Poverty Thematic Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2018, Cambodia
Evaluation Type:
Others
Planned End Date:
09/2016
Completion Date:
11/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
60,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Thematic evaluation_Combined TOR.pdf tor English 486.05 KB Posted 215
Download document Poverty Thematic Evaluation Final Report.pdf report English 1082.45 KB Posted 219
Title Poverty Thematic Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 59036,77485,82718,77868,61041,61825,60891
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2018, Cambodia
Evaluation Type: Others
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2016
Planned End Date: 09/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
  • 2. Cross-cutting Development Issue
  • 3. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.4. Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented
  • 2. Output 2.3 Capacities of human rights institutions strengthened
  • 3. Output 4.1. Country led measures accelerated to advance women's economic empowerment
  • 4. Output 7.2. Global and national data collection, measurement and analytical systems in place to monitor progress on the post 2015 agenda and sustainable development goals
  • 5. Output 7.4. Countries enabled to gain equitable access to, and manage, ODA and other sources of global development financing
Evaluation Budget(US $): 60,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 45,000
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
David Abbott International Evaluation Specialist dfa_1@yahoo.com
Sophal Chan Evaluation Specialist sophal.chan@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: CAMBODIA
Lessons
1.

The CPAP 2016-2018, while attempting to integrate and be based on the objectives of the ToC, found it difficult to achieve this in the context of also having to be compliant with the UNDAF and the UNDP Global Strategy. The team also concludes that the need to source funds for programme implementation can comprise UNDP’s ability to pursue the objectives of the ToC when the funding source has a different agenda. 

Funding for climate change activities is a case in point. The umbrella of climate change adaptation and/or mitigation is now used to cover a very broad range of development related interventions. Many of the activities being implemented under this umbrella could be much more clearly defined, and could achieve more easily identifiable poverty reduction benefits, if they were promoted on their own merits. However, they are only able to obtain funding if they are framed around climate change. UNDP’s ToC could provide a much sounder basis for poverty reduction interventions if it could be implemented without having to pay service to policies that have less direct and weaker links to quantifiable and shorter-term poverty reduction measures.


2.

There are many agencies involved in supporting economic and social development in Cambodia; it is a crowded field. UNDP is seeking to focus its interventions on poverty reduction framed around the ToC, but poverty reduction is also a focus of many other agencies. But which agencies are supporting the various aspects and components of poverty reduction policy, and how is not entirely clear. The evaluation team was informed that there is some coordination between development partners, but this does not appear to be formalized, in so far as there is no clear picture of which agency is doing what and how. This applies to the provision of poverty reduction policy advisory assistance as well as to other interventions across a wide spectrum of policy areas. For example, and as noted in the previous paragraph, climate change is now tagged to many interventions, this often serves to lead to unclear poverty reduction priorities and outcomes. The evaluation team is therefore of the view that it would be useful if UNDP took a lead in compiling a comprehensive schedule of what different agencies are providing in the way of policy advisory support to RGC and its line ministries. Having a clear picture would enable gaps in core poverty reduction policy and advice to be more easily identified, and would therefore enable UNDP to more clearly identify entry points in its preferred policy areas focused on poverty reduction.


Findings
1.

UNDP's focus and performance as a partner

The evaluation team held consultations with government agencies, development partners and implementation partners to gauge their views on UNDPs role and focus, and where possible on the relevance of the theory of change. The following summarises the general findings:

  • UNDP was regarded as a trustworthy and independent partner
  • UNDP has a strong brand with government, especially as it was seen as being instrumental in assisting the government and people to recover from the war;
  • The problem is now that UNDP has transitioned from a major player to a small player in the congested development assistance field;
  • Government agencies, and donors, were mostly aware of UNDP’s financial constraints and the restructuring that had occurred to bring the previous “clusters” together under the overarching “poverty reduction” goal
  • Therefore, UNDP should not be too ambitious in its programmes in the future, more focus was perhaps needed. UNDP had limited funds and needed to put their support where it could make the biggest contribution – high-level policy.
  • It was not always clear to DPs or to government agencies how UNDP defined the links between high-level policy through to action/impacts at the household poverty level;
  • It was noted that this might present a challenge for UNDP to attribute actual poverty reduction outcomes/development impacts/results specifically to UNDP high-level interventions;
  • UNDP should try to possible simplify the documentation for the CPAP;
  • UNDP needs to focus on its comparative advantage – providing high-level policy advice backed-up by global experience and knowledge of best-practice elsewhere; it was noted that UNDP had supported trade and industrial policy development both of which had been very useful to government;
  • UNDP needs to be more pro-active in engaging at the most senior levels of government on policy issues; it must somehow find resources to be able to put these on the table and invite government to indicate its needs; through this type of approach it might be possible to encourage government to cost-share;
  • UNDP should aim to provide demand driven support to government; care must be taken that projects/programmes are clearly driven by government’s needs and should not be driven either through source of finance or donor agendas or preferences;
  • Coordination and synergies between UNDP and other UN agencies, was still seen as mixed.

2.

Cost Sharing Opportunities Between RGC and UNDP

The possibility of cost-sharing with government exists in principle, it was noted that government is already required to make contributions to ADB/WB loan projects, so the general principle of cost sharing is not new, just new to UNDP for technical assistance and policy advisory activities. It was noted that the SIDA educational facility improvement programme now also included a large government contribution alongside the SIDA funding, an example of where government has recognised the benefit of the programme and taken ownership.

It was further noted that cost-sharing might also be possible under the new programme budgeting system to be introduced in 2017; MOWA & MOP both indicated interest in pursuing this possibility. Gaps in available policy advice to RGC need to be identified; these would provide UNDP with suitable entry points; it was, for example, reported by the Ministry of Planning that the ministry was receiving economic policy advice through UNFPA TA consultants. This would seem to be a particular area where UNDP should have a strong comparative advantage.

UNDP should raise this matter at a high-level programming consultation with RGC in the context of finalizing and/or reviewing the 2016-2018 CPAP. Engaging with RGC on such a cost-sharing basis would enable UNDP to pursue programmes that are more directly focused on poverty reduction in line with the ToC. Cost sharing would enable UNDP and RGC to tailor policy-advisory interventions directly to RGC’s perceived needs and would not then be dependent on securing external third-party funds where the donor agenda might not be in harmony with the real needs of RGC or UNDP.


3.

Future Directions for Policy Advice to Government

During the consultations with government agencies and UNDP staff, possible areas for future high-level policy advice and capacity-building support were identified including:

  • Development of long-term 2050 Vision, with evidence-based analysis and assumptions;
  • Support to SDG localisation and linking to NSDP; already included in the CPAP; policy inputs here would assist in ensuring that government policies are targeted at reducing all aspects of multidimensional poverty;
  • Capacity building for evidence-based policy analysis; support to policy development must be accompanied by capacity-building for evidence-based analysis.
  • In addition to the policy areas identified above as drivers of poverty reduction, UNDP could provide assistance in the analysis of yet to be identified policy issues on an “as demanded” basis by the government; this could tie-in with the development of UNDP-RGC cost-sharing arrangements;
  • To build broad-based policy capacity in Cambodia the evaluation team suggests that UNDP should develop a long-term partnership programme with key policy making institutions such as SNEC and MoP.
  • Social protection/social policy analysis, especially comparative analysis of various forms of social insurance and social assistance; this would provide links to supporting poverty reduction amongst the most disadvantaged, and particularly those living with a disability;
  • Social housing policy is complementary to social protection, and housing conditions (including access to clean fuel and power, safe water and improved sanitation) comprise five of the ten components of the MPI; assisting in the development of housing policy and the availability of affordable housing credit for both the urban and rural poor would have direct poverty reduction benefits;
  • An updated cassava sector strategy study, taking into account of the current state of the sector and leading to better data on the sector, improved availability of extension services and demonstration farms would be useful in the context of national agricultural policy;
  • Gender audits in line ministries; there are still many areas of gender inequality in Cambodia, gender audits would help to identify where specific policy interventions could be made and would enable clear links to be determined between such interventions and reduced inequality.

