development coorperation and partnerships report · the report will be used in their future work....

Kingdom of Cambodia Nation – Religion – King

Royal Government of Cambodia

DEVELOPMENT COORPERATION AND PARTNERSHIPS REPORT

Prepared by

Cambodian Rehabilitation and Development Board Council for the Development of Cambodia

May 2016

Acknowledgement

The major sources of information used in preparing this 2016 Development

Cooperation and Partnerships Report are the results of Cambodia’s 2nd round

Busan Development Effectiveness Monitoring Survey and the trends in

development cooperation based on data extracted from the Cambodia ODA

Database. The great efforts of RGC institutions and agencies, TWGs and

development partners are therefore gratefully acknowledged. It is hoped that

the Report will be used in their future work.

It is also necessary to acknowledge the significant time and effort that has been

contributed by development partner focal points who have entered information

about their programs into the Cambodia ODA Database from which the data

was extracted in March 2016. Without their patience and cooperation much of

the quantitative analysis used in this Report could not have been produced.

In all cases CRDB has attempted to validate the data and evidence to confirm

the factual basis for the analysis that has been presented.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms Foreword .............................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Towards an effective development cooperation architecture ................................................. 1 Principles of LDC graduation ................................................................................................. 2

2. Monitoring a Results-Based Partnership ...................................................................... 4 Monitoring the development partnership in 2015 .................................................................. 4

3. Trends in Development Cooperation ........................................................................... 11 Total Disbursements and the Contribution of Development Cooperation ............................. 11 Trends in Development Partner Disbursements .................................................................. 12 Annual Changes in Development Partner Disbursements (2014-2015) .............................. 12 Trends in Provision of Development Cooperation Funding by Sector .................................. 13 Thematic Profile – Development Partner Engagement in Technical Working Groups .......... 14 Development Partner Funding Modalities ............................................................................ 15 Alignment with National Priorities ........................................................................................ 15 Support to the Provinces ..................................................................................................... 16 NGO Support to National Development............................................................................... 17 Summary of Main Finding ................................................................................................... 18

4. Cross-cutting thematic profiles ................................................................................... 19 ODA Support to the Promotion of Gender Equality ............................................................. 20 ODA Support to Climate Change ........................................................................................ 21 ODA Support to Private Sector Development ...................................................................... 24 ODA Support to the Agriculture ........................................................................................... 25

5. Support to Industrial Development .............................................................................. 27 The Role of ODA in Supporting Industrial Development in Cambodia ................................. 27 An Analysis of ODA Provision to the IDP in 2015 ................................................................ 28 Future Actions to Support IDP Resource Mobilisation and Management ............................. 30 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 31

LIST OF TABLES

1. LDC graduation criteria – 3 components ........................................................................................ 3

2. Progress towards DCPS indicators ................................................................................................. 5

3. 2015 Development Effectiveness Indicators (by development partner) ........................................ 6

4. 2015 Development Effectiveness Indicators (by sector) ................................................................ 7

5. Development partner funding 2007-2015 .................................................................................... 12

6. Sector disbursements & projections 2007-2017 ........................................................................... 13

7. 2015 funding and development partner activity in TWGs ............................................................ 14

8. Provincial support .......................................................................................................................... 16

9. NGO funding 2013-2015 ............................................................................................................... 17

10. Major NGOs by funding 2013-2015 .............................................................................................. 18

11. List of Thematic Markers ............................................................................................................... 19

12. Sector mainstreaming of gender equality in 2015 ........................................................................ 20

13. Development partner mainstreaming of gender equality in 2015 ................................................. 21

14. Support to climate change in 2015 by implementing agency ....................................................... 21

15. Sector mainstreaming of climate change in 2015 ......................................................................... 23

16. Development partner mainstreaming of climate change in 2015 ................................................. 23

17. Sector mainstreaming of private sector development in 2015 ...................................................... 24

18. Development partner mainstreaming of private sector development in 2015 .............................. 25

19. Development partner support to the agriculture sector in 2015 .................................................... 25

20. Potential role of ODA in promoting the IDP .................................................................................. 28

21. Support to the IDP in 2015 ............................................................................................................ 29

22. Medium-term resourcing of the IDP .............................................................................................. 29

LIST OF CHARTS

1. Use of Results Frameworks in 2015 (% of total funding) ............................................................... 7

2. Use of PBAs in 2015 (% of total funding) ...................................................................................... 8

3. Use of PFM systems in 2015 (% of funding to Government sector) .............................................. 8

4. Aid on-budget in 2015 (% of funding to Government sector) ........................................................ 9

5. Predictability (funding to Government sector as % of scheduled) ................................................. 9

6. Disbursements and projections 2007-2018 .................................................................................. 11

