15th Feb 2007 version
The Cambodia Demand for Good Governance (DFGG) Project
- An Updated Storyline
The proposed Demand for Good Governance (DFGG) project in Cambodia may arguably be the
World Bank’s first project devoted exclusively to developing demand side approaches to tackle
governance issues, strengthening and linking the work of both state and non-state institutions1. Given this
novelty as well as the challenging governance environment in which it is being developed, project
preparation has involved continuous learning and innovation.
As can be expected, the project design is gradually evolving from the initial project concept note
(PCN) that was developed in June 2006. The purpose of this note is to build on that PCN and provide an
update about what the DFGG project is aiming to do, what ground realities and lessons have informed the
design, and what are likely to be the project’s core components.
A. Genesis of the Project – The Rationale for DFGG
The Cambodian context today reflects a clear case of severe problems of governance.2 Tackling these is
not an easy task. There needs to be multiple strategies for engagement that go beyond traditional supply
side initiatives targeting only public financial management, civil service reform and so on.
Among these strategies has to be the strengthening of constituencies outside the state executive – such as
civil society, the media, parliament, local communities and the private sector. These constituencies, as
highlighted in the recent Governance and Anti-Corruption (GAC) Strategy of the World Bank, create a
demand pressure for better governance and can be critical allies and catalysts for reform in difficult
governance environments.3 The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has itself put good governance at
the heart of its reform strategies (such as the Rectangular Strategy 2004-08, the Governance Action Plan,
and the Decentralization and De-concentration policy). And it has also recognized the key role of civil
society, the private sector and other development partners in its efforts to promote better governance.
Against this backdrop, the DFGG project’s proposed development objective is to promote good
governance by building the capacities of institutions, and supporting programs and coalitions that
promote, mediate, respond to or monitor demand for good governance.
While the basic objective is straightforward, the challenge is of course how to achieve it. In Cambodia,
knowledge and capacities of the proposed actors in undertaking a ‘social accountability’ role is quite
limited. Moreover, there is little history of partnerships between state and non-state actors in governance
reform.4 Outlining the operational implications of supporting the demand for good governance has
therefore been the main focus of the intensive project preparation process so far. The rest of this note
attempts to shed light on the emerging trajectory for the operation.
B. What is “DFGG” – Defining what we are trying to do
Perhaps the starting point in developing a program to support DFGG is to be clear upfront about what the
term means5. Conceptually, ‘DFGG’ refers to the extent and ability of citizens, civil society organizations,
and other non-state actors to hold the state accountable and to make it responsive to their needs. And in
return, this DFGG enhances the capacity of the state to become transparent, accountable, and
participatory in order to respond to these demands.
Given this conceptualization of DFGG, operationally, the proposed project approaches strengthening of
DFGG as a process, which has four key elements (figure-1):
1
15th Feb 2007 version
1. Promotion of Demand – The ability of citizens, civil society, and other non-state actors to demand
better governance depends on their access to information, and the degree to which they can act
effectively on this information. Thus, DFGG depends on (a) disclosure of information - the level of
transparency of the government (regarding budgets, expenditures, programs, etc.), (b) demystification
of information - strengthening the level of awareness and understanding of citizens (on laws, rights,
budgets, policies, etc.), and (c) dissemination of information– spreading information (related to
governance issues, processes, finances, laws, etc) to the ordinary public. In promoting demand, the
three Ds should be followed by a C (collective action) – mobilizing broader action and advocacy
around this information. Accordingly, initiatives such as freedom of information, awareness
campaigns, rights education, and media programs that ‘promote’ demand are the first component of
DFGG project support.
2. Mediation of Demand – While mobilizing demand through advocacy and information dissemination
are important, these pressures only become ‘effective’ through mediation and institutionalized
feedback to the state. Thus, strengthening DFGG also involves (a) creation and strengthening of
avenues for feedback of citizens and civil society to public officials, (b) encouraging consultation of
these actors in decision making and public actions of executive agencies, as well as (c) formal and
informal mechanisms for dispute resolution through initiatives such as interface meetings between
citizens and public officials, grievance redress mechanisms, and ombudsman’s offices.
3. Response to Demand – After mediation comes response, without which demand alone would remain
powerless and non-credible. Thus, institutionalizing DFGG involves developing programs and
initiatives within the executive that respond to demand either through (a) innovations in service
delivery, (b) response based performance incentives, or (c) participatory action planning.
