Cambodia: PSIA of Social Land Concession Program Lessons Learned

1
Cambodia PSIA of Social Land Concession Program
Lessons Learned

• Third International Roundtable Managing for
  Development Results
• Hanoi, Vietnam
• February 2007

Srey Chanthy Independent Consultant Agriculture
Land
2
Outline

• Key features
• How PSIA complements other approaches
• Relevance of technical, institutional and
  political aspects
• How PSIA strengthens results orientation in
  design and implementation of the program
• How to strengthen incorporation of results into
  policy making process
• How PSIA strengthen mutual and domestic
  accountability
• Challenges in capacity development and
  institutionalization of PSIA
• Lessons learned

3
1. Key features Objective and focus

• Objective Determine the poverty and social
  impacts of land distribution and the conditions
  for the successful realization and sustainability
  of potential benefits

• Focus
• Extent and reasons for landlessness and
  land-poverty
• Institutional and policy issues
• Availability of support services and
  infrastructure
• Potential availability of land for distribution
• Potential poverty and social impacts

4
1. Key featuresProcess
LASED Program
First meetings with stakeholders (May 2003)
Workshop to present and discuss main findings and
recommendations (May 2004)
Concept Note for the PSIA
Discussions with potential research partners
Draft reports on individual parts
Proposed studies were presented at a workshop
(October 2003)
Fieldwork (December 2003)
Small workshop on methodological approach
(November 2003)
5
1. Key features Partners and audience, and
methodologies

• Partners and audience
• MLMUPC Social land concession working group(s)
• GTZ through LMAP Project
• World Bank Task Team for this PSIA
• Oxfam GB
• ABiC experienced local research/ANRM NGO
• Other stakeholders, incl. govt agencies (MAFF,
  MRD, etc.), donors, NGOs/CSOs, research agencies
• Research instruments / tools
• Review and analysis of secondary literature
• Random sampling procedures
• PRA exercises and household survey

6
2. How PSIA complements other approaches
currently used

• Provision of both qualitative and quantitative
  information about impacts of multidisciplinary
  aspects
• Very limited ex ante analyses done
• Other ex ante approaches (e.g. PPA, PIA) used not
  for specific program, policy reform
• Consensus building among stakeholders
• Inclusion of beneficiary, non-beneficiary and
  influential groups (welfare and distributional
  impact)
• Establishment of baseline and aspects for ME

7
3. Relevance of technical, institutional, and
political aspects

• Technical
• Lacking familiarity with qualitative techniques
  or combined approaches
• Issue of consensus on sampling procedures
• Lacking involvement in analysis and result
  interpretation, incl. NIS
• Institutional
• Weak capacity and appreciation of concerned
  agencies
• Existence of political platform, strategy,
  certain legal framework
• Now under national statistics law, PSIA would
  be potentially under NIS depending on its size
• Political
• No major issues predictable and desirable
  impacts, yet to realize
• Ownership participation in the process,
  dissemination of and debate about results, use of
  results
• Resource constraints (for this PSIA
  US8,4000.oo 24 personnel, 4 months (from
  training to reporting))

8
4. How PSIA strengthens results orientation in
design and implementation of the program

• Awareness of social land concession program
  committee at national level
• Several studies identified under PSIA followed
• Important legal framework and guidelines
  considered, materialized and implemented
• Design of improved program, pilot sites chosen,
  etc. LASED
• Capacity building in pilot areas,

9
5. How to strengthen incorporation of results
into policy making

• Building ownership
• Conducting policy advocacy/dialogue
• Building consensus on policies / strategies /
  measures identified by PSIA
• Pilot-testing the identified policies /
  strategies / measures LASED

10
6. How PSIA strengthen mutual and domestic
accountability

• Characteristics of the eminent programs, and
  institutional roles, responsibilities and
  arrangements as well as obligations of all
  stakeholders revealed and discussed
• Concerns and recommendations shared

11
7. Challenges in capacity development and
institutionalization of PSIA

• Issue of familiarity and preference quantitative
  vs. qualitative techniques
• Complexity multidisciplinary nature of impact
  analysis
• New approach, and thus limited appreciation
• Budgetary / priority issue development vs.
  research
• Research and analytical capacity of staff
• Culture / perception of research within anchoring
  unit in each agency / body

12
8. Lessons learned

• Building ownership through appropriate engagement
• Building consensus
• Conducting after-process policy advocacy/dialogue
• Allocating adequate time and resources
• Lacking streamlining of PSIA effort into the
  system ( because of (a) resource constraint, (b)
  capacity constraint, and lack of appreciation of
  the tools, and (c) lack of visibility of results)
• In case of PIA/PPA, investment did not primarily
  match with priorities, but later increased, while
  time lapses

13
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!