2. THE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION PARADIGM OF
     CAMBODIA: KEY FEATURES

3. At the 4th Consultative Group Meeting held in May 2000 in Paris, the Royal Government had presented its overall vision for a New Development Cooperation Partnership Paradigm for Cambodia. It was discussed, accepted in principle and supported by all donor representatives present at that meeting. This strategic vision was offered as ideas on the nature, structure and implementation options for building partnerships to support the achievement of Cambodia's national development goals through more collaborative arrangements. It represented a synthesis of information from various donor sources, international organizations, and documentation on experiences and lessons learned in other developing countries. The key features of this Development Cooperation Partnership Paradigm for Cambodia are being reproduced here to keep in focus Cambodia’s vision on building partnerships to improve aid effectiveness in order to achieve Cambodia’s Millennium Development Goals. 

4. The strategic issues that were being faced in development cooperation management at the time of the preparation of the "New Paradigm" in the year 2000 were articulated as follows:

• The National Ownership of many donor-funded projects and programs is not as strong as it should be, and indeed many initiatives are being "donor driven".   The Royal Government may not be taking enough Leadership in developing and setting the overall policy agenda for development, or for coordination of development cooperation.  While the Royal Government has set out a broad development agenda geared towards poverty alleviation, there is some disagreement on specific sectoral and thematic development priorities and approaches, and even some duplication of policy thrusts and the setting up of implementation mechanisms.

• There exist large financial flows outside of the National Budget mechanism (especially for capital investments).  The degree to which such flows support  national, sectoral and thematic development objectives is sometimes unclear, as well as, the degree to which such flows of assistance sometimes duplicate one another.

• Systems of Governance and Accountability for national and cooperative development (strategic planning, financial management, etc.) are not up to a standard that would engender national and international confidence.  In some cases Donor and NGO accountability for projects and programs (including evaluations and audits) are perceived as being weak.

• Undue attention is still given to inputs, processes and outputs in development and in aid management and coordination, with not enough focus on performance management and the measurement of Outcomes and Impacts.  At the sectoral and sub-sectoral levels, there is disagreement among the various actors and partners as to what the outcomes should be and how they should be measured.

• The Non-Transparency of many donor activities (such as conducting of studies, preparation of papers, donor-sponsored missions, etc.) without adequate consultation among Donors or between the Donor Community and Government, or within Government itself.

• As cross-sectoral and thematic issues become more pronounced, there are increasing pressures for more inclusive and participatory approaches to development and development cooperation.  There is increasing complexity in the relationships among national players (Government, civil society, private sector), in the relationships between national organizations and the International Donor Community, and in the relationships among Donor Agencies themselves.

5. In addition to the above issues, a number of pressing Operational, Capacity-Related and Implementation Issues were also identified that needed to be addressed.  These were:

• The Institutional and Capacity Limitations within the Government and national organizations remain severe, which result in many cases of donor teams taking responsibility for service delivery. Insufficient attention has been given to sustainable comprehensive and long term capacity development at the systems-wide level, at the institutional and organizational levels, and at the individual level.  This existing "piece-meal approach" to projects and programs is skewing overall development priorities.

• Where there has been Capacity Development, it has often been done on a "piece-meal" basis, further diluting Government’s long term capability to develop and sustain an efficient and effective public administration and civil service.  In many cases, Government has a relatively small role in the selection of personnel for most technical assistance projects.

• As qualified public sector personnel are drawn away to staff donor funded projects and programs (usually with higher pay and incentives), capacity gaps in the public sector are increasingly being met by expensive foreign experts and advisors -- an expensive and unsustainable form of Capacity Substitution or replacement.

• An element of "ad-hoc" and "quick-fix" approaches to some complex development problems, where initiatives are launched without adequate strategic management, consultation or study.  These are sometimes driven by pressures on the part of donors to ‘commit and disburse’ funds, or to tie aid delivery to their own budgetary cycles.

• The existence of Multiple and Duplicative Systems and methodologies in such areas as reporting, audit and evaluation, project and program management and related areas impose an extreme burden on Government’s management staff (as well as on Donor Agencies). There is a proliferation of committees, working groups, structures and coordination mechanisms, some of which duplicate one another, and all of which impose excessive demands on the time of Government and donor staff alike.

• The existence of such systems, combined with numerous donor sponsored project management and implementation units, has resulted in Capacity Depletion not only within public sector institutions, but more importantly, also in private sector labor market, and indeed introduced inequities and imbalances in public sector human resources management.

• For those systems that do exist, there is generally poor exchange of information in terms of quality and lack of timely (complete) data on external assistance (this points as well to possible lack of discipline on the part of some donors in reporting and providing information, despite relatively simplified systems for data and information resources management).