4. Monitoring to Inform Demand – Finally, the last element of increasing DFGG is the process of
monitoring and oversight of the public sector by non-executive actors such as the parliament, the
media, and civil society. This could take the form of (a) participatory monitoring (using citizen
feedback surveys of government performance, social audits, media investigations, etc.), (b)
independent budget and policy analysis, and (c) formal oversight mechanisms (parliamentary
committees, vigilance commissions, etc.). These generate key information for the executive, civil
society, and ordinary citizens that feeds back into the process of promoting DFGG – thus completing
the cycle.
Figure-1: Four Core Elements of DFGG
MONITOR
-
Participatory monitoring
Indept. budget analysis
Formal oversight
RESPOND
- Service delivery
innovations
- Performance rewards
- Participatory action plans
acacactionplanningac
PROMOTE
DFGG
MEDIATE
- Feedback
- Consultation
- Dispute resolution
2
- Disclosure,
Demystification and
Dissemination
- Collective Action
15th Feb 2007 version
Based on the above operational interpretation of what DFGG entails, the project aims to strengthen
DFGG in Cambodia by providing support to institutions and programs that perform one (or more6)
of the above functions – promotion, mediation, response, or monitoring for DFGG.
It is important to note here that the above definition of DFGG has a key implication – it means that the
institutions that strengthen DFGG can be both government institutions and non-state ones. A state-run
broadcasting corporation involved with disseminating information about public programs and their
budgets, and providing feedback of citizens to public officials is as much a ‘demand side’ actor as civil
society and the private media promoting demand. Likewise, ombudsman offices and vigilance
commissions, or ministries running programs for legal and rights awareness education are also ‘demand
side’ actors. Moreover, the response function of DFGG is something that is most often only provided
through the state executive. What matters for strengthening DFGG under this project is therefore what an
institution does rather than where it is situated.
C. Principles behind Project Design –Determining to ‘whom’ and ‘how’ support would be given
The support for programs that promote, mediate, respond to or monitor DFGG could happen in many
ways. One could, for instance, fund aggressive programs for investigating and punishing corrupt public
officials. Or, multiple small initiatives for monitoring local service delivery could be financed.
Alternatively, a brand new national institution dedicated to promoting transparency and curbing
corruption could be established.
However, the constraints of the challenging governance climate that the project faces in Cambodia means
the approach for developing a project that is essentially charting new territory in the country’s sociopolitical landscape should be gradual, realistic, and strategic. Moreover, the project should focus on
sustainability in the long run rather than creating short term flashes that fizzle out after the project ends.
In this regard promoting ownership and credibility of the proposed initiatives would be critical.
Taking on board the lessons of international experience of working on governance and anti-corruption in
difficult environments as captured in the Bank’s Governance Strategy, and other country assistance
frameworks7 the project’s design was therefore shaped by the following principles and practical
considerations:
 The focus would be on building institutional capacity – As global experience shows, governance
reform is a long-term process and the sustainability of these reforms ultimately depends on
credible and effective institutions. Innovative programs and sub-projects are effective for shortterm mobilization of demand, but at the end of the project cycle what survive are durable
institutions. Thus, the core philosophy of the DFGG project is to offer the bulk of the support for
institutional development – skill building, organizational management, financial sustainability,
result orientation, client focus, performance incentives, etc.8
 Both state and non-state institution would be supported – Based on the logic provided above,
the project would provide support to both state and non-state institutions that are providing a
promotion, mediation, response, or monitoring function in a DFGG context.9 The state actors
could be in the legislature (parliament), judiciary (courts or alternative dispute resolution bodies),
executive (ministries and local governments) or formal oversight bodies (audit agencies, vigilance
commissions, or ombudsman offices). Non-state actors would include NGOs, CBOs, the private
sector (including trade unions) and independent media working on similar themes. Again, what
essentially matters is the mandate of the institution rather than where it is situated. The idea
would then be to develop linkages between these state and non-state agencies that could forge
partnerships lasting beyond the life of the project.
 The focus would be on existing institutions – Experience suggests that for sustainability and
ownership it is imperative to build and strengthen a country’s own institutions and initiatives
3
15th Feb 2007 version



rather than impose reforms from the outside. This also avoids unnecessary set-up costs. The
pragmatic decision of the project is hence to identify and work only with existing Cambodian
institutions – both on the state and non-state side.