Recommendations
1

UNDP should compile a policy-support-matrix identifying which partners and agencies are currently providing policy support to RGC and in which sectors. Such a matrix would assist UNDP to identify where gaps in high-level policy support might exist, and where UNDP’s best entry points for future policy support might be, particularly in UNDP’s focal area of poverty reduction and within the framework of the ToC, (e.g. in the national planning ministry; in developing a comprehensive social protection system for the most vulnerable, including those people with a disability; and in non-rice farming systems, including for cassava growers).

 

2

UNDP should use proposed policy-support-matrix to identify gaps in poverty reduction policies, and, on the basis of these gaps and within the framework of a ToC, build  a menu of poverty reduction policy interventions; these interventions should be fully interlinked and coordinated within the framework of a ToC, which is itself built of an understanding of the drivers of poverty reduction, such that UNDP’s efforts would be more focused; thus with a clearly defined, comprehensive and focused set of poverty reduction policy interventions to offer.

3

On the basis of the forgoing menu of policy intervention options, UNDP should engage directly at a high level with RGC to secure ownership and potential co-financing of the programme; this could lead to a cost-sharing framework that would enable UNDP to be more responsive to RGC’s identified needs and less dependent on sourcing external and third-party funding.

4

UNDP should actively seek funding, through direct development partner negotiation, for the poverty reduction programme outlined in the previous recommendations and for a pool of discretionary funds to be directed quickly in support of emerging needs; this could be initiated within the context of the Goal 1 of the SDGs, securing such funding could enable UNDP to invite government to indicate any additional or other emerging policy support needs and reduce UNDP’s need to source third-party and external funding.

5

With discretionary funding available UNDP should: a)  aim to provide demand driven support to government; care should be taken that projects/programmes are clearly driven by government’s needs and should not be driven simply by available sources of finance or/and donor agendas or preferences; and b) should take a more positive stance in its programming with RGC, in the manner of stating, for example, that: “at the request of government UNDP will mobilise support for policy analysis and development in the critical areas of (for example) SDG integration, trade, investment, social protection etc.; the objectives of UNDP’s support in these areas would be to assist the RGC to reduce multidimensional poverty and inequality, promoting gender empowerment and equity, and to ensure that the most vulnerable, including those living with HIV/AIDS and/or a disability, are supported”.

6

UNDP should ensure that if a ToC approach is taken in future that: a) it clearly identifies and documents the understanding, links and transmission mechanisms between the interventions and the desired poverty reduction outcomes along a change pathway, and that it be periodically reviewed and updated; b) that where/when there is consensus with government on elements of the TOC, the updated understanding of the ToC be reflected and directly linked to the identified programmes, throughout the CPAP and CPD; and, c) a small number of targeted and measurable performance indicators directly related to the identified poverty reduction outcomes are included in the M&E framework to measure progress at both the intermediate and final outcome stages of the pathway.

7

UNDP should develop brief, easy-to-understand advocacy materials on the current and future CPAPs and provide these to stakeholders to foster engagement in UNDP’s activities; in future simplify, as far as possible, the documentation for the CPAP to make clearer the links between, any future ToC and the CPAP, UNDAF, UNDP Strategic Plan, and the national development priorities.

8

UNDP should provide capacity building in evidence-based policy analysis that is based on a structured use of data and sound principles of mutually reinforcing policy wherever possible; such capacity building should be undertaken across all key economic and social sectors, as well as high-level policy agencies within government; and where appropriate support could also be provided to academic institutions and think-tanks, to support policy development and improve decision-making.

1. Recommendation:

UNDP should compile a policy-support-matrix identifying which partners and agencies are currently providing policy support to RGC and in which sectors. Such a matrix would assist UNDP to identify where gaps in high-level policy support might exist, and where UNDP’s best entry points for future policy support might be, particularly in UNDP’s focal area of poverty reduction and within the framework of the ToC, (e.g. in the national planning ministry; in developing a comprehensive social protection system for the most vulnerable, including those people with a disability; and in non-rice farming systems, including for cassava growers).

