1. Kingdom Of Cambodia Ministry Of Education, Youth and Sport Joint Approaches to Capacity Development : Reflections and Analysis Presentation by H.E. Pok ThanSecretary of State, MOEYS and M. Ratcliffe, Consultant LENCD Forum, Nairobi, October 3 - 5, 2006

2. 2 Development Transition : Three Phases 1979 - 1993 : System Restoration. CD driven by community demand to restore schools 1994 - 1999 : Donor-led Reconstruction. CD impetus from donors priorities, mainly teacher training 2000 - 2005 : Development Partnership. CD impetus from disappointing sector performance and joint CD action matrix

3. 3 Main Features : 1979 - 1993 Joint approach, through small MOEYS team and community groups Donors hands-off, Eastern bloc presence not primarily developmental Informal, iterative planning, due to unpredictable, voluntary, sector financing CD focus, learning by doing and little formal training Monitoring / Accountability, through politically- oriented National Education Congress

4. 4 Main Features : 1994 - 1999 Joint approach, attempted through education investment plan 1994 / 99, with management targets Donors dominated, through selective cooperation on specific CD programs CD planning tensions, between previous informal approaches and growing formality demanded by donors CD focus, mainly staff training and logistical support, limited organizational development Monitoring / Accountability, through parallel systems, through NEC for MOEYS and project monitoring for donors

5. 5 Mixed CD Impact : 1994 - 1999 Growing MOEYS confidence, through strong Ministerial leadership and some donor trust Selective organizational development focus, especially for textbooks and teacher training services Limited ownership of CD framework, targets and strategies not fully internalized or committed to Unclear institutional framework, with MOEYS powers and organizational structure not fully approved Donor territorialism, undermined mutual trust and confidence in joint approach Capacity draining, due to proliferation of parallel PIUs

6. 6 Main Features : 2000 - 2005 Joint approach, through ESP / ESSP, with stated CD targets and timeframes Genuine partnership, based on growing shared commitment and mutual trust Patient CD planning process, took two years to ensure sufficient CD assessment and understanding CD focus, shift to key MOEYS organizational assessment and plans Monitoring / Accountability, through joint CD policy action matrix and annual ESP / ESSP review process

7. 7 Improving CD Impact : 2000 - 2005 Significant legislative and regulatory development, incorporating MOEF support Improved organizational efficiency, especially planning, information, personnel and financial management Substantial sector performance improvement, acting as confidence booster and change dynamic Stronger MOEYS strategic and organizational leadership, with TA role shifting to mentoring and coaching Promising CD sustainability, with growing internal and external demand and increased MOEYS resource allocations Improving sector performance, acted as self reinforcing change dynamic

8. 8 Sector Performance Impact, 2000/05 Baseline 2000 = 100, table shows percentage change

9. 9 Organizational Assessment, 2005 : Information Department Ratings : 1 = virtually non existent, 3 = operating with difficulties, 5 = operating very well

10. 10 Key Lessons Learned High level leadership is critical, including sustained MOEF support A well-defined policy and institutional framework is vital An inclusive SWAp type process can help, including formal donor signing up Patient CD planning is essential

11. 11 Key Lessons Learned, Cont... CD implementation must be phased, to avoid system overload Harmonizing internal and external CD monitoring / accountability needs to be recognized Frontloaded TA for sector planning helps CD roadmap development Policy / strategy TA role and expected outcomes need to be defined carefully

12. 12 Outlook Sustainability of joint approach is likely but potential risks remain Implementation of education law and regulations are critical for CD sustainability Lack of confidence and qualified staff at sub- national level constitutes major risk Greater monitoring of organizational outcomes needed to provide feedback on next phase of CD planning / implementation