Build on promising governance innovations – A key strategic choice was made to build upon
existing governance innovations that have demonstrated some success in Cambodia already. This
approach has several merits. Firstly, it helps to strengthen these innovations and facilitate their
success and scaling up. Secondly, it signals the Bank’s commitment and support for DFGG
innovations that Cambodian institutions have themselves introduced. Finally, if the strategy of
‘betting on winners’ is successful, the demonstration effect of these institutions could over time
create a ‘ripple effect’ for further reform in other more challenging sectors, agencies and areas
within the Cambodian context.
Engage with committed leaderships - Further, given that good institutions are often built upon
the work of good people, the institutional support of the project would be geared towards
agencies whose leaders have shown keen interest and desire to work on strengthening DFGG.10
This would enable them to build stronger coalitions of support around the institution that draw in
both state and non-state actors, and build on the novel governance reforms they have introduced.
Target all four elements of DFGG to have maximum effect – Finally, the project would aim to
build upon each functional element of the DFGG process – promotion, mediation, response, and
monitoring – since this ensures the greatest effectiveness in strengthening DFGG. However, no
single institution would be expected to simultaneously cover all four areas.
The project team well recognizes that the DFGG project is only one piece in the overall agenda of
governance reform that the RGC will be undertaking, and the challenges are too large to be addressed by
a single project. The project is therefore adopting an opportunistic approach to strengthen a few existing
good institutions and committed leaders by assisting them to become better and best. If successful,
the project could pave the way for future work on strengthening DFGG in the country.
D. Project Components – Outlining what the project will do
Working on the above principles, the project design has three core operational components11 – (i) support
to state institutions, (ii) support to non-state institutions, and (iii) communication, monitoring &
evaluation and learning. The motivations and basic nature of these are described below.12
D.1 Component 1: Institution Building for State Institutions:
The first core component is the institutional support to state institutions working on strengthening DFGG
for a 3-5 year period. At the time of writing this note, the first short-list of 5 possible state organizations
had been selected for support. The process for their selection and the nature of proposed support is
outlined below.
D.1.1. Selection Process and Criteria: The state institutions to be supported under the project will be preselected during project preparation. This is being done for several reasons. First, is to avoid creating
tricky competition for project funds among state agencies. Second, to get a broad distribution of
institutions covering different criteria, which could only be done through pre-selection. Finally, given that
DFGG is a relatively new concept in Cambodia, a lot of capacity building and joint planning is needed
upfront during project preparation with each of the supported institutions. This could only be done if they
were chosen during the design phase.
The project team therefore went through a series of consultations with government, donors, and civil
society organizations over a six-month process to generate a shortlist of potential candidates for support.
This search was further informed by an existing assessment of options for increasing social accountability
in Cambodia done by DFID and the World Bank country team13, and two rapid institutional assessments14
4
15th Feb 2007 version
of transparency institutions done recently by different World Bank teams. Finally, inputs were sought
from the project counterpart agency – the Ministry of Interior (MOI).
The available spectrum of Cambodian state institutions undertaking DFGG-related functions of
promotion, mediation, response, and monitoring were then narrowed down based on the following
criteria in order of importance:
(i)
The mandate and activities of each institution (or program within it) should cover at least
one element of strengthening DFGG, viz. promotion, mediation, response, or monitoring;
(ii)
The institutions should have demonstrated success and/or have a committed leadership
willing to support DFGG activities;
(iii)
To the extent possible, the chosen set of institutions should cover the focus sectors for
governance reform highlighted in the World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for
Cambodia15—decentralization and de-concentration, natural resources management,
private sector development, and public financial management;
(iv)
Finally, to the extent possible, the chosen state institutions should cover the various parts
of the state machinery – executive, legislature, judiciary, and independent oversight
agencies. They should also cover both national and local levels of engagement.
D.1.2. Selected Institutions: Based on the above criteria, the following five institutions have been
chosen for support by the DFGG project:
(1) Ministry of National Assembly-Senate Relations and Inspection (MONASRI)
(2) The Arbitration Council
(3) Radio National of Kampuchea (RNK)
(4) Ministry of Interior’s One Stop Window Services (OSWS) and District Ombudsman’s Office
(5) A National Assembly (Parliamentary) Committee
A brief description of each of the above institutions is given in Annex 2 to this note.