7. Major ODA trends ........................................................................................................................ 11

8. Annual changes in development partner disbursements 2014-2015 ........................................... 13

9. Development partner funding modalities 2006-2015 .................................................................... 15

10. The alignment of development cooperation to the NSDP (2015 data) ........................................ 16

11. Provincial support (USD per capita) .............................................................................................. 16

12. NGO sector support in 2015 ......................................................................................................... 17

13. Relative NGO funding shares 2013-2015 ..................................................................................... 17

LIST OF ANNEXES

1. What happens to Net ODA after LMIC Re-Classification? ........................................................... 32

2. Disbursements by Development Partner and Sector 2013........................................................... 33



5. Disbursements & Projections by Development Partner 1996-2018 ............................................. 36

6. Disbursements & Projections by Sector 1996-2018 ..................................................................... 37

7. Disbursements to Government & Non-Government Sector 2013-2015 ....................................... 38

8. Disbursements to Provinces 2012-2015 ....................................................................................... 39

9. Industrial Development Policy - Overview of Structure & Approach ............................................. 41

ACRONYMS

CCCSP Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan

CDC Council for the Development of Cambodia

CRDB Cambodian Rehabilitation and Development Board

DCPS Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy (2014-2018)

DPs Development partners

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

GCF Green Climate Fund

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GNI Gross National Product

GPEDC Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

HDI Human Development Index

IDA International Development Association

IDP Industrial Development Policy

JMIs Joint Monitoring Indicators

LDC Least Developed Country

LMIC Lower-Middle Income Country

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MoE Ministry of Environment

MoWA Ministry of Women Affairs

NCDM National Committee for Disaster Management

NSDP National Strategic Development Plan

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

ODA Official Development Assistance

PAR Public Administration Reform

p.c. Per Capita

PBA Programme-Based Approach

PFM Public Financial Management

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

RS Rectangular Strategy

SEZ Special Economic Zone

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

SNDD Sub-National Democratic Development

SOPs Standard Operating Procedures

TWGs Technical Working Groups

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

http://www.worldbank.org/ida/

http://mowa.gov.kh/

i

Foreword

The Royal Government of Cambodia, under the wise and long-term visionary leadership of Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, has a strong commitment to deliver effective development results. This can be achieved through increased ownership and strengthened capacity, as well as leadership in guiding the development partnership towards achieving national development objectives and the Cambodia Sustainable Development Goals. Significant progress has been witnessed through the improved public services as well as the core reforms – notably in PFM, PAR and SNDD – in line with the socio-economic development agenda over the last two decades. To fulfill these commitments to development effectiveness, the Royal Government’s Rectangular Strategy-Phase III for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency emphasizes the continued need to strengthen effective partnerships with all stakeholders. This will ensure readiness as Cambodia consolidates progress, confronts future challenges and seizes new opportunities in a new regional and global dynamic. This socio-economic agenda will be comprehensively implemented through the NSDP (2014-2018). Driven by its long-term vision towards 2030 and motivated by linking the Cambodian economy and its industry to the region in line with the ASEAN Economic Community and regional economic liberalization frameworks, the Royal Government has adopted the Industrial Development Policy (2015-2025) to promote the country's industrial development. This will help maintain sustainable and inclusive high economic growth through economic diversification, strengthening competitiveness and promoting productivity. The Royal Government has accordingly prepared and implemented the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy to continue to define development effectiveness in the Cambodia context as well as to set out priority actions for development partnerships and to establish working arrangements to support the implementation of the Rectangular Strategy and the NSDP (2014-2018). The over-arching objective of this 2016 Cambodia Development Cooperation and Partnerships Report, which has been prepared by the Cambodian Rehabilitation and Development Board of the Council for the Development of Cambodia (CDC/CRDB), is to track progress in development partnership and provide evidence-based analysis of trends in development cooperation. This will further guide our efforts to strengthen partnerships to support the implementation of the Rectangular Strategy-Phase III. The report reflects how partnership work has evolved in Cambodia in recent years in the context of Cambodia’s approach to becoming a Lower-Middle Income Country and in mobilising support for the implementation of the Industrial Development Policy. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent work of H.E. Chhieng Yanara, Minister Attached to the Prime Minister, the CRDB/CDC Secretary General and his staff at CRDB/CDC who have prepared this analytical report. I trust that the analysis presented in this report provides important insights for all policy makers and development actors and serves to guide them in strengthening their development partnership.