6. It was acknowledged that both Government and its development partners were facing an increasingly complex and interdependent set of issues that can only be tackled by more cooperative, integrated and inclusive dialogue and focused approaches.  The proposed vision presented some ideas on the nature, structuring and implementation of partnerships that might support the achievement of national development outcomes through more collaborative arrangements, and thereby address some of the issues and questions highlighted above.  These ideas were meant to be neither complete nor fixed, but were offered as a reasonable starting point for more meaningful discussions, consultations, negotiations and the launching of efficient and agreed processes leading to the launching of formal partnership arrangements. 

7. It was highlighted that consideration and implementation of a meaningful development cooperation partnership concept for Cambodia implies a major shift from the way things are currently done, into one that allows for and addresses the capacity gaps, constraints and burdens.  Partnerships cannot simply serve as a new word to rationalize “business as usual”.  The implementation of a new development partnership concept implies major long-term transformational change on the part of all the Partners - the Royal Government in combination with civil society and the private sector, and the International Donor Community – and especially changes in the way in which internal and external relationships are managed.  The Government accepts that there are different views as to what a development partnership might be and what models or approaches might work.

The new paradigm had as its foundation the principles that were and are being advocated by OECD/DAC and in other international fora to improve the effectiveness of development cooperation programs. These principles for building effective development cooperation partnerships include:

• A Common Vision and Shared Objectives - firmly rooted and based on national and sectoral development objectives, with consensus reached on a mutually agreed set of policy directions, implementation strategies, results and expected outcomes.

• Agreed Governance and Accountability Structures - well-articulated roles and responsibilities forming a “shared accountability” where partners would be collectively accountable for the success and operation of the arrangement, operating within well-defined decision making processes and rules where transparency in decision-making, operations and access to information are particularly critical. 

• Harmonized Strategic Management and Operational Capacities - the simplification, streamlining and harmonization of operational policies and capacity development practices particularly in the areas of financial management, program/project planning, procurement, audit and evaluation, staffing, information and communications systems, with credible reporting and monitoring that would lead to the development of common or joint program/project evaluation and audit reviews.

• Learning and Adaptation Capacities – Partnerships should be built cautiously and with sufficient flexibility in the arrangements to ensure that each can generate learning and innovation, experiences that can be adapted and replicated across sectors.

• Building and Maintaining Trust - Each partner must value the reliability and worth of the arrangement. Having trust means having confidence in one another that each partner will do what they say they will do, and mean what they say. Agreed mechanisms to support accountability, transparency of decision making, information and reporting, audit and evaluation are essential to sustain trust. There must be certain agreed codes of conduct and specific partnership rules of engagement where mutual decisions can be made openly, with clear mechanisms for problem identification and dispute resolution.

It is recognized that within the Government there are gaps in the management capacities and that efforts to build capacities for national execution need to be dealt with openly and in a transparent manner.

• Flexible Partnership Modalities. The choice of development partnerships models or approaches would depend on what can best serve the interests of Cambodia. At present, two distinct type of partnerships are envisaged: national partnerships, such as between the State, civil society and private sector; and those partnerships that involve donor countries, international agencies, private sector investors and NGOs

• Identifying and Differentiating Partner Roles.  It is envisaged that the composition of partners will depend on the purpose of the partnership. In development partnerships involving external donors and NGOs, the Lead Partner should, in all instances, be a national organization (this could be a central or local level of government, possibly a national NGO or private sector organization). The role of the External Lead Partner would also vary, depending on comparative advantages and strengths of the partner and the requirements of the partnership. The External Lead Partner should act as a catalyst, facilitator, technical and resource advisor. The role and responsibilities of the External Lead Partner or facilitator are more than just providing resources, it requires building trust, having expertise on the ground to interact with and build the confidence of the sectoral ministry(ies) and other donors, and a willingness to be flexible in both the timing and use of whatever resources are available. It is therefore critical and crucial that donors organize and mobilize themselves to optimize the comparative advantages of individual donors.

• Developing National (in-country) Coordination Capacities. The Strategic Management Framework for development partnership must have capacity development as the centerpiece and should focus on national execution of all technical interventions in order to boost national capacity and competencies at local and central levels of the Government as well as the civil society and the private sector.

• Strengthening Donor Capacities for Aid Management & Coordination. There is room for strengthening donor-donor coordination at the country level. Internal donor policies, practices and procedures also need to be closely examined to ensure that they are supportive of Government’s policy thrusts for national ownership, leadership and overall coordination, specifically in the context of developing collaborative partnerships.

• Implications for Good Governance and Administrative Reform. Reforms in governance and public administration are a major part of the solution to a number of existing aid management/coordination problems and issues. Performance and existing capacity constraints within the civil service need be addressed by both civil service reforms and reforms in services delivery.  This will require enlightened management on the part of both the Royal Government and its external partners on how very limited public sector human resources can best be managed in the short-term, and realistically developed over the longer term.