D.1.3. Nature of Expected Support: The support to be provided to each state institution will be
determined through a participatory process, complemented with technical guidance from a team of expert
consultants. This participatory process will begin with a workshop in which key stakeholders relevant to
the operations of each state institution (such as NGOs working on legal awareness for MONASRI, or
labor unions for the Arbitration Council) will share ideas for strengthening the DFGG mandate of the
institution. An advisory committee or working group consisting of a sub-set of these stakeholders will
then help each institution collaboratively develop a proposal for project support. This will be done
through facilitated and informal “mini retreats” bringing government officials together with clients of
state institutions and appropriate leaders in civil society, knowledgeable donors and others. This is
expected to build ownership and a network of support for the implementation of the proposal. Final
feedback on each proposal will come from a national level multi-stakeholder workshop towards the end
of the project preparation period. All through this participatory design process, expert consultants will
contribute what they know to strengthen these institutions.
Although the details of the actual support to each institution will be determined by the above process,
broadly speaking it is expected to involve the following core areas:
(i) Capacity building – The project will provide technical assistance and training on various
features of organizational management (e.g. organizational structure, business processes,
skills, finance, information systems, performance reward systems, ethics, etc.),
(ii) Scaling up – Building on the existing successful DFGG activities of each institution, the
project will facilitate efforts to scale up both their scope and coverage and strengthen
sustainability,
5
15th Feb 2007 version
(iii) Innovation – Using international experience and by creating linkages with non-state
partners the project will encourage the institutions to try new innovations to strengthen their
effectiveness,
(iv) Partnerships – Each institution will be given incentives to build partnerships with non-state
actors, through say a facility for external engagement or a separate incentive fund for
partnerships and coalition building,
(v) Communications – Each institution will be supported to develop a communications plan to
generate greater awareness and promote transparency,
(vi) Feedback and monitoring – Finally, to generate greater accountability and ensure that
citizen feedback continuously improves the performance of each of the state institution,
systems for institutionalizing the process of external monitoring and stakeholder feedback
will be included in their planned support program.
D.2 Component 2: Support for Non-State Institutions:
The core institutional support to non-state institutions working on governance planned under the project,
and for linking their activities directly with existing state institutions is likely to be a unique effort for the
World Bank. This support would come through two channels (one external and one internal) as described
below.
D.2.1. Capacity building through an expected Trust Fund program: Studies and assessments of civil
society in Cambodia suggest there is great interest in the area. Yet, till now, there is little overall
experience with social accountability (SA) tools and knowledge. The funding for this capacity building on
social accountability for non-state actors is expected to come through a trust fund grant. The capacity
building would precede DFGG project implementation by more than a year, thus laying the groundwork
for the project.16
This expected Program for Enhancing Capacity for Social Accountability (PECSA) will involve several
components for non-state actors. One would be training and mentoring by leading global social
accountability institutions. Another would be exchange visits to learn from other social accountability
experiences in the Asia region, and scholarships for further learning. “Venture governance” grants for
action learning would be included. It will also set up a mutual support network of Cambodian civil
society organizations working on social accountability to share ideas and experiences and pursue
programs collectively. The PECSA will run special programs on themes related to the DFGG project
supported state institutions (such as training for journalists and labor unions). Additionally, it will support
internal accountability and integrity systems of NGOs since these will be critical to the later
implementation of the DFGG project. If approved, the activities under this roughly $2 million and 3 year
PECSA program would be ready for implementation by April 2007.17
D.2.2. Project Institutional Support through a series of Development Marketplaces: The institutional
support to non-state actors through the project’s direct financing will take the shape of a series of 2-3
development market (DM) place competitions running over the life of the project. These will be demandled events that are expected to run around a specific theme or set of themes. Various non-state institutions
(e.g. NGOs, think tanks, private media, professional associations, local community groups) will be
encouraged to come up with innovative programs and activities that strengthen one or more elements of
DFGG. While the specific format and focus areas of these DMs is yet to be determined, the likely themes
that could be covered include:
(i) Programs working around the functioning of the above DFGG project-supported state
institutions – This would encourage synergy and partnership between the state and non-state
actors and ensure better monitoring and feedback for the state institutions.
