BackIntroduction
The Royal Government of Cambodia’s
National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS) was officially launched by the Prime
Minister in March 2003. The RGC will now be required to submit to the World Bank
and IMF each year an Annual Progress Report on Implementation (APRI). The APRI
should include comments from domestic stakeholders and partners involved in the
monitoring process. To the extent that some elements of the NPRS reflect the
wishes and concerns of NGOs, the NPRS may be a useful advocacy tool. However,
NGOs will first need to identify which elements of the NPRS correspond with
their own advocacy agendas. While this process identification is the
responsibility of the NGOs themselves, few NGOs have time to do the necessary
document study. The primary purpose of this summary review of the NPRS is
therefore to provide NGOs with a head start in the process.
More specifically, this review is intended
to make suggestions on how different groups of NGOs can use the NPRS as an
advocacy tool by monitoring issues of particular interest and concern. There
appears to be ample opportunities for NGOs to participate in the monitoring and
evaluation process. In Chapter 6, the NPRS provides a clear outline of the
institutional arrangements concerning Poverty Monitoring and Evaluation (M and
E). Among other provisions, it observes that both local and international NGOs
are expected “to be key partners in monitoring and evaluating the NPRS,” and
“to provide useful data and information form their micro-level surveys and
studies.” NGOs are also expected to “participate actively in meetings and
workshops and national poverty forums.”
The degree to which NGOs are able to
effectively participate in the monitoring and evaluation process will of course
depend on many factors, not the least of which are the availability of time and
access to relevant information. The following comments concern ways NGOs may be
more efficient and effective in their advocacy efforts as they consider the
summary review suggestions for action.
First, the APRI process is now oriented toward
a December 2003 timeframe. This will be the first formal progress review of the
new NPRS and will provide NGOs with an excellent opportunity not only to
participate in and inform the process, but perhaps to also help facilitate
participation by other civil society organizations as well. Many, if not most,
of the suggestions for NGO Action referred to in this review should be
considered in the context of the APRI process. In the meantime, NGOs will also
need to clarify what role they can play in conducting Poverty and Social Impact
Analysis (PSIA), and how that relates to the APRI.
Second, in addition to their own ongoing
monitoring efforts, NGOs should also focus attention on monitoring the
allocation and disbursements of government resources, with particular focus on
the distribution of public sector disbursements in areas of particular concern.
Within certain sectors, such as education and health, NGOs should also focus
attention on salary levels and timely disbursements of salaries for civil
servants.
Third, this suggests that NGOs will need
better access to information, including data relevant to many of the
macro-indicators listed in Chapter Six (Table 6.1.), as well as budget and
disbursement information relevant to many of the actionable measures listed in
the Action Plan Matrix (Annex 3), including information contained in the Medium
Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) referred to in Chapter Six.
Fourth, this in turn suggests that NGOs need
to establish and maintain clear and open lines of communication with the
relevant line ministries. For some NGOs and NGO membership organizations (e.g.,
MEDICAM), such linkages may already be in place, while other such linkages will
need to be strengthened. It is also important that NGOs establish and maintain
good communication with the key inter-governmental bodies involved with the NPRS
monitoring and evaluation process, including the Poverty Monitoring and Analysis
Technical Unit (PMATU) of the General Secretariat of the Council for Social
Development (GSCSD).
Fifth, as a result, the NGOs may need to
consider new ways of organizing themselves to enable them to work more
effectively with inter-sectoral and inter-ministerial government bodies,
particularly in terms of promoting an integrated approach to cross-cutting
issues in key areas. The work that NGOs have done already, such as the joint NGO
Statement to the 2002 CG Meeting, suggests that they are off to a good start.
Sixth, NGOs may also wish to develop an
additional set of poverty reduction indicators and predictors to compliment
those that have already been incorporated in the NPRS. The NGO CG Statement’s
focus on how the poor and vulnerable groups are affected by various reform
measures is a good starting point. Additional indicators may involve
disaggregating macro-indicators according to wealth, gender, geographic
location, economic sector, and/or other factors of particular concern to NGOs.
In this sense, NGOs may also wish to discuss and clarify among themselves a
shared definition of “poverty,” and consequently a shared understanding of
“poverty reduction,” that is more closely relevant to their experiences
working with the poor.
Finally, the review consists of a series of
twenty-one more or less “stand-alone” sector reviews, each of which
corresponds to the various sect oral presentations in the NGO CG Statement for
2002. In many cases there are multiple references to the various topics
throughout the NPRS, and each summary tries to consolidate the more salient
references under the one heading. Section references are included so that the
reader can more easily refer back to the actual NPRS document if they so choose.
Several areas of concern in the NGO CG Statement are not covered in the NPRS,
which suggests that NGOs should view the APRI process as yet another venue for
continued advocacy. Two additional topics of particular interest not included in
the last NGO CG Statement, Ethnic Minorities and Natural Resource Management,
have been added.