Phnom Penh, May 2016

CHIN BUN SEAN Senior Minister in charge of Special Missions Vice Chairman, Council for the Development of Cambodia

ii

Executive Summary

The development cooperation context, both global and national, has rapidly evolved over the last decade. The role of ODA has also changed with alternative sources of development finance in order to achieve SDGs by 2030. Therefore, ODA can play an important role in leveraging all sources of development finance including improving tax reforms, domestic revenue and budget management, public-private partnership and promoting FDI, and emerging priorities like Climate Finance to support Government’s reforms and public service delivery. To contextualize the evolution of these global commitments, the Royal Government has currently developed strategic policies – principally the Rectangular Strategy-Phase III and NSDP (2014-2018) – to set out priority actions to guide long-term development. The Royal Government has also participated in the second round of Busan Global Partnership Monitoring to monitor the results-based partnership in Cambodia. Through its rapid economic growth, Cambodia is re-classified as a Lower-Middle Income Country in 2016 and begins to look towards transition from Least Developed Country (LDC) status. Results–Based Partnership 2015 Efforts to promote results-based partnership in 2015 focused on strengthening the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) and the Joint Monitoring Indicators (JMIs 2014-2018). A “Mutual Accountability and Partnerships for Results” report, published by CRDB/CDC in early 2016, highlighted progress on JMI implementation and provided recommendations for strengthening TWG performance in the short and medium term. The TWG review and the strengthening exercise, as an important part of the Government’s development effectiveness work in 2015, were followed up and have resulted in a new approved TWG Guideline. At the same time, the JMIs for 2014-2018 have been monitored to ensure that they remain closely aligned with sector and NSDP goals. To monitor the results-based partnership in Cambodia, both the Busan and DCPS indicators identify a largely-common set of monitoring indicators that are in line with global and national development effectiveness priorities. In summary, 2015 data shows that significant progress has been made in the use of PFM systems, which is driven by the increase in loans and grant-funded investment projects. The use of results frameworks has also increased. However, in most cases, the targets are still some way off, emphasizing the requirement to move forward with establishing PBAs (only 28% of total support) that can promote improvements across a range of indicators such as using results frameworks, improving aid predictability, integrating aid into the national/sector budget as well as strengthening and using country systems. Aid on budget (79%) and predictability (121%) remain at a commendable aggregate level, but there is much variation amongst development partners, while most development partners untie their aid. For individual results by development partners and sectors, only 37% of ODA (239 out of 621 projects) uses results frameworks in a way that supports sector/thematic work, with impressive support by World Bank, IFAD and ADB. Industrialization & Trade, Tourism and Education are the leading sectors with over half of their ODA using a results framework that is linked to a Government plan. Loan providers such as China, ADB, South Korea and France make significant use of country systems through their use of the SOPs, together with sector budget support providers such as Sweden and the EU. Most grant-funding providers of technical cooperation make little use of PFM systems and remain largely off-budget. Health and HIV/AIDS are amongst the leading sectors in use of PBAs, while private-related sectors, together with education and climate change, also appear to be making progress in this work. Development partners (and sectors) together with investment grant providers such as Switzerland and others such as GAVI with high loan/ODA ratios featured at the top of the on-budget ranking. For aid predictability there is significant fluctuation around the mean with development partners within the 100% range including Australia, Japan, ADB and Korea. Trends in Development Cooperation In 2015, ODA disbursements accounted for 1.34 billion (83% of DP funds and 17% of NGO core funds), a decrease of 7% comparing to 2014 data (USD 1.45 billion). In 2011, the ODA amount significantly increased around 30% from the 2010 value (around USD 1.1 billion). External

iii

cooperation levels appear to have peaked at almost USD 1.5 billion in 2012. The Aid/GDP ratio is now reducing quite rapidly, from 11% in 2011 to 7.4% in 2015. ODA per capita (2011-2015) has averaged around USD 97 annually. During the last three years (2012-2014), ODA grants have comprised a significant share of development contribution, approximately 60% of total aid. But the grant share has reduced over the last decade from over 80% in 2006 to less than 60% in 2015. China remains the single largest provider of external development cooperation in 2015, disbursing USD 348.8 million representing 26% of total resources, with Japan (10%) and ADB (10%) making up the three largest providers of development cooperation.

For sector disbursements in 2015, the social sectors received the largest share of ODA disbursements, accounting for 37% of the total, followed by the infrastructure sector, around 30%. Economic sectors shared 20% while cross-cutting sectors received 13%. Significant funds continue to be allocated across five main sectors including transportation, health, education, agriculture and community and social welfare (21%, 14%, 13%, 12%, and 8% respectively). Technical cooperation provision has been stable during the last four years (2012-2015) at approximately USD 350 million per year, when there was a notably increasing provision of investment projects accounting for about USD 1 billion annually. The 2015 data reveals that the Infrastructure and Regional Integration-TWG coordinates the largest portfolio (USD 336 million) in 2015, 30% of funding but only 10% of total projects. It is also significant to note that just over half of all projects (323/630), representing 30% of total funding, are not associated with any TWGs. This emphasises the need for mechanisms outside of the TWG framework to support coordination work. Data on NGOs shows that, in 2015, their core fund disbursements contributed about 17% of total external cooperation support to health, education and community and social welfare. USA (65% of its portfolio support) and the European Commission (17% of its total own resource) were the largest funding sources in support to NGO activities in 2015. Notably, amongst the 439 NGOs reporting activities to CDC in 2015, the 23 largest ones represented 53% of total NGO financial activities.

