Enhancing Policy Dialogue: Workshop for Development Partners

Summary report of workshop held on 19 October 2011

Background

At the conclusion of each GDCC and CDCF over the past year DPs have self assessed their engagement within the aid coordination mechanism and considered ongoing opportunities to make policy dialogue more effective between Government and development partners, civil society and the private sector and internally between development partners. In 2012 Government is due to review aid management policy and this will also be discussed in the TWG P&H. Whilst the monthly informal donor lunches provide a forum for discussion on procedure, policy and issues of technical substance, and the TWG P&H works with Government to review and enhance aid coordination systems, development partners proposed a full day dedicated workshop as a first step to facilitate more in depth discussion on means to strengthen policy dialogue with Government and in doing so contribute to strengthened aid coordination in Cambodia. Ambassadors, Heads of Development Partner agencies, TWG co-facilitators participated.

Objectives

1. Promote the effectiveness of policy dialogue between development partners and government, and strengthen engagement of civil society and the private sector
2. Strengthen policy dialogue and coordination within the development partner community, and emerging/non traditional development partners

Summary of conclusions and agreed actions

The workshop established a commitment to a forward looking approach and reinforced the central role of CDC and their value as a point of dialogue and collaboration on aid coordination mechanisms and structures. Development partners acknowledged the importance of both formal and informal opportunities for dialogue and inclusive sectoral dialogue.  At the same time there is a need to ensure effective smaller group functioning.. The workshop acknowledged the current TWG network as an important means to support government lead efforts to strengthen TWGs and sectoral level collaboration. Development partners also acknowledged the value of government plans to transition to a Cambodia Development Forum inclusive of civil society organizations and the private sector and increasingly involving non traditional donors. The workshop concluded with a number of specific actions as both immediate follow up and a as means to focus future policy dialogue priorities.

Conclusions

• It is recognized that a formal/informal, public/private policy dialogue approach which is agreeable to both government and development partners is essential and that formal structured dialogue, incorporating the role of Ambassadors, can be complemented with planned and coordinated informal discussions in the form of informal ‘retreat’ type events involving government, development partners and CSOs

• Further discussion is needed between government and development partners to identify motivators for government to engage in enhanced policy dialogue with development partners, especially in larger GDCC/CDCF fora

• Any future informal assessment of current aid dialogue fora proposed, with the aim of reviewing TWG, GDCC, CDCF structures to increase effective policy dialogue, to be undertaken in collaboration with government, mindful of next steps to convene the TWG network in early 2012.

• DPs wish to support Government in its transition of the GDCC and CDCF to a single Cambodia Development Forum (CDF) inclusive of all three levels of Government aid coordination machinery and representatives from Civil Society Organisations & the Private sector, seeing the benefit of tying this to annual budget and planning cycles

• Need to develop ways to work more effectively for the inclusion of both the private sector and civil society in the current CDCF structure as it transitions towards a CDF.

• However, it was considered premature to combine the Government Private Sector Forum (GPSF) and the CDCF at a time when strengthening of the GPSF’s effectiveness and capacity to dialogue with government was critical, and pulling into a new unfamiliar structure may disrupt rather than improve dialogue

• A cluster approach was considered useful to bring separate TWGs together around common and cross cutting issues. It was recognized that there was a need to strengthen existing formal structures and use the good practice of effective TWGs to support the strengthening of others

• In order to help TWGs function more effectively there is benefit in:

  • Revising ToR for TWGs to make them clearer and more consistent, with a clear focus on sector strategies and linkages to GDCC and CDCF, addressing any current disconnect between TWGs and the GDCC

  • Encourage more senior participation from both Government and development partners in TWGs as well as strengthen participation of CSOs

  • Consider if adequate technical support is being provided to TWGs to address the challenges they face

  • Collaborate with government to develop more clarity and a results focus in JMIs to ensure they reflect effective monitoring of development results that are linked to the CMDGs,  NSDP and Rectangular Strategy

• The value of coordinated development partner policy dialogue was reinforced confirming the added value of the Lead Development Partner Facilitator (LDPF). A solution to long term support of this function is needed.

• The codification of development partner dialogue mechanisms will strengthen collaboration, focus and partnership with government and will be undertaken in the form of drafting TOR for: TWG development partner groups; monthly information development partner lunch; and head of agency meetings.

• Development partners will meet in January 2012 to determine four policy issues for focus in 2012 recognising the value and importance of including Ambassadors in this discussion.

