RESULT OF NGO DISCUSSIONS ON THE DRAFT SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN

[Back]    [Home]

MARCH 2001

NGOs wish to cooperate closely with the Royal Government of Cambodia in the process of developing plans to reduce poverty. 

NGOs most appreciate the assistance of foreign donors in producing the SEDPII, but we worry about the lack of substantial input from both Cambodian civil society organisations and the need for further input from government.  This relates to the need for greater capacity among both the civil society organisations and the government, and to the limited time that has been given for comment, especially considering that the draft was only in English.  We wish to explore how capacity can be further built so that such documents are really an expression of the concerns of Cambodia’s government and people.

We are also most concerned about the multiple number of government planning documents now required, including the PRSP and the SEDPII.  NGOs support the view of the RGC that there be only one poverty reduction strategy.  However, the SEDPII in its present state is likely to be viewed by both the World Bank and others as inadequate in terms of both participation and content.  Notably, the Interim PRSP, already passed by Cabinet, called for workshops at central and local levels, a stakeholder analysis, and consultations with local communities, local authorities, the National Assembly and Senate.

The SEDP II is Cambodia’s medium term development plan.  It is a constitutional requirement and will go quite soon to the National Assembly for approval.  However, much work remains to be done on further developing the SEDP II.  This is acknowledged by the lead consultant provided by the Asian Development Bank to prepare the document, as well as representatives from donor agencies. We understand that some sectoral strategies will not even be ready until June or July, after the National Assembly has convened.   There also appears to be no input from the Provincial Development Plans of the SEILA provinces in the SEDPII document. 

Therefore, we respectfully request and urge the Royal Cambodian Government to slow down the process of approval of the present SEDP II document.  If this is not possible, we respectfully suggest that the National Assembly accept the SEDP II as a broad framework that needs to be detailed through further analyses and consultations.  The introductory chapter of the SEDPII should make this intention explicit.

We would be most willing to discuss with the government methods of building participation (of both government and civil society) in further developing the plan, and in soliciting donor support for this work. 

The Council for Social Development, under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Planning, may be one mechanism for fostering further inter-ministerial discussions on development plans.  The Poverty Forum, proposed under the UNDP’s project of assistance to the monitoring and analysis function of the Council, would be one avenue for further consultations with NGOs and civil society groups.

We firmly believe that building national ownership of the SEDPII in the above manner will lead to a more Cambodia-specific approach to poverty reduction, and a more focused Public Investment Plan which donors could confidently support.

The following comments result from NGO small group discussions in Phnom Penh and in Battambang.  Assistance was also received from a regional NGO think tank, Focus on the Global South.  A number of NGOs are also interested in examining sectoral issues and cross-cutting issues like gender more closely but have not had time to contribute to this submission. These comments should be considered preliminary only.

While we recognise many good elements in the SEDPII, we wish to draw attention to the following concerns.

Comments on Process:

1.       The SEDP II has been developed without sufficient and adequate input and participation from Cambodian civil society.  It appears that while many donor agency representatives and foreign consultants have contributed their ideas into the document, most Cambodians, whose lives this plan will affect, have not had adequate opportunities to contribute towards the SEDP II.

2.       The Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) provided a welcome avenue for consultation with Cambodia’s poor.  NGOs were invited to some workshops connected to the PPA.  However, it is not clear the extent to which the PPA influenced the strategy expressed in the SEDPII.

3.       There is a need to facilitate and host broad-based public consultations and participation about the SEDP II.  The development strategies adopted by the Cambodian Government will have impacts on all sectors of Cambodian society, from private entrepreneurs to garment workers to subsistence farmers.  Getting and integrating their inputs into the SEDP II will make the SEDP II stronger and create greater national ownership of the plan.

4.       There is a need to explore and identify ways in which impacts of past reforms and of the SEDP II can be monitored, and how such monitoring can be used to adapt and strengthen the SEDP II.  This is particularly important in areas that have direct but complex results on poverty, for example, policies related to trade, macro-economics, agriculture, natural resources and land.  Civil society organisations at every level can be valuable partners to the Government in these processes and assist the Government in shaping the SEDP II to respond to the needs and priorities of Cambodians.

5.       We have the impression that there is insufficient relation between the SEDPII and the formulation of the Public Investment Plan (PIP) and the government budget.  These are areas which need strengthening to make the SEDPII a more useful document.

