PLATFORM TO POOL DONOR FUNDS

1
PLATFORM TO POOL DONOR FUNDS STEER
COORDINATIONLessons from the CBF in Serbia 2001
2004
CDF Seminar, Senec, Nov 2005- Nenad Rava -
2
CBF in Serbia

• Development mission
• Develop critical governing capacity required for
  managing the transition of Serbia and Montenegro
  to a fully democratic society and market economy
• did good in the initial design, faces
  challenges in the implementation
• The first of the kind in ECIS (an experiment)
• Lessons learned for the others, in particular
  Montenegro and Kosovo
• Lessons applied in new programming that came
  later

3
Status of institutional capacity and development
challenges of the Serbian Government in 2001

• a) Weak absorption capacity and lack of
  priorities
• (the issue of the actual baseline capacity
  remains)
• b) Hectic pace of reforms, New people coming in
  Outdated public management
• c) Considerable donor resources - but no
  implementation mechanisms and small local donor
  capacity
• d) Request for coordinated approach to
  cross-cutting capacities but many donors in the
  field and funds fishing effect

4
UNDP / OSI partnership The core of the CBF

• Join programming and resource mobilization
• Channeling donors towards the CBF
• Proactive and risk-taking
• Shared values and principles on development
  policy
• Pragmatic orientation - substitute the lack of
  the policy capacity on the short term and promote
  PAR in the long-term
• Advocacy on behalf of the government / Confidence
  and trust built in!

5
CBF in Serbia Key deliverables (2004)

• Total funds 9.6 million USD
• Number of projects 18 (not all the CBF
  projects)
• Total number of project staff 524 / cc. 1 000
  various contracts
• Key donors
• OSI / UNDP
• Netherlands
• Sida
• GTZ
• EU-EAR
• Austria
• SDC
• RBF

• Too much money for CD might be counterproductive
• - However
• The issue of cost-recovery
• The issues of attracting further funds

6
CBF in Serbia The Structure

• Steering Committee
• Programme Mngm Executive Office (since 2002)
• National Project Directors (since 2002)
• PIUs and various modes for external advisors

• 2002
• PAR projects
• Policy substitution
• Economic development
• Social reform
• Other
• Very, very rare supplements (but time limited /
  output based / no overlap with official job
  description)

• Initial design
• PAR (horizontal CD)
• 4 Line ministries (vertical CD)
• Functional review
• CD support (IT, training and minor policy advice)

7
CBF in Serbia Key issues and challenges for
donor coordination and resource mobilization

• Donors going in alone and in parallel
• - no incentives to go through one coordinated
  channel
• - UNDPs slow and weak start (failure to invest
  in internal capacity new country office)
• - vague added value

• Lack of genuine partnership platform
• - no substantial policy dialogue and lack of a
  consent on long-term strategy / role of the CBF
• - comprehensive partnership building strategy
  missing

8
CBF in Serbia Key issues and challenges for
donor coordination and resource mobilization
(contd)

• Vague and inappropriate management and steering
• - inadequate involvement of the Government in
  steering and certain donor cherry picking
• - Fund vs. programme vs. UNDP internal unit
  (cluster of projects)
• - DEX and cumbersome management
• - weak programming and supervision
• - the silos approach, fragmented implementation
  of complex activities
• - no long-term framework too diverse / lacks
  focus, priorities and alignment / no exit
  strategy

9
CBF in Serbia Lessons Learnt

• More resources invested in programming
  facilitates resource mobilization and ensures
  trust
• Clear and common understanding of the long-term
  outcome prevents early divorce
• Ensure strong and relevant government involvement
  in steering (not only donor focal points)
• Strengthen management while remaining flexible
  and relevant
• Agree on individual roles and responsibilities
  and be consistent about it
• Always link with long term PAR
• Clearly position UNDP and communicate it
  strategically
• Never forget the level of complexity, high
  political sensitivity and the core of UNDP mandate

• More resources invested in programming
  facilitates resource mobilization and ensures
  trust
• Clear and common understanding of the long-term
  outcome prevents early divorce
• Ensure strong and relevant government involvement
  in steering (not only donor focal points)
• Strengthen management while remaining flexible
  and relevant
• Agree on individual roles and responsibilities
  and be consistent about it
• Always link with long term PAR
• Clearly position UNDP and communicate it
  strategically
• Never forget the level of complexity, high
  political sensitivity and the core of UNDP mandate

10

• FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
• UNDPs specific role in donor coordination and
  communication in early days of reforms
• Low transaction cost and/or Added value
• UNDP involvement in Management Steering
• Intermediary (Brokerage) or (advocacy?) (entry
  point for long term CD?)
• Moving from short-term intervention to long-term
  development platform
• Donor interest in coordination of cross-cutting
  policies?
• Pooling donor resources in general or Focus on a
  particular development area/issue/capacity