Partnership and Harmonisation TWG 8 February 2010, 2.30p.m. Annotated Agenda
1. Introductory remarks and welcome to new members
Topics for substantive discussion (3 items, approximately 25 minutes each)
The draft workplan is attached as Annex One and is presented for discussion. Any comments received before the meeting can be taken into account in order to expedite the approval process.
Actions required: TWG members are requested to either submit comments in advance (to chhieng.yanara@crdb.gov.kh) or else to comment during the meeting before finalising.
Education, Mine Action and Agriculture & Water TWGs have been requested to brief TWG members on the status, achievements and challenges of their respective aid effectiveness JMIs. This is intended to promote further discussion about how a sector-focus has ensured that aid effectiveness activities are relevant and focused on results-based activities.
Actions required: In addition to the 3 briefings, all other TWG members are invited to share their own experience – and recommendations for further action - across all sectors. The AE JMIs can be downloaded from http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/gdcc/default.htm (14th meeting of GDCC, April 2009)
4. Aid Effectiveness Report 2010 – Concept Note CRDB will prepare the 2010 Aid Effectiveness Report for the June CDCF meeting. The Concept Note is attached as Annex Two for discussion.
Actions required: TWG members are invited to share their comments and inputs either before (to chhieng.yanara@crdb.gov.kh) or at the meeting.
--------------------
Topics for briefing & updates (2 items, approximately 10-15 minutes each)
5. Data issues a) Data validation (especially for 2009-2013) on aid flows by development partners is required by March 10th (as per email from CRDB Secretary General, dated October 2nd 2009). This will provide the data for the analytical section of the AER 2010, as well as provide input to the Evaluation of the Paris Declaration. b) The Mission Database is now operational and on-line (access via the ODA Database home-page). The ODA Database manual has been up-dated and training was offered in the last quarter to development partner data focal points. Development partners are encouraged to use this system for their own mission/study coordination as well as for recording information that will be required for the Paris Declaration monitoring survey in early 2011. c) Paris Declaration baseline – as discussed at the September 2009 P+H TWG meeting, data is required on 2010 projections in order to calculate indicators 3 (aid on budget) and 7 (predictability). Development partners are thanked for their cooperation – the baselines are presented at Annex Three.
Note: The ODA Database Manual can be accessed http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/database/index.htm 6. Briefing on the Evaluation of the Paris Declaration (phase II) During 2010, Cambodia will participate in the Phase II Global Evaluation of the Paris Declaration. The overall purpose of this Evaluation is to provide information about the development results achieved as a result of increased aid effectiveness practices. The Evaluation will consider three core questions:
1. What are the important factors that have affected the relevance and implementation of the Paris Declaration and its potential effects on aid effectiveness and development results? (The Paris Declaration in context)
2. To what extent, and how, has the implementation of the Paris Declaration led to an improvement in the efficiency of aid delivery, the management and use of aid and better partnerships? (Process and intermediate outcomes)
3. Has the implementation of Paris Declaration strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable development results? How? (Development outcomes).
CRDB has posted relevant information on its website, which will be updated regularly: http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/evaluation/index.htm Information on the global exercise is available from:
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_21571361_34047972_38242748_1_1_1_1,00.html
Actions required: Members of the Evaluation Team (RBMG from Canada and VBNK from Cambodia) will be present to make a brief introduction and to answer questions.
P+H TWG members are also invited to observe the meeting of the National Reference Group (which manages the Evaluation exercise) which will take place at CDC immediately after the TWG meeting.
7. Any other Business a) NSDP Update – MoP is invited to brief the group on the incorporation of P+H TWG comments into the NSDP Update b) Selection of P+H TWG co-facilitator c) Progress Report on JMI implementation and a new format for the JMIs – All TWGs will be requested to report on JMI and aid effectiveness activities prior to the next GDCC meeting, as well as to have formulated a new JMI. Following the "Managing for Results" training for RGC and development partners that was provided in November 2009, the JMI format will be revised to improve its quality and partnership-based features. A meeting of TWG Chairs will be organised in mid-February to consult on this new format but comments are sought by email (to chhieng.yanara@crdb.gov.kh) on the first draft (Annex Four) so that the format can be finalised as part of an inclusive and participatory process. (All P+H TWG members are invited to share this document within their respective agencies for wide consultation).
