Cambodian Case study

on PAR

Bratislava Workshop 19-22 April 2004

By Han Phoumin

UNDP Cambodia

Background

Twenty years of war:

Fragile governance

Severe Capacity constraints

Background (cont)

Concept of modern state in Cambodia…

predatory purposes

lack of tradition for political accountability

Post UNTAC … heavy burden of coordination vs. massive distortions

Low remuneration

PAR in Cambodia

Governance Action Plan (GAP)National Program for Administrative Reform (NPAR)UNDP approach from 1994 – 2003:

I) Strengthening the capacity of CAR Secretariat…for strategic Planning…

II) Facilitating the implementation of priority reform initiatives…

III) Support to the preparation of PMG (piloting successes)

PAR in Cambodia

PAR is also decentralisation

Seila programme

key parameters of Seila’s success

Lessons Learned

Lession #1: Strategic constituency building

PAR’s failure due to the design, lack of consensus, weak understanding of the complex system.

Vis a Vis

CARERE/SEILA’s sucess

Lessons Learned

Lession #2: PAR need to be flexible

PAR’s failure to provide linkages/ coordination from one reform to anothers. All due to lack of ownership and guidance.

SEILA’s success due to process planning and donors’ willing to take risk

Lessons Learned

Lession #3: Need piloting and experiences

PAR lack of technical competency as a convenor

SEILA’s success built from piloting and experiences

Lessons Learned

Lession #4: Need integration

PAR and decentralization need to be integrated and harmonised. D&D must seen as one process, not two tiers govt.

The next steps

Claim victory and move on

Change dual focus on PAR and decentralisation

Focus on service delivery improvement capturing both the central and decentral perspective

Pilot initiatives in civil service reforms (PMGs)Civil society