Technical Working Group Network Retreat

27-28 February 2012

Discussion Note

Background to the meeting and purpose of this note

The TWG Network brings together all TWG Chairs, secretariats, development partner focal points and Heads of Cooperation, as well as representatives of civil society. The Network meeting in February provides an opportunity to discuss policy matters related to development cooperation and partnership as the Government looks towards promoting the principles of 'development effectiveness' (set out in the 2011 Development Effectiveness Report) with a view to updating the current policy on development cooperation management. The NSDP Mid-term Review and the recent High-level Forum in Busan provide essential national and global inputs to the dialogue. This note sets out some of the issues to be discussed so that TWG Network members can consult within their respective organisations and come fully briefed and prepared for the meeting on 27 February.

Objectives of the TWG Network retreat

The objective of the meeting is to reflect on a range of issues related to the effectiveness of our development partnership:

(i)            the effectiveness of partnership arrangements for policy dialogue;

(ii)           progress in using the implementation tools that we currently employ (PBAs, JMIs, major reforms) to strengthen country systems, improve public service delivery and promote development effectiveness;

(iii)          monitoring and mutual accountability in the development partnership; and

(iv)         development cooperation policy (which will be reviewed during 2012 and revised in 2013).

The NSDP Mid-term Review, the 2011 Development Effectiveness Report and the Busan Outcome Statement will be the principal inputs to our discussion. By the end of our meeting we expect to have reached a broad consensus on matters related to development cooperation policy priorities and an approach towards strengthening our organisational arrangements for dialogue and monitoring using a results-based approach.

Related issues for discussion

The over-arching theme of the meeting is to identify measures to promote development effectiveness, i.e. the achievement of sustainable results, the strengthening of capacities and systems, and the formation of broader and more inclusive development partnerships. There are a number of inter-related and mutually dependent topics to be discussed.

By considering the broader development context, priorities and challenges, the TWG Network can then focus on identifying the key results areas – and associated actions – that are required.

A proposed structure for dialogue

The proposed sequence for discussion – on which the agenda is based – is detailed below. The first part of our meeting begins with three main areas for presentation and discussion: (a) the NSDP mid-term review; (b) the Busan High-level Forum commitments; and (c) adapting Busan to Cambodia's own situation and priorities. Discussing and understanding these topics will provide the context for moving into the more forward-looking part of the 2-day programme that will focus on dialogue arrangements, monitoring and policy priorities for the development partnership.

The proposed structure for the discussion is therefore as follows:

1a) NSDP – overall development context

The NSDP Mid-term Review identifies good progress in the implementation of each component area of the Rectangular Strategy – Phase II. The review emphasises the following priorities in some of the main areas of the Rectangular Strategy:

• Governance – priority placed on improving service delivery
• Economy – diversification & adding value to tradable output, rice policy
• Agriculture & rural sector – effective resource management and livelihood promotion
• Infrastructure – all sub-sectors require further investment (& flood rehabilitation)
• Private sector – improved public service support (single windows), coordination, vocational training
• Human capital – shortage of skilled labour, gender equity challenges, some positive health trends
• The NSDP monitoring framework's 46 core indicators focus on these priority development areas

In summary, the NSDP Mid-term Review (p xiv) observes:

"Across ministries and at decentralized levels, the main problems faced are:

1.     Acute shortage of both physical and human resources;

2.     Limited reform in civil services which shows up  in poor ‘command and control’ mechanism;

3.     Limited horizontal and vertical dialogue between ministries & departments, & between national & sub-national levels;

4.     Lack of harmonisation between different programmes;

5.     Excessive reliance on ‘project-based’ approaches; and

6.     Low quality M&E: lack of standardization of definitions of variables, no linkage between different data-generating agencies, few datasets, and limited knowledge about data among government personnel"  

This implies that the major reform programmes of the Royal Government remain highly relevant in addressing each of the six summary challenges by strengthening institutional reforms, creating stronger organisations and systems, and developing capacities across society.