6.       We understand that the SEDPII was developed even while some sectoral strategies are not yet complete.  There also appears to be no relation with the Provincial Development Plans of the SEILA provinces.  It is not clear how this centrally developed plan will relate to the new decentralized development planning processes.

Comments on Relation to the PRSP

7.       We understand that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) require that the Cambodian Government produce a full Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) by December 2001.  We do not understand why Cambodia needs to produce an additional strategy paper when we already have the SEDP II.  However, we would agree that the SEDP II needs a lot of work to improve its quality and to be a truly Cambodian owned document.  With more time, broad-based public participation and systematic monitoring, the SEDP II can become a strong and focused document that will form the basis of the PRSP needed by the World Bank and IMF.

8.       It is a waste of government and NGO time to insist that another document (the PRSP) be prepared by December 2001.  It would be better to focus on beginning implementation of the SEDPII and the Interim PRSP, and in the meantime build up capacity in the Council for Social Development.  If the full PRSP was delayed by one year, it could be a simple revision of the SEDPII, reflecting any lessons learned in the first year of implementation.  The Council for Social Development, given adequate capacity, could develop this revised SEDPII into a truly government-owned document including civil society participation.  Therefore, we respectfully suggest that the Government postpone the deadline for the PRSP to December 2002.  

9.       We would be happy to support Government in this position, and do our best to generate support from the international donor community. We believe that the World Bank and the IMF cannot easily ignore a government’s honorable intentions of designing a PRSP based on a workable, responsive and nationally owned medium term development plan.

Comments on Content

10.   The SEDP II does not offer sufficient analysis of the impacts of the SEDP I, or the overall reform process on Cambodian society and economy, particularly on the poor and disadvantaged.  As such, it is not clear what information or assumptions the document is based on.

11.   While the importance of poverty reduction is implied in the document, no clear links are made about how the SEDP II would specifically address the goal of poverty reduction.  Cambodians realise well that poverty in Cambodia is complex and multi-dimensional.  Analysing such poverty cannot simply be a technical exercise that counts the poor and identifies who and where they are.  In order to lead to meaningful, pro-poor policies, poverty analysis also requires that the impacts of past policies, plans and programmes on the poor be accurately assessed.  There appears to be little evidence to show that the SEDP II is based on such analysis.

12.   The SEDP II is too broad.  It does not provide sufficiently developed strategies for strengthening the capacities of various sectors or the economy as a whole.  At the same time, it promotes a “fast-track” strategy towards a market economy without discussing the impacts of such fast transition.  The document does not  discuss the kinds of domestic regulations, safeguard measures and strategies that are needed to protect the domestic economy and populations from the negative impacts of rapid liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation.

13.   We express concern over the lack of consideration of alternative technologies appropriate for the agricultural sector given the sector’s low productive capacity, cost implications for farmers, and the amount of time they need before they can embark on more intensive production. We further draw attention to the potential impacts of the improper use of input-intensive farming systems on the long-term viability of the land, on the health of the farming population, and on the environment.

14.   The SEDP II is weak in establishing the linkages between the various sectoral reform processes. For instance, the section on financial sector reform gives the impression that the process is independent of other ongoing or planned reforms, and therefore detached from the development of other sectoral strategies. We are interested, for instance, on the types of financial policies other than those on micro-finance that are supportive of the fledgling agricultural sector, and the potential import substitution industries.

15.   The SEDP II is weak in systemic analysis of how the various reforms might affect different sectors.  It is also weak in its suggestions of how the SEDP II and overall reform process can be effectively monitored and adapted to alleviate negative impacts.

16.   Trade is a two way process.  While greater trade openness may increase Cambodia’s share of exports, it will also result in increased imports of many of the same goods that poor Cambodians are now producing, such as food and primary products.  In addition, imports of cheap, value-added products from neighboring countries can put many small Cambodian producers out of business in both rural and urban areas.  The SEDP II does not discuss the domestic measures needed to protect Cambodian producers from imports, policies and measures to strengthen local production and marketing capacities, or overall policies by which trade can contribute towards an effective development strategy for Cambodia.

17.   We appreciate the acknowledgment of possible import substitution in both agriculture and industry. However, this has not been developed as a policy statement in the SEDP II, and therefore no clear strategies on how import substitutes will be promoted are laid down in the document.

[Top]    [Back]    [Home]