 

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

Agreed but requires proper sequencing with Recommendations #6

The mapping of partners and agencies against a policy-support matrix will be invaluable to identifying how UNDP should position itself. However, a few points: (i) this recommendation should be properly sequenced, and in line with the preparation of the next UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and the Country Programme Document; ii) The mapping of partners and agencies should follow the articulation of a poverty-oriented policy-support-matrix within the framework of the Theory of Change.

As in other developing countries, it is critical to factor the fact that the existence strategy and policy papers does not necessarily translate into effective implementation of policy tools, the budgeting/roll-out of national programmes, or realization of policy/programme goals.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Articulate the underlying policy-support matrix implied by the poverty-focused Theory of Change.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed The Country Programme Document 2019-23 have laid out policy options for addressing chronic poverty and strengthening economic resilience through policy and pilot of social protection scheme and inclusive growth economic policies.
Use the policy-support matrix (i)to map current policy/programme environment; (ii) to identify support from partners and agencies.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed The process was done through the preparation of the new CPD. A number of initiatives with the aims of supporting climate resilience and poverty reduction are in place and funded. Two GEF funded projects on strengthening rural livelihoods which support community scale infrastructure and livelihood improvement schemes. Mine clearance to release land as productive asset to remote and marginalized communities remain the focus. Cassava value chain initiative aiming to improve the livelihood of cassava farmers and provide jobs to the sector labor force has received financing from the private sector. Government financing options are being discussed.
2. Recommendation:

UNDP should use proposed policy-support-matrix to identify gaps in poverty reduction policies, and, on the basis of these gaps and within the framework of a ToC, build  a menu of poverty reduction policy interventions; these interventions should be fully interlinked and coordinated within the framework of a ToC, which is itself built of an understanding of the drivers of poverty reduction, such that UNDP’s efforts would be more focused; thus with a clearly defined, comprehensive and focused set of poverty reduction policy interventions to offer.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

Agreed but requires proper sequencing beginning with the review/update of the TOC as reflected in Recommendation #6.

The articulation of a UNDP Cambodia policy-support matrix will be the first priority, as the basis for the proposed menu of poverty reduction interventions – and use the menu to map ongoing government/partners support, potential gaps, advocacies, and opportunities for UNDP policy-based programming (i.e. policy engagement drive opportunities for programming)

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Building on policy support matrix, identify potential areas/entry points for UNDP policy and programme support. These would include: (i) identified gaps in the policy/programme environment; (ii) priority policy/programme areas that encounter institutional bottlenecks
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed The new CPD identified entry point to offer the government with a model of social protection programme to support the extreme poor aiming to secure fund for piloting the programme.
3. Recommendation:

On the basis of the forgoing menu of policy intervention options, UNDP should engage directly at a high level with RGC to secure ownership and potential co-financing of the programme; this could lead to a cost-sharing framework that would enable UNDP to be more responsive to RGC’s identified needs and less dependent on sourcing external and third-party funding.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

This recommendation would have to consider the lack of institutions that ensure horizontal policy/programme integration.  Instead, UNDP Cambodia will initiate dialogue and engagement the critical RGC ministries/agencies the to secure ownership and potential co-financing of the programme. Focus will be on those ministries that have the capacity, effective authority, and resources to foster horizontal policy/programme coordination across the whole of government.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The selection of the key RGC ministries/agencies that have the capacity, authority and resources to foster horizontal/programme coordination across the whole-of-government, will be done as an integral part of Recommendation #2.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed Through mine action programme, government confirmation to co-finance demining activities has been secured. Dialogue concerning government financial contribution to support cassava value chain initiative is on-going. Engaged with the Ministry of economy and Finance for potential piloting of social protection programme.
Opportunities for dialogue will be pursued with the critical ministries/agencies to discuss the possibilities for policy/programme engagement.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed Through mine action programme, government confirmation to co finance demining activities has been secured. Dialogue concerning government financial contribution to support cassava value chain initiative is on-going. Engaged with the Ministry of economy and Finance for potential piloting of social protection programme.
Explore the opportunities for a comprehensive government cost-sharing framework.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2017/12 Completed An analysis of government cost sharing options was completed in 2017.
4. Recommendation:

UNDP should actively seek funding, through direct development partner negotiation, for the poverty reduction programme outlined in the previous recommendations and for a pool of discretionary funds to be directed quickly in support of emerging needs; this could be initiated within the context of the Goal 1 of the SDGs, securing such funding could enable UNDP to invite government to indicate any additional or other emerging policy support needs and reduce UNDP’s need to source third-party and external funding.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

Agreed but will have to consider the reality of declining ODA and earmarked donor funding.

This recommendation will necessarily have to take into consideration in light of declining ODA grants. What might be possible is to mobilize earmarked donor support for specific policy oriented activities within the context of specific projects or emerging policy engagement. This has already been initiated with regard to environmental governance reform. The task is to identify other opportunities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Actively explore opportunities to mobilize support from remaining development partners in priority policy/programme areas where consensus with critical ministries/agencies has been reached.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed By end of 2018, three poverty focused initiatives have been formalized/initiated. Through mine action programme, government confirmation to co-finance demining activities has been secured. The first private sector financing to support cassava value chain was approved. Dialogue concerning government financial contribution to support cassava value chain was initiated. Ministry of Economy and Finance was engaged for potential piloting of social protection programme.
5. Recommendation:

With discretionary funding available UNDP should: a)  aim to provide demand driven support to government; care should be taken that projects/programmes are clearly driven by government’s needs and should not be driven simply by available sources of finance or/and donor agendas or preferences; and b) should take a more positive stance in its programming with RGC, in the manner of stating, for example, that: “at the request of government UNDP will mobilise support for policy analysis and development in the critical areas of (for example) SDG integration, trade, investment, social protection etc.; the objectives of UNDP’s support in these areas would be to assist the RGC to reduce multidimensional poverty and inequality, promoting gender empowerment and equity, and to ensure that the most vulnerable, including those living with HIV/AIDS and/or a disability, are supported”.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

Agreed, but the implementation of this recommendation must be conditioned on the challenge posed by declining ODA grants, declining levels of core funding, and the reality of earmarked funding, (e.g. climate change and environment).

In principle, all projects are demand-driven. However, UNDP Cambodia must contend with the challenge that ODA grants, the rise of earmarked funds, and the decline in core-resources. What might be possible is to secure funding for more specific policy/programme opportunities that meet the demand of government and donors.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As indicated in Recommendation#3, as part of the dialogue, opportunities for policy/programme engagement. with the critical ministries/agencies and donors, will be maximized within the constraints imposed by the financing opportunities.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed By end of 2018, three poverty focused initiatives have been formalized/initiated. Through mine action programme, government confirmation to co-finance demining activities has been secured. The first private sector financing to support cassava value chain was approved. Dialogue concerning government financial contribution to support cassava value chain was initiated. Ministry of Economy and Finance was engaged for potential piloting of social protection programme.
6. Recommendation:

UNDP should ensure that if a ToC approach is taken in future that: a) it clearly identifies and documents the understanding, links and transmission mechanisms between the interventions and the desired poverty reduction outcomes along a change pathway, and that it be periodically reviewed and updated; b) that where/when there is consensus with government on elements of the TOC, the updated understanding of the ToC be reflected and directly linked to the identified programmes, throughout the CPAP and CPD; and, c) a small number of targeted and measurable performance indicators directly related to the identified poverty reduction outcomes are included in the M&E framework to measure progress at both the intermediate and final outcome stages of the pathway.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

Agreed. This recommendation is integral to the implementation of Recommendations 2 &1 (in that sequence).