Objective: Identify strategies to further improve effectiveness of policy dialogue between development partners and government, and  strengthen the engagement of civil society and the private sector

What is working well?

• There are regular meetings for dialogue which have a clear structure and ownership by Government providing an ongoing process of dialogue between government and development partners

• There is broad participation in TWGs. Some are cohesive and functioning effectively with many TWGs working well on sector related issues and strategies. There is a significantly improved degree of CSO participation and a systematic JMI monitoring process

• The overall architecture provides a flexible structure to address policy gaps and propose ways forward  e.g. the interim working group for social protection

• TWGs and the CDCF are chaired at a high level within government and are useful mechanisms for government chairs to convene colleagues cross-ministerially, which also encourages accountability and transparency

• The current structure provides a clear framework for development partners to identify whom within government they need to engage with

• The CDCF provides an opportunity to put issues on the public agenda and the GDCC/CDCF mechanism enables continuity and follow through on issues and promotes on-going dialogue and broader accountability

• Both the Joint Monitoring Indicators [JMI] and the TWG Network are also viewed as working well

What is not working well?

• The current aid architecture is not perceived to be a sufficiently effective mechanism to effectively discuss and address higher-level results & objectives The overall structure could be strengthened by being based on principles of mutual accountability and partnership.

• The formality of the GDCC and CDCF is not conducive to policy dialogue and development partners don’t always use informal approaches effectively

• There appears to be different perceptions and expectations amongst Government and development partners as to the purpose of the GDCC and CDCF. From the development partner perspective there is concern there is Government reluctance to tabling and discussing politically sensitive issues raised by development partners, which raises questions as to whether genuine and effective policy dialogue can take place.

• Formal reading of prepared papers mitigates opportunities for effective policy dialogue and more informal exchanges of views would help address this

• The differentiated roles of the GDCC and the CDCF need to be clarified

• Improved intra-govt coordination would lead to more effective functioning of these structures

• While some TWGs were considered to be working effectively, many TWG chairs may not have authority to coordinate or hold other agencies/Ministries to account, therefore reducing their effectiveness

• Government representatives at TWG meetings are often not sufficiently high ranking to take matters forward with authority and sometimes this prevents issues raised in TWGs being taken higher for resolution

• Multi-sector, cross-cutting and challenging issues (such as governance) are not generally coordinated between TWGs other than at GDCC/CDCF level which relies on a very formal format for dialogue

Proposals for improvements

• The need for government to maintain formal meetings needs to be balanced with the establishment of effective informal dialogue mechanisms between government and development partners that feed into formal mechanisms in a coordinated way

• Develop strategies in collaboration with government for more effective CSO inclusion 

• Review the number of individual TWGs / possible creation of cross-sectoral TWGs or the opportunity to develop alternate mechanisms for progressing cross-sectoral/cross-ministerial issues for which there is no effective policy dialogue mechanisms currently

• Conduct  an analysis making use of existing evaluations and/or targeted new analysis to improve the functioning of TWGs and reduce the disconnect between TWG technical discussions and higher level policy dialogue

• Find the right entry points to either collaborate with whole of government on identification of what would be drivers of change in policy dialogue and work with CDC to support their coordination role

Objective: Identify strategies to further improve policy dialogue and coordination within the development partner community, and emerging/non traditional development partners

What is working well?

• DPs hold regular meetings and in general there is good commitment from DPs evidenced by levels of attendance at most TWGs

• The regular DP lunches have a cooperative atmosphere where dialogue and debate can take place

• Current ODA data is transparent, up-to-date and accessible

• The Lead Development Partner Facilitator (LDPF) Secretariat functions well and coordination for GDCC/CDCF flows well

• DP coordination networks at TWG level share common understandings of context and challenges.

• TWGs that are working well (e.g. Education, P&H) generally do so when there is:

• A cohesive group of DPs and Government representatives that encourage constructive criticism and open dialogue

• DP discussion outside of formal TWGs supports the development of common positions and understanding on key issues and priorities and DPs coming together on the issues that are considered critical that can then feed in to TWG strategy and decision making

• DPs trusting when represented by another DP, knowing this is appreciated by the government Ministries

• Strong RGC/DP facilitation & leadership

• Regular, well prepared, structured and chaired TWG meetings

What is not working well?

• Time constraints are significant given that there is a wish to have senior level DP representatives at all TWG meetings where one partner may be active in a number of TWGs

• The DP lunch format and content currently focuses on information sharing rather than cross-cutting priorities and policy issues on common interest.