Partnership and Harmonisation Technical Working Group 2010 Annual Work Plan (Draft 26 January 2010) |
Aid effectiveness objective |
P&H TWG Activity (1) |
Responsible parties |
Output indicator |
Timing |
To provide a forum for establishing consensus on aid effectiveness priorities, consistent with H-A-R Action Plan, Paris Declaration and AAA - P&H TWG ToR para IV(a) |
||||
Produce Aid Effectiveness Report with policy recommendations(CDCF June 2010) |
Discuss AER Concept Note and provide inputs to draft AER
Provide data for analytical chapter of AER |
All TWG members
All DPs |
|
Feb 2010 (CN) April 2010 (Draft AER) 10 March 2010 (data) |
Promote use of country systems |
Comment on analytical mapping work on use of country systems and develop into operation plan for implementation |
sub-group of P+H TWG
|
Analytical work produced (sponsored by SIDA on behalf of EU) |
1st half 2010 |
Identify and define revised aid effectiveness priorities |
Based on 2010 AER and CDCF3 dialogue, provide inputs to a new framework to replace H-A-R Action Plan 2006-2010 |
All P+H TWG members (CRDB to draft) |
Revised / renewed H-A-R Action Plan |
Q4 2010 |
To provide recommendations on the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of aid effectiveness initiatives - P&H TWG ToR para IV(b) |
||||
Link aid effectiveness work to results-based monitoring at sector level |
Reformulate JMI matrix for all TWGs (to provide clearer results chains, link aid effectiveness activity to core work and ensure mutual accountability (as discussed at 2009 RBM training) |
CRDB All TWG Chair/Lead DP |
JMI matrix revised |
End-April (GDCC) |
Assess link between aid effectiveness policy, behaviour change and development results |
Conduct Evaluation of PD Evaluation (global case study) Discuss draft |
NRG All P+H TWG |
PD Evaluation study produced |
End-April 2010 |
Preparation for Paris Declaration survey |
Extract baselines from ODA Database (Q4 2009) Dialogue on questionnaire |
CRDB (DP to enter data) All P+H TWG |
Baseline data shared with P+H TWG National survey launch meeting / dialogue |
Data by end-2009 End-2010 |
To promote information exchange and peer learning - P&H TWG ToR para IV(c) |
||||
Promote the implementation of AAA and national aid coordination policies |
To provide a forum to discuss progress and share sector level experience of implementation (especially sector level results and capacity-focused work), including with NGOs |
RGC P+H focal points All P+H TWG members
|
Ministries and P+H TWG NGO representatives share experience for wider discussion |
Each TWG meeting |
Strengthen integration between central planning, budgeting and aid management processes |
P+H TWG to act as discussion forum and opportunity for information sharing (together with PFM and PPR TWGs) on RGC initiatives and proposals related to integrating and strengthening core planning/budgeting processes. (2) |
MOP (lead) CRDB MEF
|
tbc (MoP) |
tbc |
To identify – and seek remedies to - emerging opportunities and challenges related to national or global aid effectiveness commitments - P&H TWG ToR para IV(d) |
||||
Strengthen mutual accountability and partnerships through developing capacity to manage multi-stakeholder processes |
The Partnership-building initiative developed in 2009 will be concluded (stage 3 as part of evaluation) |
CRDB (lead) All P+H members |
PD Evaluation reflects on progress Step 4 identifies progress / challenges |
End-April 2010 Q4 2010 |
Ensure that new development partner personnel are well-briefed on national arrangements for managing development cooperation and partnerships |
The induction resource for development partners is posted on CRDB website. The TWG will work in an advisory capacity to update the structure and content for newly-arrived DPs |
All P+H members |
On-line induction briefing prepared and placed on-line |
On-going |
Notes 1. Some activities may be taken forward by smaller groups, as agreed by the full membership of P+H TWG. 2. MoP is the lead agency on this initiative so PPR TWG is the principal forum.
3.
Not all tasks/responsibilities included in the P&H TWG ToR (para IV) are
explicitly included in the 2010 AWP but may be addressed as the need arises.