6
15th Feb 2007 version
(ii) Programs working on one or more of the theme areas of focus of the DFGG projectsupported state institutions – These would include themes like local service delivery, dispute
resolution, legal awareness, parliamentary oversight, and/or feedback through media.
(iii) Programs centered on monitoring and oversight – As independent monitoring is perhaps
the function least effectively done through state institutions themselves, this would be a natural
theme for a DM for non-state actors.
In the end, a combination of these options is likely to be supported by the DMs. It is likely that higher
priority will be given to non-state proposals partnering directly with the DFGG supported state
institutions (number (i) above), so as to foster tighter links between the state and non-state institutions in
the project.
D.3 Component 3: Communications, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Learning:
As highlighted above, the approach of the project is to provide institutional support to existing or
potential good governance innovations and institutions within the country. The demonstrated success of
these institutions could create a ‘ripple effect’ for other state and non-state institutions to adopt better
governance strategies. To facilitate this ripple effect and showcase the effectiveness of DFGG supported
institutions, however, an effective communications, M&E and learning strategy is essential. Therefore,
the DFGG project will have a separate component to cover this aspect.
D.3.1. Communications: The role of communications will be integral to the medium and long term
effects that the project aims to initiate. It will involve at least three parts. For the DFGG supported state
institutions, a communication strategy will be a key element of technical support. It will aim to provide
them with best practice advice on how DFGG has been promoted innovatively in other countries. It will
further involve marketing, publicity and awareness building components to popularize the state
institutions and showcase their results. This would be a core part of the communication component of the
project.
Secondly, the entire set of development marketplaces envisaged for channeling the support to non-state
institutions will also require a solid publicity campaign. This would comprise the second part of the
communications component.
The third element will involve general information dissemination and publicity related to the concept of
DFGG, and the project’s activities. This could take the form of short case studies, videos, and other
learning tools that can be used to create awareness of the project for both a domestic and an international
audience.18
D.3.2 M&E and Learning: As the DFGG project is the first of its kind and has the potential for
leveraging further reform and operations if its effectiveness can be showcased, there is a great need to
integrate a strong M&E and learning program into the project design. This will serve multiple purposes.
On the one hand, it will enable the monitoring of institutional performance so continuous feedback can be
made to enhance the effectiveness of the supported institutions under a ‘learning-by-doing’ philosophy.
On the other hand, any positive evidence that can be gathered on the impacts of DFGG project
interventions on governance will become the basis for building greater support for such approaches in the
future and would link back to the overall communications program for the project. This enhanced
publicity would in turn help to strengthen the reputation and commitment of the DFGG supported state
and non-state institutions.
Conceptually, the M&E framework for this kind of project centered on institutional support and process
changes will inevitably be quite complex. In simple terms, though the movement from the project’s inputs
7
15th Feb 2007 version
to outputs, to outcomes and impacts is meant to be as follows: the project’s supported activities (i.e. the
inputs) in the form of capacity building for both state and non-state institutions should strengthen their
ability to promote, mediate, respond, or monitor DFGG. The enhanced capacity of these organizations
will hopefully strengthen DFGG within the context in which they operate. Thus, stronger DFGG would
be the project’s ‘output’.
Stronger DFGG is expected in turn to create better systems of governance (less corruption, better
performance, more responsiveness, more accountability) in the organizations, regions, or contexts around
which each of the state and non-state institutions function (e.g. in the provinces where One Stop Window
Service operates, etc.). Better governance within these contexts would be the expected ‘outcome’ from
the project.
Finally, service delivery, empowerment and welfare related effects of this enhanced governance
(particularly for the poor and marginalized) would be the expected impact from the project (so more legal
awareness among general public from information dissemination programs by MONASRI, or better
welfare outcomes for workers and firms in the garment sector where the Arbitration Council operates).
This basic causal chain is presented below in Figure-2. The arrows 1, 2, 3 are the points of entry for the
M&E of results, for which different tools and indicators would have to be used. The management
information system (MIS) and internal monitoring, which also forms part of the M&E framework, would
be established around the project’s activities (i.e. the inputs).