Discussion: The TWG Network will be asked to consider the perspectives of the NSDP Mid-term Review and to consider how they fit with their own sector context and programmes of action, as well as monitoring systems, for 2012 and the medium-term.

1b) Busan and a partnership/cooperation policy for Cambodia – what does the new global framework for development effectiveness look like?

In November 2011, the global development community met in Busan, Republic of Korea, to review progress in implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (as well as the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action) and to agree the successor document, the "Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation".

Key features of the Busan Partnership commitments include:

• It is endorsed by all donors, partner countries and South-South Cooperation providers (i.e. including the BRICS) as well as by a large number of international civil society organisations.
• It recognises that aid is only one of multiple sources of development finance. Aid can therefore only be expected to play a "catalytic role" that complements these other resources.
• It looks 'beyond aid' to facilitate broader partnerships – e.g. with South-South, private sector and civil society partners - that collaborate with Government for 'development effectiveness'.
• It recognises – and accommodates – diversity amongst these many partners and allows resource providers from the South to comply with global commitments on a "voluntary basis".
• It includes a commitment to complete the Paris/Accra commitments and to develop new global monitoring arrangements (under a new Global Partnership to be established in mid-2012).

For Cambodia the most relevant aspects of the agreement include:

(a) The use of a national results framework as a common tool to assess development impact and to support coordination and mutual accountability around key results (paras 18b & 35a).

(b) Country systems are now to be used by development partners as the "default option", including use of joint system assessments and approaches to capacity development (19a).

(c) Sustainable impact requires a focus on "effective institutions" (29) that includes development partners adopting a more shared approach to risk management (18a).

(d) A commitment to country-led coordination arrangements, including PBAs (25a), includes a commitment to delegate greater authority to development partner field staff (25d).

(e) Building more strategic partnerships with other development actors: Parliament & local government (21); civil society (22); South-South (30); private sector (32).

(f)   Promoting policy coherence with other development challenges: gender equality (20); social protection (27); anti-corruption (33); climate change (34).

Discussion: The TWG Network will be asked to review the Busan outcome statement in order to validate the issues that CRDB/CDC has identified as most relevant.

1c) How do we adapt the Busan global commitments to Cambodia's priorities?

The 2011 Cambodia Development Effectiveness Report identifies a set of national priorities that are consistent with the global commitments made in Busan (see below the diagram that demonstrates the close match between the principal respective areas of national and global focus).

Source. Cambodia DER 2011 (p24)                                                                   Source. OECD WP-EFF (December 2011)

Perhaps the most relevant and over-arching of the Busan commitments is:

"We will hold each other accountable for making progress against the commitments and actions agreed in Busan …To this end we will … At the level of individual developing countries, agree on frameworks based on national needs and priorities for monitoring progress and promoting mutual accountability in our efforts to improve … development results."

Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (2011), para 35

This requires that we first agree on priorities before developing the institutional and monitoring frameworks that can ensure improved development results. RGC therefore proposes that, in order to move forward in implementing the policy recommendations included in the NSDP mid-term review and the 2011 Development Effectiveness Report, and to ensure relevant adaptation of the Busan commitments to the national context, our development partnership should consult on, validate and prioritise the issues and policy actions discussed in the earlier sections.

Consultations on dialogue arrangements, monitoring and policy work

The second part of the discussion provides an opportunity to consult on, and prioritise, the issues developed during the first part of the Network meeting. This session will begin in plenary with selected discussants in order to allow for a general dialogue as well as clarifications.  Work in greater detail will then take place in smaller groups amongst the TWGs.

2a. Developing a framework for strengthening partnerships and prioritising results in the management of development cooperation

Development effectiveness has been defined in the 2011 Development Effectiveness Report as: ensuring impact; promoting sustainability; and effectively coordinating all actors in the development effort. From the TWG and sector perspective, it is useful to consider how the development effectiveness approach can be further developed and applied to promote development results.