 For example, among the actions under Recommendation#2 is:

Review and updating of the TOC with a focus on articulating the drivers of poverty and vulnerability in Cambodia; and the policy/programme pathways for reducing poverty and building resilience. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, the results of the TOC review and updating are to contribute towards preparation of the UNDAF/CPD and pipeline development

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review and update the TOC with a focus on (i) articulating the drivers of poverty and vulnerability in Cambodia; (ii) key and critical stakeholders; (iii) and the policy/programme pathways for reducing poverty and building resilience.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy team 2017/07 Completed TOC was revisited and updated for the new CPD with strong focus on addressing socio, economic and environmental vulnerabilities.
Building on the dialogue, integrate points of consensus with government and donors into the preparation of the UNDAF/CPD and pipeline development.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/08/10]
Policy and Advocacy team 2018/09 Completed The new CPD 2019-23 was drafted in consultation with the government, DPs and CSO partners. Pipelines are anchored along the areas of priorities.
Align the M&E Framework of the current and future CPAP, CPD accordingly with points of consensus.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Management Support Unit 2018/12 Completed M&E framework of the new CPD developed in alignment with the new UNDAF and CPD 2019-23 and is supported by clear methodology note and indicator tracking.
7. Recommendation:

UNDP should develop brief, easy-to-understand advocacy materials on the current and future CPAPs and provide these to stakeholders to foster engagement in UNDP’s activities; in future simplify, as far as possible, the documentation for the CPAP to make clearer the links between, any future ToC and the CPAP, UNDAF, UNDP Strategic Plan, and the national development priorities.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/06]

Agreed. UNDP Cambodia recognizes the importance of producing communications and advocacy materials to foster stakeholders’ engagement. Materials have been and/or are being produced.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Articles, Blogs, Infographics on the 4 key issues are regularly published in Cambodia’s English Print Media and on the UNDP website and social media.
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy and Advocacy unit/Programme 2016/12 Completed Articles, blogs, infographic of CPD priorities, key messages published on regularly basis on UNDP website, social media and media outlets. This is to become standard practice.
Videos on the UNDP 2016-2018 Country Programme Document and the 4 key issues (Upgrading Value Chain, Development Finance, Building Resilience and Voice and Participation are being produced
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Unit /Comms team/Programme 2017/04 Completed Video featuring the priorities of CPD 2016-18 was published in CO website.
Communications and Advocacy Strategy for Country Office is being drafted (Technical Briefs on the key issues are included)
[Added: 2017/01/06] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Unit/Comms team 2017/12 Completed
8. Recommendation:

UNDP should provide capacity building in evidence-based policy analysis that is based on a structured use of data and sound principles of mutually reinforcing policy wherever possible; such capacity building should be undertaken across all key economic and social sectors, as well as high-level policy agencies within government; and where appropriate support could also be provided to academic institutions and think-tanks, to support policy development and improve decision-making.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/01] [Last Updated: 2017/01/07]

Agree to explore what might be possible as considering the absence of mechanisms for horizontal policy/programme integration.

The implementation of this recommendation should recognize the lack of mechanisms for horizontal integration of policy/programme.

Also, the implementation will depend on extent the RGC accepts support to evidence-based policy. To this end, UNDP Cambodia will explore (i) what might be possible as it engages the critical ministries identified earlier; (ii) the opportunities to work with think tanks, as part of the SDG localization process

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As part of the dialogue with critical ministries/agencies identify opportunities for joint research to build evidence for policy in high priority areas.
[Added: 2017/01/07] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed UNDP supported the Council for the Development of Cambodia to conduct Development Finance Assessment in 2017 to support RGC in assessing the state of development finance in Cambodia and identifying potential new sources of finance for national priorities. Climate Public Expenditure studies have been conducted annually. In 2018, UNDP supported RGC in an assessment of climate impact on Cambodia’s economy to call for public actions against climate change.
Advocate for the UNDP support to the Vision 2050 exercise which will guide SDG Localization and subsequent National Strategic Development Plans (NSDPs)
[Added: 2017/01/07] [Last Updated: 2018/12/23]
Policy & Advocacy Team 2018/12 Completed UNDP has been closely engaged by RGC in the process of Vision 2030. SDG localization was finalized and approved by the Council of Ministers in 2018. RGC reiterated requests for UNDP to support Vision 2030 and 2050 processes in the LPAC meeting of Policy and Innovation Hub in Dec 2018.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org