The 2010 Cambodia Aid Effectiveness Report Concept Note
Background The RGC will convene the 3rd Cambodia Development Cooperation Forum (CDCF) in June 2010. The 2010 Cambodia Aid Effectiveness Report (AER) will be prepared as a background document and aid effectiveness will also comprise one of the substantive agenda items for the meeting. Using data and other evidence to assess performance against global agreements (Paris Declaration, Accra Agenda for Action) and national frameworks (H-A-R Action Plan, JMIs on aid effectiveness), the AER will identify relevant policy recommendations for dialogue and future implementation.
Structure of the 2010 AER As the third AER to be produced for CDCF meetings, the structure has been largely established and will adopt a similar format to the 2007 and 2008 AERs.
Preparation and data sources The main data and evidence base will be drawn from Cambodia and global sources: Cambodia information / data a) NSDP Update (sections on partnership) b) Main RGC reforms (especially PFM, PAR, D&D) c) ODA Database (data provided by cut-off date of 10 March) d) Evaluation of the Paris Declaration (global exercise case study) e) JMIs, sector reviews and relevant research f) TWG reports to the GDCC (with follow-up interviews as appropriate) g) Other policy papers and initiatives (e.g. Partnering) Global information / data h) Accra Agenda for Action (e.g. "beginning now" commitments) i) Paris Declaration evaluation – global synthesis j) Paris Declaration monitoring survey – global report k) Other official documents (Accra HLF, OECD/DAC Working Party) l) Other relevant items of global research on aid, capacity and partnership
Content and theme The 2010 AER is produced at a time when the current global and national policy frameworks are drawing to a close (both reach their end-dates end-2010). The AER will therefore focus on three aspects of aid effectiveness work, in line with global research:
(i) the extent to which policy has been implemented – especially AER 2008 recommendations - in order to secure reforms to aid delivery and management practices (including a focus on the education sector as an example of good practice); (ii) the extent to which these may have contributed to improved development results/outcomes; and (iii) future priorities for implementing aid effectiveness commitments and for securing their impact on development outcomes.
The 2010 AER, in cooperation with RGC Ministries/agencies and TWGs, will therefore attempt to have a more applied analysis than in previous Reports. This will enable more specific policy actions to be identified rooted in actual experience of implementation. The end-result will be to inform the preparation of a new policy framework (to replace Harmonisation, Alignment and Results Action Plan 2006 – 2010) which will be prepared in the second half of 2010.
Process and Timeline CRDB/CDC will make available a draft report for comment before Monday 26 April but it can only do this if development partners comply with the 10 March deadline for validating data.
After this deadline the analysis stage will begin and there can be no further data input/validation.
Based on comments received and any further clarifications from the Paris Declaration Evaluation, the AER will be finalised and sent to the printers by Friday May 7th.
Timeline for AER 2010 development
|
Annex Three
Development Partner projected disbursements 2010 (USD)
(as of 16 December 2010)
|
|
As donor / funding source |
As implementing partner |
||||
Donor |
CDCF MYIFF |
Govt-sector |
Non-Govt sector |
Grand Total |
Govt-sector |
Non-Govt sector |
Grand Total |
ADB |
162,700,000 |
163,445,331 |
|
163,445,331 |
163,888,462 |
583,456 |
164,471,918 |
World Bank |
84,050,000 |
127,270,043 |
|
127,270,043 |
148,813,439 |
3,810,931 |
152,624,370 |
Global Fund |
tbc |
41,183,130 |
|
41,183,130 |
41,183,130 |
|
