2.    METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

6.      The Terms of Reference for this study that were approved by the Government-Donor Partnership Working (Annex 1) stated that the main objective of the study is to identify feasible solutions to achieve a more harmonized approach for capacity development based on data/information on the existing capacity building practices of Cambodia’s external development partners. The specific tasks that the consulting team was asked to carry out included:

1. Documenting existing capacity building practices of the donors, including an estimate of the costs of providing performance/salary incentives.

2. Collecting information and preparing analysis of the TA by areas of expertise that is being provided to either fill existing capacity gaps and/or to build capacity, including the number and duration of the TA’s.

3. Outlining options and making recommendations on feasible solutions to achieve a more harmonized approach for capacity development.

7.      To facilitate and guide the work of the consulting team, a sub-group of the Government-Donor Partnership Working Group was established under the chairmanship of H.E. Sum Manit, Secretary of State at the Council of Ministers and Secretary General of the Council for Administrative Reform. Other members of the Sub-group included representatives of Japan, European Commission, Germany, SIDA, UNDP and UNFPA.

8.     The study team begun its work by conducting a desk review of relevant studies and Government documents. To collect the needed data for the study, the lead consultant met with representatives of the bilateral and multilateral development partners, the NGO Associations, and senior Government officials to get an impression of the issues before designing the survey questionnaire. Personal interviews were held with representatives of the following institutions:

• UN system: UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WHO, WFP, UNFPA

• Multilateral donors: World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank.

• The European Commission.

• Bilateral donors: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

• Non-Governmental organizations: Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC), MEDICAM, NGO Forum on Cambodia, and SILAKA.

• Government: Council for the Development of Cambodia (CDC); the Council for Administrative Reform (CAR); the Ministries of Planning, of Foreign Affairs and of International Cooperation, of Women’s and Veterans’ Affairs, of Economy and Finance, of Education, Youth and Sport, of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and of Health.

• Other: Cambodian Development Research Institute (CDRI).

9.      To collect the data needed for the study from the bilateral and multilateral donors, the team prepared a questionnaire that was revised after consultations with selected donors (Annex 2). In the case of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), given the very large number of NGO's active in Cambodia, it was agreed that one or a group of NGO Associations would be in a better position to collect the needed data for the study from the NGOs. After consultations with and among the three NGO Associations (CCC, MEDICAM, and NGO Forum) the CCC in collaboration with SILAKA (a local NGO focusing on training and capacity building) agreed to collect and analyze the data on NGO’s capacity building practices. In the case of NGOs, the introductory part of the questionnaire was modified to make it relevant to NGOs (Annex 3).  

10.     The questionnaire used to collect data from the bilateral, multilateral partners and NGOs covered the following six main areas:

• Section 1 asked for general background information on the Programs/Projects that were supported in 2002, and provided space for a description of the capacity development issues that are being addressed by the Programs/Projects.

• Section 2 focused on training activities and expenditures on training in 2002 under the program/project.

• Section 3 asked for information on non-monetary and monetary incentives that were provided in 2002 and expenditures on these incentives in the year 2002.

• Section 4 asked for information on national staff employed and the expenditures in 2002.

• Section 5 sought information on the areas of expertise and duration of employment of the international staff employed to fill key capacity gaps and expenditures incurred in 2002.

• Section 6 provided scope for comments on other initiatives and policy changes.

11.     In the case of bilateral and multilateral donors copies of the questionnaires were sent to all donors with a cover letter from the Chairman of the Sub-group of the Government-Donor Partnership Working Group. A copy of the questionnaire was also posted on CDC/CRDB’s website (www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh). The initial response to the survey was quite low. The quality of answers received was also uneven with numerous inconsistencies. As a result, a rigorous follow up was carried out spread over an extended period. As of mid September 2003, some six months after the first mailing of the questionnaire the status of the responses to Capacity Building Practices (CBP) Survey from the bilateral and multilateral donors is summarized in Table 1 (next page). Also, presented in this table is a comparison of the data provided by each donor to the CBP Survey and CDC/CRDB’s Annual Survey on External Assistance for the year 2002.

12.      Overall, the UN agencies have provided information for nearly all of the projects/programs that they delivered in 2002 (see Table 1). The other multilateral donors (World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the European Commission) have responded to a lesser degree. The response of the bilateral partners to the CBP Survey was rather disappointing. The total disbursements on the 61 projects for which data has been provided by bilateral partners constitute only 26.3 percent of the disbursements reported by them in the CDC/CRDB Annual Survey of External Assistance for the year 2002. It should be noted,

TABLE 1:  MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL DONORS RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY
 (in thousand of US dollars)

however, that some bilateral donors provide resources to multilateral agencies to deliver their programs. These bilateral resources are reported as disbursements by both bilateral and multilateral donors in their responses to the CDC/CRDB Annual Survey on External Assistance.  In the year 2002, the total amount that was provided by bilateral donors to multilateral agencies is estimated to be US $ 38.8 million. When this amount is added to disbursements for programs/projects for which data was provided by bilateral donors for the CBP survey, the percentage of disbursements for which information on their capacity building practices may be covered in this study increases to 41.1 percent.

