page 0 united nations development programme platform to pool donor funds & steer coordination...

United Nations Development Programme

PLATFORM TO POOL DONOR PLATFORM TO POOL DONOR FUNDS & STEER COORDINATIONFUNDS & STEER COORDINATIONLessons from the CBF in Serbia: 2001 – 2004

CDF Seminar, Senec, Nov 2005- Nenad Rava -


CBF in Serbia

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


CBF in Serbia

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b) Hectic pace of reforms, New people coming in & Outdated public management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


CBF in Serbia

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!


CBF in Serbia

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: a) The issue of cost-recoveryb) The issues of attracting further

funds


CBF in Serbia

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

Initial design: PAR (horizontal CD) 4 Line ministries (vertical CD)

Functional review CD support (IT, training and minor

policy advice)

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)


CBF in Serbia

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

- UNDP’s 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


CBF in Serbia

CBF in Serbia – Key issues and challenges for donor coordination and resource mobilization (cont’d)

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


CBF in Serbia

CBF in Serbia – Lessons Learnt

1. More resources invested in programming facilitates resource mobilization and ensures trust

2. Clear and common understanding of the long-term outcome prevents early divorce

3. Ensure strong and relevant government involvement in steering (not only donor focal points)

4. Strengthen management while remaining flexible and relevant5. Agree on individual roles and responsibilities and be

consistent about it6. Always link with long term PAR7. Clearly position UNDP and communicate it strategically8. Never forget the level of complexity, high political sensitivity

and the core of UNDP mandate

1. More resources invested in programming facilitates resource mobilization and ensures trust

2. Clear and common understanding of the long-term outcome prevents early divorce

3. Ensure strong and relevant government involvement in steering (not only donor focal points)

4. Strengthen management while remaining flexible and relevant5. Agree on individual roles and responsibilities and be

consistent about it6. Always link with long term PAR7. Clearly position UNDP and communicate it strategically8. Never forget the level of complexity, high political sensitivity

and the core of UNDP mandate


CBF in Serbia

FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

UNDP’s 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

page 0 united nations development programme platform to pool donor funds & steer coordination...

Documents