Figure-2: A simple causality chain of the expected effects of the DFGG project
IMPACT
OUTCOME
INPUTS
1
DFGG
Project
OUTPUT
S
2
3
Better
Governance
Stronger
DFGG
Needs
monitoring
and data on
DFGG
process
indicators
Needs
monitoring
and data on
general
governance
indicators
Better
Development
Outcomes
(service delivery,
poverty reduction,
empowerment…)
Involves impact
evaluation
(qualitative or quasiexperimental) of
particular DFGG
initiatives
Given that the different institutions being supported will have varying functions and geographical
coverage not all links will be possible to measure for each organization. And, since sustained
improvements in governance are at best a medium term objective, the project must be modest in
expectations on results. Nonetheless, a baseline that covers DFGG, governance, and developmental
indicators will precede the implementation of the project to allow the possibility for future research.
E. Summarizing – The story so far and the chapters ahead
In summary, the genesis of the DFGG project has come from the realization that improving governance
cannot be done without working on the ‘demand side’ – that is with institutions that are engaged in a
process of empowering citizens, civil society, and other non-state actors to make the state more
accountable and responsive19. The project has therefore taken on the task of investing in existing
8
15th Feb 2007 version
Cambodian institutions already working towards this goal by promoting, mediating, responding to, or
monitoring for DFGG. If successful, it can become the basis for greater reform in this area.
Global lessons, strategic choices, and the existing opportunities within the governance climate that exists
in Cambodia have meant that the project focus will be on institution building. Mostly those institutions
will be supported that have already demonstrated some degree of success in DFGG innovation, have a
clear mandate to work on one of the elements of DFGG, and/or where committed leadership exists to take
on these tasks seriously. The project aims to strengthen a few existing good institutions and committed
leaders by assisting them to become better and best. If successful, the project could pave the way for
greater future work on strengthening DFGG in the country.
But there remain several challenges ahead in terms of project design. The most pressing is the
establishment of an appropriate institutional set up to disburse funds directly to non-state institutions. The
‘ripple effects’ that the project aims to create will depend heavily on the coalitions and partnerships that
are established between the state and non-state institutions. There is little history of strong collaboration
on this front in Cambodia in the realm of governance reform. A structured approach to piloting, learning
and then scaling up would need to be followed, and investments in systems, and not just people, will be
important so changes in leadership in the supported institutions do not damage sustainability of the
initiatives implemented. Overall, oversight and monitoring of the project will therefore be critical, as will
be systematic communication, and the exact set up for these is yet to be determined.
As the project preparation process moves forward there will therefore surely be new insights and practical
realities that will surface and influence design. This storyline note is therefore only a first volume which
is likely to have many sequels as the project design process unfolds.
9
15th Feb 2007 version
Annex-1: Basic Information on Proposed DFGG Project
World Bank Project ID:
Borrower:
Implementing Agency:
Expected Funding Amount:
Funding Type:
Task Team Leader:
P101156
Royal Government of Cambodia
Ministry of Interior (MOI)
US$ 12 million
International Development Association (IDA) Grant
Bhuvan Bhatnagar ([email protected])
Background: Low standards of governance and endemic corruption are widely acknowledged as fundamental
constraints on the economic and social development of Cambodia. The country is emerging from conflict, and
government capacity and accountability remain limited. As a result, most questions about development effectiveness
tend, inevitably, to be about the quality of governance. Without good governance, efforts to sustain economic
growth, reduce poverty and attain the Cambodia Millennium Development Goals can have little success.
The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) itself acknowledges that good governance is a critical challenge. Prime
Minister Samdech Hun Sen has publicly emphasized that, without substantial reform, the country has little prospect
of survival. This is reflected in a number of Government policy documents, such as the Rectangular Strategy 20042008, the Governance Action Plan, and the Decentralization and De-concentration Strategic Framework.
For these reforms to succeed stimulating demand from citizens for greater accountability and better quality of
services is very important. Going forward, therefore, improving governance in Cambodia will require interventions
to strengthen both the supply and demand for good governance (DFGG). Cambodian citizens, and the institutions
that give them voice, must be engaged in the design, implementation and monitoring of RGC’s reforms. This will
promote greater awareness of reform processes, enhance their transparency, and make them more responsive to the
needs of citizens. It will also encourage habits of constructive interaction and networking between citizens’
organizations and the state around the reforms.
Project Development Objective: The proposed development objective of the Project is to build the capacities of
institutions, and to support programs and coalitions which promote, mediate or address demand for good governance
in the context of the government’s reforms. This will result in more effective design, implementation and monitoring
of key reforms, and more transparency, accountability and responsiveness of the state to citizens.
