerland). In both cases these financial contributions are not reflected in the main disbursement analysis as, to avoid double-counting, this data is calculated using only funding sources.

  

Development Partners Co-Financing Projects with other Partners in 2006

 

ADB

World Bank

OPEC Fund

UNAIDS

UNMAS / UNFIP

UNICEF

WFP

WHO

EC

Australia

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Italy

Germany

Japan

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Rep of Korea

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

UK

USA

Other

 

Total

 

8

4

5

4

3

2

4

1

5

23

2

11

4

4

11

2

5

38

7

9

5

2

2

10

1

15

17

22

Development Partners Implementing Projects co-financed by other Partners in 2006

ADB

39

 

 

Power

Transport (3)

 

 

Env/Con

 

Health

 

Transport

 

 

Trade

Env/Con (2)
Comm/Soc

Transport
WatSan (2)
Rural dev

 

 

Power
Transport (5)
Banking
Gender
Rural dev
Gov (3)
Education (2)
Health (2)

Gov/Admin

Rural dev

 

 

Banking

Gov/

Admin

 

Health

 

Power
Transport
Env/Con

IMF

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gov

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAO

29

Env/Con

 

Comm/
Social

 

 

 

Rural Dev (2)

 

Health

Educ (2)
Health
Rural Dev
Agric (2)

 

 

Env

 

Health 

Agric

Health

Agric (3)
Health (2)

Agric (2)

Agric
Health

 

 

 

Agric

 

Env 

Agric
Health (2)

 

IFAD

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural dev (2)

 

 

Rural dev

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural dev

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ILO

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural dev

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNDP

54

 

 

 

 

Rural dev
Env/Con

Rural dev

 

 

Gov/Admin (2)

Rural dev (3)
Gov/Admin (2)

Rural dev
Gov/Admin

Rural dev (2)
Gov/Admin (3)

Rural dev
Gov/Admin

Rural dev

Rural dev (2)
Gov/Admin

 

Gov/Admin

Rural dev
Comm/Social

Rural dev
Gov/Admin (2)

Rural dev (2)
Gov/
Admin (3)

Rural dev (2)
Gov

Rural dev

Rural dev

Rural dev
Gov/ (4)

Gov/
Admin

HIV
Rural dev (2)
Gov/Admin (4)

Rural dev (2)

 

UNESCO

13

 

 

HIV/AIDS

 HIV/AIDS (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culture/Arts (2)

Culture
/Arts

 

Culture/Art (4)
Education

 

 

 

Culture
/Arts

 

 

 

 

 

Comm/
Social

UNFPA

4

 

 

 

HIV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health

 

 

 

 

UNICEF

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health
WatSan

WatSan
Comms/Soc

 

Health

 

 

 

 

 

WatSan
/Comms/Soc
Education
HIV/AIDS

 

 

 

 

 

Education

 

Comm/Social (2)

Health

 

UNODC

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comm/Social

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comm/
Social

 

 

Comm/Social

 

WHO

53

Health (3)

Health (3)

 

Health 

Health  

 

 

 

Health 

Health (7)

 

Health (5) 

 

 

Health  

 

 

Health (4) 

Health  

Health  

Health (3) 

 

 

Health  

 

Health (4)

Health (9)

Health (8) 

Belgium

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health (3)
Agric
Comm/
Social (5)

France

6

Agric (2)
Banking
Power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banking

Power

Main sectors of support

Rural dev (incl De-mining)

 

 

 

 

1

4

2

 

 

5

1

2

1

1

3

 

1

3

1

3

2

1

1

1

 

2

2

 

Governance & Admin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

2

1

3

1

 

1

 

1

4

3

3

 

 

 

4

1

4

 

 

Health

3

3

 

1

1

 

 

1

1

8

 

6

 

 

2

 

3

8

1

2

3

 

 

2

 

5

12

11

Community/Social

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

 

 

 

1

2

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

2

1

6

Agriculture

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

4

2

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

1

Transport

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

Culture & Arts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

1

 

3

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environment

1

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Power

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Water & Sanitation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIV/AIDS

 

 

1

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

Banking & Financial sector

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Post & Communications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

Water & Sanitation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manufac / Mining / Trade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

8

4

5

4

3

2

4

1

5

23

2

11

4

4

11

2

5

38

7

9

5

2

2

10

1

15

17

22

Note. Only those partners who were associated with a co-financing arrangement in 2006 (as a co-financer or as implementer) are shown.
 

