Situation of M&E in Cambodia Presented by Mak Solieng

M&E Consultant, Hatfield Partnership

Presentation layout

1. Introduction 2. Overview of the existing M&E system in

Cambodia 3. Entry point 4. Challenges faced in mainstreaming the PPCR

Results framework into the National M&E System

1. Introduction

• M&E is a task under Component 5 of the PPCR 1 implemented by Hatfield.

• Approach of the study:

– Desk review

– Consultation with CCTT, line ministries, NGOs, development partners, M&E working group

– Analysis

2. Overview of the existing M&E system in Cambodia

2.1 Existing M&E system in Cambodia

1. The National M&E system for monitoring the NSDP

2. Practices of M&E by the line ministries at the national and sub-national levels:

– Formal (contribute to national M&E)

– Non-formal (Project/program)

3. Practices of M&E by development partners

2.2 The national M&E process

6

M&E Plan for the NSDP

Implementation

Analysis

Learning

Corrective & improvement

measures

2.3 Focus

• Look at indicators at the macro level only

• 26 core indicators of inputs and outputs and development outcomes

• Detailed indicators are produced at the project/program level within the line ministries and agencies

2.4 Framework of outputs and results 1. Eradicate – Poverty & Hunger (*)

2. Enhance Agricultural Production and Diversification 3. Improvements in Health (*) 4. Improvements in nutrition 5. Improvements in Education (*) 6. Rural Development 7. Environmental Sustainability (*) 8. Gender Equity (*) 9. Reforms 10. Sustain high Macro-Economic Growth (*) 11. Improve Budget Performance 12. Accelerate Industrial Growth & Employment 13. Tourism 14. De-mining, Victim Assistance (*) 15. Infrastructure 16. Energy

8

• The selection of M&E methodology is based primarily on: – administrative statistics from implementing

institutions; and

– available updated information from the NIS and/or other secondary sources.

• With a minimal, standalone primary data collection effort

• High priority has been placed on capacity development through the development of Statistical Master Plan.

9

2.5 Methodology for data collection

2.6 Responsible institutions Tasks Responsible Institution Provide inputs for monitoring the NSDP implementation: Collecting important data on CMDGs + analysis of causes for success & failure

MOP + Line Ministries and agencies (14 )

Provides inputs to Annual Monitoring Report: Preparing information on selected core indicators, supported by a qualitative assessment of progress in their sectors

MOP + Line Ministries and agencies (14)

Preparation of Annual Monitoring Report

MoP + MEF, CDC/CRDB and the SNEC 10

2.7 Structure of the national M&E

Line ministries/agencies

MoP, MEF, CRDB/CDC, SNEC

Office of Council of Minister

2.8 Resources and capacity

• Monitoring and evaluation of the NSDP is a joint effort between the line ministries and agencies (at least 16)

• A raft estimate for covering annual M&E activities is around 1 Million USD

• Still need long-term technical assistance in the form of learning by doing

2.9 Challenges

Indicators generated have not been good

enough

Lack of good standard and strategy for performance measurement

Data quality is limited

Limited staff capacity and resources

M&E is still in learning by doing process

13

3. The entry point

• M&E framework and process

• Criteria for inclusion of new indicator and common guideline for selecting indicators

• The government commitment in mainstreaming climate change into development strategy

• There is good Momentum for mainstreaming as the NSDP 2014-2018, CCCSP & SCCSP and SPCR 2 will start and take place in the same period

3.1 Mainstream PPCR results framework into the National M&E System

Approach: 1. MoE will work closely with MoP and involved line

ministries /agencies for selecting indicators suitable at the national level and project/program level

2. Analysis based on:

– Logic model of results chain – Criteria for inclusion of new indicator – SMAART

3.2 How does PPCR flow into the NSDP?

3.3 Analysis based on criteria for inclusion of new indicator

• Responsible line ministries/agencies identified, and their willingness to carry out monitoring secured

WHO?

• Assurance that data required for monitoring the proposed indicator is available from administrative statistic or could be collected by NIS

DATA AVAILABILITY

• Assurance that the Ministry/Agency taking the responsibility has the capacity and resources available to carry out the analysis and report the monitoring results

CAPACITY & RESOURCES

3.4 SMAART analysis for results at the country level (1)

1. Cambodia almost is in the same position to the revised SMMART analysis for country transformative impacts

Specific comments are:

– Indicator #4 “Percentage of people with year round access to reliable water supply (domestic, agricultural, industrial)” is very relevant for Cambodia due to both indicators are for the CMDG and committed in the NSDP

– Indicator #5 “Degree of integration of climate change in national planning” and #6 “Changes in budget allocations of all levels of government to take into account effects of CV&CC”-- integration (CCCSP, SCCSP, SPCR2) and annual budget allocation for climate change response are already taken place in Cambodia.

3.4 SMAART analysis for results at the country level (2)

2. Cambodia also almost is in the same position to the revised SMMART analysis. Particular case:

– For Indicator #2 “Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanism to mainstream climate resilience”, coordination mechanisms at decision making and technical levels already are in place and functioning : NCCC, CCTT, SCCWG, GTWG, GCCC, GMAG

3.5 Compared to other pilot countries

• Cambodia is more advance due to some PPCR indicators are measurable:

– Indicators #5 and #6 (PPCR Country Transformative impact)

– Indicator #2, #4 and #6 (Country PPCR Program Outcomes)

3.6 Indicators of relevance for Cambodia

• Indicator #4, safe drinking water and access to irrigation are indicators of the CMDG and committed in the NSDP.

• Indicators #5, #6 of the CPTI and indicator #2 and Indicator #4 of the CPPO will measure the attribute of the RGC in terms of institutional coordination efforts as well as strategic actions to promote climate change adaptation and sustainable development.

• Indicators #1, #2 and #3 of the CPTI and indicators #1, #3 and #6 of the CPPO, combined together, can measure the reduced risks and losses which will help preventing decrease of the GDP from impact of climate change

4. Challenges faced in mainstreaming the PPCR Results framework into the National M&E System

• The attribution gap. In assessing attribution of the PPCR intervention in the results chain, there will be factors that are not directly or indirectly influenced the projects or programs.

• Lack of standard and strategy for performance measurement in the national M&E system.

• Commitment for cooperation and contribution from involved line ministries and agencies

• Resources and capacities are limited

4. Challenges faced in mainstreaming the PPCR Results framework into the National M&E System

• The attribution gap. In assessing attribution of the PPCR intervention in the results chain, there will be factors that are not directly or indirectly influenced the projects or programs.

• Lack of standard and strategy for performance measurement in the national M&E system.

• Commitment for cooperation and contribution from involved line ministries and agencies

• Resources and capacities are still limited

Thanks for your attention!