1 / 10

Cambodian Case study on PAR Bratislava Workshop 19-22 April 2004

Cambodian Case study on PAR Bratislava Workshop 19-22 April 2004. By Han Phoumin UNDP Cambodia. Background. Twenty years of war: Fragile governance Severe Capacity constraints. Background (cont). Concept of modern state in Cambodia… predatory purposes

jeanette-stewart
Télécharger la présentation

Cambodian Case study on PAR Bratislava Workshop 19-22 April 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cambodian Case studyon PARBratislava Workshop19-22 April 2004 By Han Phoumin UNDP Cambodia

  2. Background • Twenty years of war: • Fragile governance • Severe Capacity constraints

  3. Background (cont) • Concept of modern state in Cambodia… • predatory purposes • lack of tradition for political accountability • Post UNTAC … heavy burden of coordination vs. massive distortions • Low remuneration

  4. PAR in Cambodia • Governance Action Plan (GAP) • National Program for Administrative Reform (NPAR) • UNDP approach from 1994 – 2003: • Strengthening the capacity of CAR Secretariat…for strategic Planning… • Facilitating the implementation of priority reform initiatives… • Support to the preparation of PMG (piloting successes)

  5. PAR in Cambodia • PAR is also decentralisation • Seila programme • key parameters of Seila’s success

  6. Lessons Learned • Lession #1: Strategic constituency building PAR’s failure due to the design, lack of consensus, weak understanding of the complex system. Vis a Vis CARERE/SEILA’s sucess

  7. Lessons Learned • Lession #2: PAR need to be flexible PAR’s failure to provide linkages/ coordination from one reform to anothers. All due to lack of ownership and guidance. SEILA’s success due to process planning and donors’ willing to take risk

  8. Lessons Learned • Lession #3: Need piloting and experiences PAR lack of technical competency as a convenor SEILA’s success built from piloting and experiences

  9. Lessons Learned • Lession #4: Need integration PAR and decentralization need to be integrated and harmonised. D&D must seen as one process, not two tiers govt.

  10. The next steps • Claim victory and move on • Change dual focus on PAR and decentralisation • Focus on service delivery improvement capturing both the central and decentral perspective • Pilot initiatives in civil service reforms (PMGs) • Civil society

More Related