The efforts that have been made to forge new partnerships were highlighted during the Paris Declaration survey exercise in 2006. The survey's methodology used a 'point of delivery' approach, however, which considered the funds delivered by the implementing partner and in consequence the aid effectiveness efforts of partners passing funds to others were understated. Table Twelve attempts to redress this by analysing partnership dynamics, i.e. the transmission of funding from donor to implementer, and the sectors that have benefited most from these arrangements. The providers of funding are shown along the top row while the implementers to whom the funds have been passed are shown down the left-hand column. The cells contain the sectors in which partnerships have been established, together with the number of arrangements in each sector. The sub-table below the main table then provides summary data on the main sectors in which partnership arrangements have been made.

In summary, the Table Thirteen shows the number of delegated partnership arrangements that were active in 2006. In total, there were 226 partnership arrangements covering a total of 123 projects. For analysis purposes, the number of partnerships is used, as opposed to the sum of the flow, as this provides a stronger indicator of commitment to partnership and the reduction of transaction costs in aid delivery.

Table Thirteen. Delegated Partnership Arrangements

Delegating Partners Number of 2006 Partnerships

Main
sectors

Japan 38 Health (8), Transport (5), Agriculture (4)
Australia 23 Health (8), De-mining / Rural Dev (5)
USA 17 Health (12)
UK 15

Health (5), Governance (4)

France 11 Rural development/De-mining (3)
Canada 11 Health (6), Gov (3)
Sweden 10 Governance (4), Health (2)
New Zealand 9 Rural development/De-mining (3), Gov (3)
Other 98  
Total 226 (out of 123 projects that are co-financed) 


The data shows that Japan is the partner with most delegated arrangements (38), followed by Australia (23). It is noteworthy that a number of partners who's portfolio size is relatively small (e.g. New Zealand and Canada) are also active in forming partnerships and this is a practice that is commended to all partners.

For policy-making purposes, it is also helpful to identify the implementing partners and sectors that are most commonly associated with delegated partnership arrangements. This analysis can provide information on the degree to which new programme-based approaches are promoting the use of more delegated arrangements, or where efforts might be concentrated to encourage the use of partnerships that provide for a more efficient means of delivering aid. It can also highlight those partners that are able to manage the funds of others. Table Fourteen, below, therefore shows two sets of data. First, it shows the largest managers of other partners' funds, with UNDP, WHO and ADB the largest. Second, the table shows that health and rural development activities (especially de-mining) are most associated with delegated arrangements, followed by governance and administration reform. While the health sector has managed to foster 73 partnerships across 52 multi-donor projects, it is perhaps a little surprising that development partners supporting education have not been inclined to develop more co-financing and delegated partnership arrangements.

Table Fourteen. Implementing Partners and Associated Sectors

Implementing
Partners

Number of 2006 Partnerships

Main
sectors

Number of 2006 Partnerships

UNDP

54

Health

73

WHO

53

Rural dev (incl De-mining)

37

ADB

39

Governance & Admin

30

FAO

29

Community/Social

18

UNICEF

13

Agriculture

15

UNESCO

13

Transport

11

Belgium

9

Education

7

Other

16

Other

45

Total

226

Total

226

Source: CDC Database

 

 


As the two sectors that have made most progress in developing programmatic approaches through an Education SWAp and a Health SWiM - it is useful to consider further the development cooperation context of the education and health sectors, as well as the agriculture sector. The analysis has already shown that these are the two largest recipient sectors, with 21 and 22 donors, and 79 and 109 projects respectively in 2006.

