 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
1. H.E. Chhieng Yanara, Chairman and Secretary General of CRDB/CDC, welcomed Technical Working Groups Chairs, Development Partner facilitators and heads of TWG secretariats. In his opening remarks, the Chair emphasized that the meeting would be a great opportunity to discuss issues, and to seek guidance and cooperation for benefiting all cross-sector dialogues between Royal Government of Cambodia and Development Partners particularly the consultation on Joint Monitoring Indicators (JMIs). Therefore, CRDB/CDC, as the secretariat of GDCC, CDCF and national focal point for aid mobilization and management, would facilitate and coordinate these processes and maintain support in strengthening partnerships. 2. The agenda items of the meeting were:
i.
JMIs: - Modified format for the JMIs;
ii.
Multi-Year Indicative Financing Framework (MYIFF) I. Joint Monitoring Indicators (JMIs) The proposed modified format had been sent out by email on 29 January. The motivation for revising the format, agreed at the 2008 CDCF meeting, was: – link JMI activities to desired national development results – ensure baselines, targets & timeframes are identified and realistic – promote overall consistency in the level of ambition and link to results 3. Training for all TWG secretariats and lead DPs, took place in November 2009 to help to prepare the JMIs for the 3rd CDCF meeting. 4. Comments were suggested by DPs that there should be a paragraph regarding background of JMIs, number of output and output indicator, explanation on output and outcome being monitored by TWGs associating to aid effectiveness outcome, target for output indicator. In addition, DPs suggested JMIs should include what would be expected to monitor, ensure consistency across sectors and identify the most important result in a sector toward achievement of NDSP, RS Phase II and CMDGs. 5. Comments were also proposed by government side that the new JMI matrix should be applied to all TWGs; yet it should be simple and SMART. Besides, it should have one output with two specific activities and indicators should also be clear and precise. Nevertheless, the format should be grouped in order to make it simple in identifying implementing agencies for monitoring, and JMI activity should be in the first column rather than immediate outcome. 6. Mr. Ros Salin, Head of Aid Coordination Policy Department of CRDC/CDC, reacted that this new JMI matrix had added 2 columns (immediate outcome and output) because it should focus on Managing for Development Result (MfDR) relating to PD principle. The focus on immediate outcome reflects that we move from output based to outcome based. As we are on track of the progress of development result works, this immediate outcome was the short-term impact of aid delivery. Since we work on deductive approach, we have to refer to the RS II, NSDP updated and CMDGs. As a result, we have to put the immediate outcome in the first column followed by output, output indicator and activities. The activity should be based on output leading to immediate outcome. Mr. Philip Courtnadge, Senior advisor to CRDB/CDC, indicated that JMIs should simply evaluate the most critical and important activities taking place mainly at particular TWGs, so that they could be monitored and discussed at the next GDCC. He added that practices were expected to be rooted in sector programs; and this new JMI matrix was designed to portray the whole result chain. It is the output that will be monitored as this is where RGC, DPs and TWGs have influence. 7. In response, the Chair agreed to include JMI’s background in this new format. Finally, the three main heading columns of the JMI format were included as following: 1) Results (outcome, output and indicators), 2) Milestone Activities (activity and associated aid effectiveness actions), and 3) Inputs (management, coordination and resourcing). In addition, three TWG chairs and responsible lead DP facilitators (Education, Public Financial Management and Rural Water Supply, Sanitation & Hygiene TWGs) kindly volunteered to develop comprehensive their new JMI templates based on a revised template that would incorporate the changes discussed and agreed by participants; The revised format would be shared before close-of-business on 16 February and the deadline for submission these templates to CRDB/CDC would be on February 23rd 2010. Multi-Year Indicative Financing Framework 9. H.E. Chairman informed the meeting that MYIFF, committed by DPs during the CDCF, would be an important part for the discussion during the Third CDCF and an important element to support the RGC resources mobilization and efforts in linking between planning and budgeting processes. The format of MYIFF would be the same as the one for the 2008 CDCF. 10. DPs were asked to up-date the ODA Database for the three-year period of 2010 to 2012 including to validate actual disbursement data for 2009 and projection data for 2010; and this process should be completed by 10th March 2010. They were also asked to complete MYIFF (2010-2012) templates and submit to CRDB/CDC for consolidation by 24th April 2010; the revised templates along with the additional column on MTEF would be shared with DP agencies in mid-March once the numbers from the ODA Database had been incorporated. MEF observed that it was preparing to obtain sector MTEF data in the Budget Strategic Plan exercise beginning March and the MYIFF exercise, covering 2010-2012 might consider changing the period to 2011-2013, which was in-line with the Budget planning process. World Bank also observed that it would be useful to map to the MTEF to support closer integration of the processes. Follow-up to the “Making Partnership Effective” exercise 11. The Chair recalled that the meeting on “Partnering Initiative” was organized by CRDB/CDC in September 2009 for TWG chairs and secretariats and lead DP facilitators to improve effective partnership within each sector, and this topic was to discuss and follow-up the progress made between TWGs and DPs on the initiatives, and the exercise would be an important part of PD evaluation phase II processes. Besides, RGC agencies and DPs were requested to make good collaboration with Evaluation Team and National Reference Groups in providing inputs especially on partnering initiative exercise to the PD evaluation processes. 12. Therefore, RGC agencies and DPs addressed the progress made by TWGs and DPs on the exercise. The dialogues and the jointly work within TWG mechanisms were improved; however, the issue was occurred related to the misunderstanding on PBAs from DPs in TWG-Gender. CIDA observed that it had led to useful changes in the Land TWG and JICA commented that the IRI TWH had also adopted some improved practices as a result of the exercise. The RGC representative of the Gender TWG observed that some DPs still "had their own point of view" and would not support RGC-proposed PBA arrangements. MoWA therefore requested supported from CRDB/CDC. The Mine Action TWG RGC representative observed that the partnering work had contributed to renewed commitment to partnership in that sector. Support to Sector Program 13. The Chair mentioned that progress was made by most of TWGs in strengthening and preparing the new PBAs like Health, Education, D&D, A&W and Mine Action TWGs through the new programs establishment. However, TWG chairs and lead DP facilitators were requested to improve more on the process like moving PBAs from lower to higher levels aligning the activities with the common approaches for implementation and funding. CRDB/CDC, an agency to promote PBAs in Cambodia, was ready to provide support to TWGs in further strengthening the existing and new PBA formulations for each sector. Other issues 14. There were changes of lead DP facilitators in some TWGs. In TWG-HIV/AIDs, the DP lead facilitator from UNFPA was replaced by UNESCO on an interim basis; however, the official nomination would be conducted as soon. Lead DP facilitator from AFD would be replaced by AusAID for TWGA&W, and it was agreed by TWG co-chairs and DPs already. There was an agreement that AusAID was assigned to manage DFID funding resources in Health sector particularly in HSSPII program. 15. Regarding the Parliamentary Union Mission Study, Cambodia has been selected to provide experiences on the engagement of parliamentarian in aid effectiveness agendas. The dialogue between RGC agencies and DPs on the study would be taken place in early March 2010. 16. The Block Grant Support provided by MDSP/CRDB to ten TWGs in 2008-09 would not be renewed. DPs active in a sector should be providing the support that is required by the TWG but support from CRDB/CDC could be provided on an exceptional basis based on specific requests rather than annual workplan-based allocations. Therefore, each request would be signed and endorsed by TWG Chairs and lead DP facilitators to ensure it was based on the needs of TWGs.
17. The meeting was adjourned around 11.00 am. Report by: Aid Coordination Policy Department |