• DPs seem to not always be transparent or consistent about HQ priorities and agency mandates in inter-DP dialogue

• Ps are very fragmented at times and also not coordinating their support in certain sectors effectively. DPs often do not systematically follow-through on decisions.

• Not all DPs are included in the current DP coordination structures. There is a need to engage with emerging donors more effectively

• DPs do not use their global and regional structures and strategic advantage effectively to contribute to stronger aid coordination at the country level

• TWG quality and effectiveness remains variable with some TWGs not seen to function as well because of:

• A lack of continued communications between DP meetings.

• Too many issues tabled for discussion in one meeting without adequate prdeparation and communication.

• DPs often raise their own issues and function less as a cohesive group

• Extensive intra-DP discussion is not always balanced with sufficient dialogue with Government prior to TWG meetings are sometimes not well organized and DPs often do not work on the basis of comparative advantage, do not look for common ground, preferring to protect their ‘turf’

• Although many DP staff spend significant time contributing to aid coordination and effectiveness it is often not reflected within individual agency staff performance assessment frameworks presenting few incentives for DP staff to work more effectively and coordinate with other DPs.

Proposals for improvement

• The LDPF and Secretariat has contributed to DP coordination and effectiveness in the past. As the role of LDPF is supposed to be rotational, there is a need for institutional continuity and sustainability for the Secretariat in terms of both funding and location. Funding is a constraint and a solution for longer term resourcing for the Secretariat is needed. There were two perspectives in this regard:

a) - A proposal for joint funding to be prepared referring to the terms of reference already drafted for the Secretariat as a basis for requesting joint funding. The mechanism used by the UN for joint financial contributions for security was referenced as a model that might be useful. Using the Adviser for the Education Sector Secretariat as an example, regardless of who contributes financially the Secretariat remains a resource for all DPs.

b) - The LDPF request that its HQ provide finance for the Secretariat and that locally raised joint funding. If the LDPF is always a multilateral agency, DPs consider that they contribute already so this was not considered to be a sustainable solution.

• Establish common ground among DPs on key priority issues for dialogue with government (to reduce donor fragmentation), whilst recognising that a wide spectrum of views, approaches and strategic advantages among DPs can be a positive strength when it comes to policy dialogue, particularly where:

• these differing approaches and strategic advantages are openly discussed

• there is agreement on how these strategic advantages can complement and enhance effective policy dialogue with government

• DPs are willing to trust and coordinate with each other in relation to policy dialogue with government around specific issues/challenges which may not be shared as priorities by all.

• DPs need to come together around a set of key policy priorities each year which would frame their joint work in preparation for, and in following up, the CDCF/CDGG a number of months in advance and used to shape both the formal and informal dialogue process providing a framework for joint DP discussion over the year. The mechanism for selecting policy issues for 2012 would be the DP lunch. Topic selection should require a focus on achieving policy results and advancing long term change.

• The benefits of having an on line solution for sharing DP documents is to be explored. DP IT constraints should be reviewed in the process. The CDC website is a functioning and up to date source for Government/DP key documents with a facility for DPs to input data on missions and joint analysis to facilitate coordination. Too few DPs use this function. Further investigation of options linked to a ‘knowledge management’ strategy for DPs, which the LDPF secretariat could also take forward if properly staffed and resourced.

• TWGs are recognized as a government mechanism. There is a need to codify how DPs work together at TWG level, also to codify the informal DP lunch and Head of Agencies’[1] meeting. 

• CDC is currently looking at TWG architecture and what changes might be needed. CDC has conducted an informal TWG review and subsequently provided guidelines for TWGs which are being followed by some TWGs.

• DPs could propose to collaborate in an informal assessment of TWG functioning, strengths weaknesses, constellations, relevance to and association with the NSDP etc, so that government and DPs come to a set of agreed conclusions on how to take the mechanism forward.

• The P&H TWG is the mechanism for any informal assessment It can then propose necessary follow up through training or further codification and peer learning and use the TWG network to resource this. It could also codify and propose how TWG DP groups work.

• DPs acknowledge that CDC will keep the TWG network active so as to support enhanced performance of TWGs and non-threatening collaboration.

• The need to engage emerging DPs through exploring diplomatic channels with the involvement of Ambassadors was discussed. Links to and engagement with ASEAN were also seen as a priority.