Table Fifteen. Project Partnerships in Three Priority Sectors

 

Number of co-financing partners in project (2006)

Total number of projects / partners (2006)

Total ODA 2006
(USD m)

Total number of projects / partners (2002)

 

3+ partners

2 partners

1 partner

No partnership

 

 

 

Agriculture

0

4

14

40

58 / 16

25.9

47 / 14

Education

1

0

4

74

79 / 21

71.5

100 / 26

Health

18

7

27

57

109 / 22

110.0

89 / 22

Source: CDC Database and DCR Report 2002/03 (Annex)

It is not clear as to the extent to which the introduction of sector-wide programmes in education and health have served to lower transaction costs as the sectors are still characterised by individually implemented project support. Even though these may be aligned with the sector programme, it is likely that the benefits of a programmatic approach may remain elusive. The discussion on NSDP alignment in Chapter Two also questions the extent to which these programmes have allowed for a predictable funding envelope to be identified that is based on the NSDP while the continued large number of projects may not be conducive to coherent sector-wide management or to the strengthening of Government systems.

Managing for Results

H-A-R Action Plan Key Results Areas

NSDP monitoring framework and APR established

SOP and NOG are adopted for reporting

The 2007 CDCF will provide the opportunity for a dialogue on the first NSDP Annual Progress Report. This will allow for progress to be reported on the main outcome indicators and for a wider discussion to take place with regard to the wider reform agenda that underlies the NSDP. The Joint Monitoring Indicators will also be presented for endorsement and these are expected to be informed by the key results areas that have been identified by Government and development partners. Some TWGs have also reported progress in adopting the Standard Operating procedures (SOP) and the National Operational Guideline (NOG), for example the Agriculture and Water TWG donors have adopted the SOP for the management of procurement using Government procedures. This TWG's new sector plan, and the launch of their website, www.twgaw.org, also sets out a good practice in developing targets and raising awareness. Other TWGs, including Gender, also reported significant progress in developing monitorable Action Plans that are linked to the NSDP.

From a perspective of linking development assistance to results, the CDC Database provides a Government-wide system of recording aid as an input to NSDP implementation. CDC also provided support to three ministries and TWGs (Agriculture & Water; Education; and Gender) in developing their own information management systems that are linked to the CDC Database and this support is available to other TWGs and Ministries upon request, with the intention being to rationalise data collection and reporting while promoting the use of a results-based management system.

Mutual Accountability

H-A-R Action Plan Key Results Areas

CDC and development partners jointly assess H-A-R progress

TWG mechanism is reviewed

Development partners provide information on ODA flow

Defining this term has not always proved to be easy but dialogue with development partners during the Paris Declaration survey concluded that, while further strengthening is undoubtedly required, the arrangements that are in place both the tools such as the JMIs and the processes such as the GDCC-TWG mechanism do satisfy the requirements. The actions associated with the H-A-R Action Plan are of a practical nature and this Report and the CDCF meeting, as well as the Partnership and Harmonisation TWG, provide the basis for H-A-R Action Plan assessment. Next year may provide an opportunity for a more detailed discussion in the form of a mid-term review, at which point it may be useful to review the Action Plan priorities and activities. The TWG Review was completed in the second half of 2006 and provided the basis for a detailed Guideline that will support TWGs in their aid coordination efforts. The arrangements for managing the Joint Monitoring Indicators were also reviewed and reformed under the mandate of the GDCC during 2006 and it is hoped that these will contribute not only to enhanced mutual accountability but also to the attainment of improved development results.

At a sectoral level, progress toward the establishment or conduct of joint reviews has been encouraging with the education sector conducting an annual review exercise that assesses progress as well as resource needs, and the health sector has continued to hold annual reviews, the most recent of which was in June 2006. The Public Financial Management Reform, and its associated TWG, is also particularly well geared to a results-based agenda. The PFM TWG's reports to the GDCC identify a range of indicators and targets linked to the H-A-R Action Plan, with a comprehensive assessment of progress submitted jointly by Government and development partners.