Some or all of the following questions can be used to guide a focused discussion amongst TWGs:

• What are the main features of the catalytic role of aid in each sector as Cambodia approaches middle-income country (MIC) status? In particular, what are the main specific areas of focus for development cooperation in supporting an enabling environment and the promotion of effective state institutions?
• What would be the appropriate actions in asserting RGC leadership to coordinate a range of development actors at sector level (ODA providers, S-S partners, private sector, CSOs) in meeting NSDP & CMDG targets? Which actors – civil society, private sector, South-South partners - might usefully be brought into the sector dialogue and how might their collaboration add value to the work of the sector? Is there any value in developing an outreach strategy for working with this broader set of partners, e.g. to utilise South-South opportunities?
• Given the new opportunities for partnership under the banner of 'development effectiveness', dialogue arrangements can be reviewed – and adapted - to ensure they contribute to a more results-focused and inclusive development partnership. Based on experience to date, what are the key features of future dialogue arrangements for the sector? What kind of changes to the national dialogue arrangements might allow sector and thematic work to take full advantage of the development effectiveness agenda?
• How can PBA strengthening build on the work of the major reform programmes to strengthen public administration functions, and integrate ODA management, in areas such as policy development, planning/budgeting, implementation capacity, reporting and monitoring?
• National systems / capacity work must be further developed. Which ministries, with the engagement of TWG members, may be both willing and able to work with CRDB/CDC in developing a set of assessment tools that can facilitate common approaches to capacity and system strengthening?

2b.  Monitoring the partnership and its effectiveness

• Joint M&E arrangements at sector level have been identified as the most efficient and results-focused means of monitoring and promoting mutual accountability for sectors in which ODA provides a major share of finance. Which sectors have been successful in establishing and using such systems? What are the main lessons to be drawn? How can sector work inform the future development of the JMIs as greater emphasis is placed on the development effectiveness approach?
• Does the sector have an operational results framework, derived from a policy document that identifies the key results and links these to resources and activities? Does the on-going use of Budget Strategic Plans offer an opportunity to bring together all Government and external partner activities in a single framework to assess the use of resources in delivering results?
• Developing a national results framework is perhaps the most directly relevant action coming from Busan. How can we improve both the sector-based monitoring of national development goals and partnership monitoring through the JMIs, as well as to consider options for closer linkages between the two (and their related work at sector level)?
• Identifying indicators that focus on aid effectiveness as well as developmental impact in order to localize and build on the foundations set by the Paris Declaration monitoring indicators is useful. Based on sector experience, in which areas should these focus? (e.g. alignment with plans/policies; systems use (including PFM); provision of TC, use of PBAs, predictability). Is there any value in developing new indicators that can assess progress towards making ODA more catalytic (in developing private sector partnerships, for example) or in measuring the use of South-South modalities?

Conclusion of the meeting – reaching consensus on actions and the main areas of policy work

The themes identified in 2(a) and 2(b), above, will be discussed in smaller groups at the TWG Network meeting before using a plenary discussion to agree on the priority areas on which further work is to be focused as well as to identify the major issues to be clarified in forthcoming policy work. By the conclusion of the meeting we hope to have identified a broad consensus on an approach towards strengthening our organisational arrangements for dialogue and monitoring that promotes a results-based approach consistent with our overall approach to development effectiveness.

These discussions will inform further review work to be led by CRDB/CDC throughout 2012 and supported by the Partnership and Harmonisation TWG. This more in-depth work and consultation process will, in turn, contribute to the production of new development cooperation and partnerships policy that is expected to be finalised in 2013 (i.e. to replace the 2006-2010 Strategic Framework for Development Cooperation Management). This policy will address each of the three main areas discussed above as well as codifying practice in other areas of ODA management and partnerships work (e.g. bilateral consultations on country programming, provision of data to promote aid predictability and transparency, technical cooperation management).