Project Timeline: Project is currently under preparation and is expected to go to the World Bank Board for
approval in March 2008. Implementation is expected to start in August/September 2008 should the project be
approved. The expected lifetime of the project is expected to be between three to four years.
Expected Institutional Structure: The project will create two separate funding channels to support state and nonstate institutions and programs. Funding for state institutions and programs will be managed by the MOI, while nonstate institutions and programs will be managed by a non-state entity.
A multi-stakeholder oversight committee will have overall oversight responsibility for the Project. It will consist of
representatives of government, civil society, business and donors, who are influential and meet the criteria of
integrity and commitment to government accountability. Besides providing guidance during project preparation and
oversight during implementation, the multi-stakeholder committee will help to link DFGG with supply side
responses, and forge coalitions of reform champions, inside and outside of government.
10
15th Feb 2007 version
Annex-2: Pre-Selected State Institutions for DFGG Project Support (as of Jan ‘07)
Based on the selection criteria highlighted in the note, the following five institutions have been chosen for support
by the DFGG project:
1) Ministry of National Assembly-Senate Relations and Inspection (MONASRI): The MoNASRI was created
in 1999 and it is mandated to perform three key roles related to DFGG – (a) building legal awareness on existing
laws and rights, (b) inspection on all fields to combat corruption, and (c) drafting new legislation in this regard such
as the draft Law on Anti-Corruption and the Law on Rights to Information. Of these three functions, it is envisaged
that the DFGG project will (at least in the first instance) provide support to develop the first, i.e. legal awareness
building and demystification by disseminating information about new laws (like the forthcoming Organic Law on
Decentralization & De-concentration and the Anti-Corruption Law) to ordinary citizens. This would then fall in the
category of a national, executive agency working on promotion of DFGG as it would enhance public access to
information about the new laws.
2) The Arbitration Council (AC): The AC is a national institution mandated to resolve labor disputes. In
Cambodia, workplace relations are a matter of public policy and Cambodian Labor Law provides for a mandatory
dispute resolution process to be managed by the Ministry of Labor. In response to this mandate, the Ministry
established the AC in 2003 with support from employer associations and union federations to ensure that structural
conflict around labor is managed in a socially and economically constructive manner. Since its establishment the AC
has become an effective statutory body that has provided a fast, transparent, and fair (law-based) mediation service
to resolve disputes between firms and employees, mainly in the garment sector. As the Cambodian economy
diversifies into other manufacturing and services, a body such as the AC can serve as an example of the state
supporting transparency, accountability and neutrality in mediating DFGG by the private sector. DFGG project
support is therefore expected to be provided to the AC to sustain and scale up its activities to more effectively
mediate and resolve conflicts between labor unions and employers. This will both empower labor unions and make
the private sector more efficient. This state institution thus falls in the category of a private sector-related, quasijudicial body involved in mediation of DFGG.
3) Radio National of Kampuchea (RNK): RNK is the national public radio broadcasting agency in Cambodia.
Among its programs is a rapidly popularizing one hour talkback program called “Our Life, Our Society”. This radio
program provides a medium for direct feedback from citizens to high level officials about their programs and
performance, as well as an avenue to freely share their opinions and ideas – something new to Cambodian society.
As another national institution involved in both promotion and mediation (feedback) of DFGG, the talk-back
program is envisaged to get support from the project to expand its coverage and scope.
4) Ministry of Interior’s One Stop Window Services (OSWS) Office and Ombudsman’s Office: The OSWS and
Ombudsman’s offices are newly-created institutions/programs currently being piloted in two provinces in the
northwest of the country, viz. Siem Reap and Battambang. The OSWS is an experiment to deliver several key
administrative services (such as licenses and documentation processing relating to land management, commerce,
urban planning and construction, industry, tourism, etc…) under one roof to speed up their delivery to citizens and
small businesses. Similarly, the district ombudsman’s office, which also operates within the MOI, is designed to
receive complaints from citizens, the business community and civil society on the performance and conduct of
district officials. This pair of institutions therefore reflects local/decentralized bodies aiming to respond to and
mediate DFGG by providing improved local services, addressing grievances and contributing to decentralization.
5) A National Assembly (Parliamentary) Committee: The final state institution that is envisaged to get support
from the DFGG project is a National Assembly or Parliamentary Committee (NAC). These are the constitutional
oversight bodies that monitor the work of the executive arm of the government by representing the common citizen.