The H-A-R Action Plan: Summary of Progress

In conclusion, the implementation of the H-A-R Action Plan has proceeded well and as momentum increases there is good reason to believe that more progress will be made. The challenge, as ever, will be to ensure that progress in implementing the aid effectiveness agenda is associated with and complementary to the implementation of the NSDP and the achievement of the priority outcomes. Table Sixteen provides a snapshot summary of the information provided in this Chapter.

Table Sixteen. H-A-R Action Plan - Identified Activities and Summary of Progress

Ownership

Sectors develop NSDP-based programs and a sector MTEF

PIP feeds into the national budget preparation process.

Strategic Framework strengthens capacity

CDC provides aid coordination support requested TWG Chairs

Some TWGs have made significant progress in developing PBAs based on the NSDP while the PIP continues to become more fully aligned with the budget exercise. The Strategic Framework is fully funded and the TWG Guideline produced by CDC identifies aid coordination-related support that CDC can provide on request from TWGs.

Alignment

Development partners review and align their support

MEF continues to implement the PFM reform program

PFM and procurement systems are mutually assessed

Development partners provide multi-year indicative commitments

CDC surveys PIU/ and develops an integration strategy

Sector plans include an assessment of capacity gaps

TWGs prepare/implement a capacity development program

Development partners support the application of MBPI/PMG

CDC surveys tied and untied aid

Although there has been no formal joint exercise to align development assistance, the empirical evidence shows that the aggregate profile of aid is relatively well matched to the NSDP funding requirements. Ongoing PFM reforms will foster greater integration of external resources into the Budget exercise while the CDC Database and the emerging (sector and macro) MTEF process will begin to provide the structure for providing longer-term predictability in external financing.

TWGs have been provided with Guidelines related to capacity (including incentive issues and the use of MBPI/PMG) and PIU management while the CDC Database is now configured to record progress, including on tied aid.

Harmonisation

Establish joint targets on ODA to be delivered through PBAs

TWGs prepare a plan to increase delegated cooperation

TWG prepare a calendar of missions and analytical work

Development partners report progress made on H-A-R

EIA procedures established at sector and national level

Common guidelines on cross-cutting issues

There may be a more effective emphasis placed on the establishment of PBAS and their effective use in strengthening RGC systems, rather than simply setting a fund flow target. Significant progress has been made in developing more pooled funding and delegated cooperation arrangements.

Progress on mission coordination, joint analysis, EIA modalities and mainstreaming cross-cutting issues has been less strong and will require an increased focus in the future.

Managing for Results

NSDP monitoring framework and APR established

SOP and NOG are adopted for reporting

The first APR has been produced for the CDCF and NSDP monitoring will be strengthened. Further dissemination and application of the SOP/NOG is required.

Mutual Accountability

CDC and development partners jointly assess H-A-R progress

TWG mechanism is reviewed

Development partners provide information on ODA flow

The TWG-GDCC mechanism provides for regular dialogue, and the 2006 Review made a number of recommendations for making this more effective, including with regard to JMIs. CDC will work with partners to support their efforts in providing more timely and comprehensive ODA data.

Achieving Aid Effectiveness Results

As stated at the outset of this Report, the aid effectiveness work in Cambodia is informed by the need to focus on development results. It is therefore necessary to consider the use of aid effectiveness indicators that may be used to monitor and guide progress. The next Chapter on the Paris Declaration monitoring survey considers this issue and provides a set of indicators that may be associated with the H-A-R Action Plan.

| Content | Back | Top | Next |


Home | 1st CDCF Meeting | 8th CG Meeting | Partnership and Harmonization TWG | GDCC | Policy Documents Guidelines | Donor Dev. Coop. Pgm. | NGO