41,183,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAO |
474,000 |
11,162,000 |
|
11,162,000 |
11,885,480 |
|
11,885,480 |
IFAD |
0 |
2,300,000 |
|
2,300,000 |
2,300,000 |
|
2,300,000 |
ILO |
2,288,689 |
150,000 |
51,702 |
201,702 |
150,000 |
51,702 |
201,702 |
UNAIDS |
253,000 |
200,000 |
|
200,000 |
200,000 |
|
200,000 |
UNCOHCHR |
|
|
|
|
|
2,500,000 |
2,500,000 |
UNDP |
13,197,000 |
8,041,299 |
|
8,041,299 |
11,588,722 |
4,016,685 |
15,605,407 |
UNESCO |
1,158,948 |
1,173,289 |
317,476 |
1,490,765 |
1,173,289 |
317,476 |
1,490,765 |
UNFPA |
3,772,000 |
3,890,984 |
744,936 |
4,635,920 |
3,890,984 |
744,936 |
4,635,920 |
UNICEF |
14,691,000 |
15,871,980 |
|
15,871,980 |
20,120,643 |
|
20,120,643 |
UNODC |
54,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WFP |
28,647,168 |
29,558,833 |
|
29,558,833 |
30,297,385 |
|
30,297,385 |
WHO |
tbc |
4,500,000 |
|
4,500,000 |
4,500,000 |
|
4,500,000 |
sub-total |
64,536,304 |
76,848,385 |
1,114,114 |
77,962,499 |
86,106,503 |
7,630,799 |
93,737,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belgium |
tbc |
1,254,431 |
|
1,254,431 |
1,254,431 |
|
1,254,431 |
Denmark |
15,000,000 |
16,368,150 |
|
16,368,150 |
23,454,616 |
1,078,361 |
24,532,977 |
Finland |
1,453,562 |
1,477,105 |
219,719 |
1,696,824 |
|
219,719 |
219,719 |
France |
25,296,387 |
26,876,717 |
4,540,996 |
31,417,713 |
26,433,586 |
3,957,540 |
30,391,126 |
Germany |
19,538,000 |
46,285,129 |
11,579,567 |
57,864,696 |
46,439,617 |
11,579,567 |
58,019,184 |
Netherlands |
|
|
1,259,823 |
1,259,823 |
|
1,259,823 |
1,259,823 |
UK |
45,047,000 |
35,090,226 |
1,366,249 |
36,456,475 |
8,082,706 |
1,366,249 |
9,448,955 |
Spain |
7,845,122 |
1,920,236 |
19,000,747 |
20,920,983 |
1,181,684 |
19,000,747 |
20,182,431 |
Sweden |
33,483,000 |
10,705,233 |
8,544,051 |
19,249,284 |
4,805,135 |
2,027,366 |
6,832,501 |
EU/EC |
61,561,997 |
35,902,795 |
17,812,179 |
53,714,974 |
32,815,947 |
14,001,248 |
46,817,195 |
sub-total |
209,225,068 |
175,880,022 |
64,323,331 |
240,203,353 |
144,467,722 |
54,490,620 |
198,958,342 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia |
48,408,665 |
35,602,055 |
85,543 |
35,687,598 |
32,745,705 |
85,543 |
32,831,248 |
Canada |
5,280,250 |
4,955,970 |
3,418,189 |
8,374,159 |
4,955,970 |
3,418,189 |
8,374,159 |
China |
162,207,000 |
64,360,311 |
|
64,360,311 |
64,360,311 |
|
64,360,311 |
Japan |
112,290,000 |
60,225,570 |
|
60,225,570 |
60,225,570 |
|
60,225,570 |
New Zealand |
3,611,000 |
2,590,155 |
1,107,117 |
3,697,272 |
2,230,701 |
28,756 |
2,259,457 |
Rep of Korea |
tbc |
18,664,000 |
|
18,664,000 |
18,664,000 |
|
18,664,000 |
Switzerland |
2,499,583 |
|
2,777,778 |
2,777,778 |
|
2,777,778 |
2,777,778 |
USA |
tbc |
27,894,000 |
25,465,000 |
53,359,000 |
31,277,459 |
25,465,000 |
56,742,459 |
other-bilat |
334,296,499 |
214,292,061 |
32,853,627 |
247,145,688 |
214,459,716 |
31,775,266 |
246,234,982 |
Grand Total |
854,807,871 |
798,918,972 |
98,291,072 |
897,210,044 |
798,918,972 |
98,291,072 |
897,210,044 |
Notes
1. MYIFF figures provided in December 2008 at 2nd CDCF meeting
2. Implementing partner ("point of delivery donor") is the methodology used for the PD Survey
Using the JMIs to Promote Development Results Reformulating the JMI Matrix for CDCF3 January 2010
Background The Joint Monitoring Indicators have been employed by the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) and its development partners since the 2004 Consultative Group meeting. They are based on the results-frameworks established by the RGC and development partners in all Technical Working Groups (TWGs), with critical indicators identified and elevated to the status of JMI for regular reporting and discussion at the Government-Development Partner Coordination Committee (GDCC). With their foundations in sector partnerships, JMIs have been agreed (or endorsed) at every CG/CDCF meeting since 2004.