The NACs thus represent national, official monitoring/oversight agencies. There are several such NACs in the
Cambodian parliament. However, it is envisaged that the project will support only one, or at most two, of these
(such as the NAC on Decentralization or Complaints) to provide oversight and monitoring of the implementation of
key RGC reforms and programs.
11
15th Feb 2007 version
End Notes
1
Annex-1 to the note gives basic information on the project.
As several studies show, the existing systems of promoting integrity, accountability and good governance in
Cambodia are at best weak, if not dysfunctional. See for instance the National Integrity Systems Country Study for
Cambodia by Transparency International, 2006.
3
Strengthening Bank Group Engagement on Governance and Anti-Corruption, The World Bank, September 8th,
2006. For a discussion on the rationale and evidence regarding demand side approaches see Ackerman, J.: Social
Accountability and the Public Sector, Social Development Paper No. 82, The World Bank, 2005.
4
See Burke, A. and Vanna, N. – Options for Increasing Social Accountability in Cambodia, DFID and World Bank
Cambodia, 15 February 2005, for a description of existing Social Accountability initiatives and opportunities in the
country.
5
Although most people have a basic idea of what DFGG refers to, these conceptualizations would differ from
person to person, especially because the terms is intricately linked to other similar notions such as ‘social
accountability’ or ‘participatory/democratic governance’.
6
A given institution can actually serve more than one (even all four) of the elements of DFGG, although in practice
most institutions would have a core competency in one particular area.
7
See for instance the Philippines Country Assistance Strategy, April 2005, where the strategy for governance reform
was to build upon existing ‘islands of good governance’.
8
A focus on institutional support is also an important strategic move since it provides an incentive for these agencies
(in particular on the state side) to take on governance innovations and try out new activities (including greater
transparency and partnerships with non-state actors).
9
Support to state institutions was also mandated by political economy considerations given the fact that the client
for IDA support is the government.
10
These ‘reform champions’ could in fact also warrant support to institutions that otherwise may not be functioning
optimally, but which have a clear mandate towards addressing one or more of the elements of DFGG. See the World
Bank Governance and Anti-Corruption strategy as well as the Philippines CAS for further elaboration on the
rationale for such strategic engagement.
11
The fourth component deals with project administration and implementation arrangements. Note also that the
original PCN had a ‘program support window’ as the second core component. Based on the reality that there is little
distinction between institutions and their programs (the former are defined by the latter), particularly in the
Cambodian context, these components were replaced by one component on state institution support and the other on
non-state.
12
Most of the detailed modalities of each component are still under preparation.
13
Burke, A. and Vanna, N (2005) cited above.
14
Bou, S. and Salazar, L.: Cambodia Grassroots Media Assessment for the Social Accountability (Citizens
Partnership for Better Governance) Framework, Mission Report, DFID and World Bank Cambodia, April 2005.
15
Country Assistance Strategy for the Kingdom of Cambodia, The World Bank Group, April 2005.
16
There were several reasons for seeking external assistance for this piece of support – (i) flexibility – external trust
fund financing would allow general broad based capacity building for non-state institutions and allow the project’s
direct resources to focus on programs and institutions working directly with the state side counterparts, (ii) timing –
as DFGG project resources are not likely to flow for at least 18 months at which point it would require immediate
involvement of non-state actors, one needs a critical capacity building program beforehand to prepare the ground for
effective project implementation, and (iii) appropriateness – an externally financed capacity-building program for
non-state institutions would reinforce their independence and strengthen their ability to develop partnerships with
state actors on a foundation of strong technical knowledge.
17
The decision on whether the funding of the project will come through will be available by end February 2007.
18
These would be commissioned as necessary by the project Oversight Committee with the guidance of the Bank
task team and proposed project communication consultants.
19
For examples of successful demand side innovations to improve accountability and governance see (i) Ackerman,
J. (2005) cited above, (ii) Arroyo, D. and Sirker, K.: Stocktaking of Social Accountability Initiatives in the Asia and
Pacific Region, The World Bank Institute CESI Learning Program, 2005, (iii) Goetz, A.M. and Gaventa, J.:
Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery, IDS Working Paper 138, Institute for Development
Studies, Sussex, UK, July 2001.
2
12