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

1. PLATFORM TO POOL DONOR FUNDS & STEER COORDINATIONLessons from the CBF in Serbia:2001 – 2004 CDF Seminar, Senec, Nov 2005- Nenad Rava -

2. 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

3. 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of priorities • (the issue of the actual baseline capacity remains) • b) Hectic pace of reforms, New people coming in & Outdated public management • c) Considerable donor resources - but no implementation mechanisms and small local donor capacity • d) Request for coordinated approach to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

4. 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!

5. 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 CBF in Serbia – Key deliverables (2004) • Too much money for CD might be counterproductive • - However: • The issue of cost-recovery • The issues of attracting further funds

6. Steering Committee Programme Mngm – Executive Office (since 2002) National Project Directors (since 2002) PIUs and various modes for external advisors CBF in Serbia – The Structure • 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) • Initial design: • PAR (horizontal CD) • 4 Line ministries (vertical CD) • Functional review • CD support (IT, training and minor policy advice)

7. 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 CBF in Serbia – Key issues and challenges for donor coordination and resource mobilization • 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

8. 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 – Key issues and challenges for donor coordination and resource mobilization (cont’d)

9. More resources invested in programming facilitates resource mobilization and ensures trust Clear and common understanding of the long-term outcome prevents early divorce Ensure strong and relevant government involvement in steering (not only donor focal points) Strengthen management while remaining flexible and relevant Agree on individual roles and responsibilities and be consistent about it Always link with long term PAR Clearly position UNDP and communicate it strategically Never forget the level of complexity, high political sensitivity and the core of UNDP mandate CBF in Serbia – Lessons Learnt • More resources invested in programming facilitates resource mobilization and ensures trust • Clear and common understanding of the long-term outcome prevents early divorce • Ensure strong and relevant government involvement in steering (not only donor focal points) • Strengthen management while remaining flexible and relevant • Agree on individual roles and responsibilities and be consistent about it • Always link with long term PAR • Clearly position UNDP and communicate it strategically • Never forget the level of complexity, high political sensitivity and the core of UNDP mandate

10. 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