The objectives of the JMIs may be re-stated as:
Moving to results-based JMIs Dialogue at previous GDCC and CDCF meetings has identified scope for further improvement of JMI formulation, management and monitoring processes. Agreement has been reached that the JMIs need to be more results-based in order to establish a closer relationship between: (i) desired development outcomes (e.g. as defined in the NSDP or CMDGs); (ii) outputs (i.e. the verifiable product of an activity); and (iii) activities, including to ensure the use of indicators that are robust and useful in order to assess progress.
Linking aid effectiveness to development results By promoting this results-focus the JMIs may then reinforce partnership efforts in all TWGs to deliver improved results and serve as a means to strengthen and use RGC planning, monitoring and M&E/reporting systems. This will ensure that the JMIs are fully consistent with on-going public administration reforms in order to secure sustainable improvements in capacity and performance. In this way, and by explicitly including aid effectiveness in the JMI matrix format, on-going efforts to link aid effectiveness initiatives with development results may be more grounded in relevant sector activities and monitoring processes (e.g. coordinated capacity development initiatives, improved M&E systems, joint sector reviews).
A revised JMI template/matrix Based on consultations during the "Managing for Development Results" training conducted for RGC and development partners in November 2009, the JMI template will be revised to capture the whole 'results chain', with activities and outputs (with their indicators) linked to development outcomes/results. The JMI formulation process – the consultations that take place within TWGs to prepare the JMIs – can then be used to build partnership/consensus for implementing activities and delivering the desired results. This process should, in turn, ensure consistency across all JMIs in establishing their link to RGC priority outcome-results and reforms.
The modified template is presented overleaf. It will be subject to a process of consultation between TWG Chairs and development partner TWG Facilitators. Once finalised, it will then be used for JMI identification and formulation to be agreed at the April GDCC meeting and endorsed at the Third meeting of the CDCF in June. |
Revised JMI Template Format (Draft for discussion)
Immediate outcome |
Output |
Output indicator |
Activity |
Associated aid effectiveness actions |
Coordinating Institution |
Implementing Institution |
Timeline |
Funding source identified |
The immediate outcome (associated with NSDP, CMDGs or sector plans) is the development result that can be expected to be achieved within the lifetime of the JMIs (i.e. 18 months) and can be verified by the M&E process during, and immediately after, that period. |
The verifiable result of the activity (and focus for routine monitoring)
Emphasis on being feasible, realistic in timeframe, & within RGC/DP influence |
To be:
Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-bound
Choice of indicators to be informed by (or derived from) NSDP M&E framework or sector plan as relevant |
The actions required to achieve the identified output.
These should be at a sufficient level of ambition to ensure the output will make a contribution to the higher-level outcome (and achievable within the 18-month timeframe) |
Identification of relevant and priority actions that are required to build partnership and secure improved aid practices |
This is the body which defines the activity and leads on monitoring |
This is the body(ies) that implements the activity (if different from the coordinating institution) |
Intermediate timelines may be identified for different steps but the total time to achieve the output is to be equal to the period of the JMIs lifetime (i.e. 18 months) |
This may be limited to the source of funding (costing is not required) |
Examples 1) Improved access to clean water (as opposed to the health benefits that may be recorded over the longer-term) 2) Improved school enrolment/retention (as opposed to the improved employment/income opportunities that may result in the longer-term) |
|
Examples 1) An output indicator linked to provision of clean water outlets or coverage
2) Output indicator of measures to promote enrolment or retention
Drawn from NSDP or sector programmes |
|
Establish and/or strengthen PBA Improved TC and capacity activities Joint reviews, M&E & MfDR approaches Partnership principles Initiatives to build partnership and mutual accountability Integration of main reforms (eg PFM/PAR) |
RGC TWG |
RGC DP
|
|
Yes/No Identification of funding sources
|
Notes 1. Joint can mean either jointly identified, formulated, implemented, monitored – based on the principles of partnership and mutual accountability 2. While the outcome should be identified and should be measurable, the focus of JMI monitoring is on the output. This will ensure that identified outputs are within the influence of RGC and development partners to deliver, and can be more easily monitored/verified using routine M&E arrangements. 3. Aid effectiveness activities included here will allow the AE JMI (#2) to be integrated with main JMIs. 4. Funding source is to indicate mobilisation of resources (Yes/No & source, amount not required).
|