13.     Two bilateral donors, Sweden and United Kingdom, have indicated that most of their assistance in Cambodia is delivered through multilateral institutions or NGOs. In their case, therefore, the data provided by multilateral agencies and NGOs is assumed to cover these two donors. In the case of the United States the team was informed that USAID can not ask the NGOs who deliver their programs to complete the survey questionnaire because of the nature of their contractual arrangements with the NGOs. It can be assumed that a significant part of US aid is included in the information provided by the NGOs. In spite of repeated request, a number of other major bilateral donors (China, France, Netherlands, and Switzerland) did not provide any information. Germany provided information for three projects only.

14.    In the case of NGOs, as mentioned earlier, the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC), a membership organization of NGOs working for the development of Cambodia joined together with SILAKA (a local NGO focusing on training and capacity building) to carry out the survey on NGO’s capacity building practices.  After reviewing the questionnaire in detail, the CCC and SILAKA team selected almost 100 International and National NGOs for the survey based on their in depth knowledge of the organizations, the size and type of programs, membership with CCC and involvement with other NGO networks.  These included NGOs working in a diverse range of fields: health, education, community development, disability, mine action, HIV/AIDS, and Democracy and Human Rights representing the broad spectrum of the NGO community in Cambodia.   

15.     After sending a cover letter explaining the purpose of the questionnaire, CCC in cooperation with SILAKA, arranged individual meetings with staff of about 85 NGOs to discuss the questionnaire, answer questions and provide additional information as needed. The team met with the NGO Director or Senior Manager to explain the purpose of the study and to go over the questionnaire in detail, question by question. This was critical to ensure a better understanding of the reasons for the study and for encouraging the NGOs to complete the questionnaire.

16.    In total, seventy-seven (77) organizations responded to the questionnaire, which is a very high return rate (77%).  This high level of response reflects NGO interest in the study results, the commitment of NGOs to sharing information as well as personal visits by CCC and Silaka staff to explain the purpose of the survey and to ensure confidentiality of all responses.  Twelve of the NGOs were not available or unable to complete the questionnaire for various reasons, while only 8 NGOs declined to participate or provide information for the study. 

17.   Among the seventy-seven NGOs who responded to the questionnaire, there were fifty-four International NGOs (INGOs) and twenty-three Cambodian or Local NGOs (CNGOs). This corresponds roughly to the distribution of questionnaires sent out to International and Cambodian NGOs.

18.     NGOs were asked to complete a separate questionnaire for each project or program that they were reporting on.  Some NGOs responded with two or three questionnaires representing their projects, however, the majority of NGOs responded with only one questionnaire indicating that their programs were integrated and interrelated for the most part. As such the information is reported by NGOs and not by separate projects.

19.    The total amount of NGOs grants and loans for 2002 captured by the survey amounted to 72.926 million US dollars with grants representing 98% and loans only 2% of the total.  NGO program expenditures recorded in this survey amounted to 67.155 million US dollars or 92% of the total reported NGO assistance. A further breakdown of NGO project expenditures by ranges and amounts shows that 27% of the NGOs surveyed had budgets greater than 1 million dollars and another 21% had a budget between $500,001 and 1 million.  This reflects the sampling that CCC targeted many of the larger NGOs to capture a significant amount of the NGO assistance to Cambodia.  Still another 38% of the NGOs surveyed had budgets less than $250,000.  Care should be taken in extrapolating data for all NGOs as this survey was not a random sample.

Figure 2: Percent Distribution of Respondent NGOs by Size to Total Expenditure in 2002

20.   It is estimated that the total NGO assistance to Cambodia of almost 73 million US dollars for 2002 captured by the NGO survey represents about 75% of the overall estimated expenditure for programmes delivered by NGOs in Cambodia for 2002 as recorded  by CCC.  The programmes delivered include those financed from NGOs own resources as well as resources received from bilateral and multilateral donors.

| Content | Back | Top | Next |

Home | 8^th CG Meeting | 7^th CG Meeting | Partnership and Harmonization TWG | GDCC | Policy Documents Guidelines | Donor Dev. Coop. Pgm. | NGO