Trends in development assistance Disbursement Trends (USD million) Development partner disbursements (USD million)

2011 2012 2013 2014

2015

(est) %

UN (Core) 56.5 53.7 48.6 52.5 46.1 3.4%

World Bank 73.8 66.0 35.5 50.6 17.6 1.3%

IMF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

ADB 126.9 82.0 171.4 129.8 133.0 9.9%

GAVI Alliance

6.7 4.9 10.7 2.5 18.9 1.4%

Global Fund 60.2 20.1 45.4 54.6 33.3 2.5%

UN & Multilateral

324.1 226.8 311.6 290.0 249.0 18.5%

EU/EC 61.0 41.6 36.6 70.6 57.0 4.2%

Finland 6.9 4.4 5.4 4.4 0.0 0.0%

France 19.5 24.8 17.8 62.6 46.1 3.4%

Germany 43.7 44.6 34.3 28.9 25.8 1.9%

Ireland 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.0%

Spain 33.6 8.8 4.1 1.6 0.0 0.0%

Sweden 28.6 30.2 33.8 41.1 25.3 1.9%

UK 34.2 28.2 13.7 0.1 0.2 0.0%

EU Partners 236.1 187.9 148.3 211.0 156.3 12%

Australia 78.2 79.5 59.3 66.2 45.1 3.4%

Canada 18.5 20.5 11.8 4.5 3.8 0.3%

China 332.0 460.7 436.6 343.0 348.8 26.0%

Japan 114.4 172.3 130.8 111.4 135.0 10.1%

New Zealand 4.4 3.8 3.2 6.0 3.5 0.3%

Korea 45.3 46.2 50.1 77.9 55.9 4.2%

Switzerland 4.5 4.3 7.8 11.8 13.1 1.0%

USA 64.4 85.0 93.5 90.9 105.1 7.8%

Other Bilat' 661.8 872.3 793.1 711.8 710.2 52.9%

NGOs own 200.7 212.3 225.9 231.3 227.5 16.9%

Total 1,422.6 1,499.2 1,478.9 1,444.1 1,343.0 100%

2015 Sector allocations (USD million)

Source: Cambodia ODA Database (March 2016)

iv

Cross-Cutting Thematic Profiles As Cambodia’s reforms move forward and the economy becomes more sophisticated, so the development challenges confronting the country become more cross-sectoral in nature. Addressing these challenges demands the mobilisation of resources and coordination of effort across a range of cross-cutting issues that require a multi-stakeholder response. The Cambodia ODA Database is designed to support planning, coordination and monitoring as well as promoting resource transparency. But it can also make an important contribution to addressing cross-cutting issues such as climate change, gender, private sector development, etc. Following modifications to the ODA Database in late-2015, thematic markers show a range of contributions to cross-cutting issues gauged as significant, moderate or minor in cross-cutting issues. These can be used as a basis of improving the project information for further analysis by responsible ministries that lead the coordination of such cross-cutting efforts. ODA support to the promotion of gender equality: The 2015 data indicated that a significant share of ODA resources, more than 20%, contributes to gender equality. Projects with a value of more than USD 238 million of ODA are recorded as having made some form of contribution to gender equality in 2015 while gender as a principal ‘sector’ received USD 5.74 million. From the perspective of development partners, the largest contributors to gender as a principal sector include Australia (USD 2.4 million), UN agencies (USD 1.9 million) and Japan (USD 0.7 million). Governance, Emergency, Education, HIV/AIDS and Health sectors are the most mainstreamed sectors that support Gender mainstreaming work within their portfolio disbursements. In summary, gender-specific projects implemented by MOWA make up a very small fraction of the resources involved in gender work, yet the true nature of cross-cutting engagement is demonstrated by mainstreaming achievements by development partners. ODA support to climate change: Data shows that Sweden, EU and UNIDO are the main resource providers to support climate change sector with disbursement accounts for 24.1%, 23.2%, and 11.7% of total climate principal source respectively. In 2015, total ODA funds to climate change as a principal sector was USD 7.1 million addressing the increase of 14.5% from 2014 while climate change mainstreaming support as ‘Thematic Marker’ declined of around 15% from USD 159.5 million in 2014. The agriculture, transportation and environment sectors are the largest climate change ‘mainstreaming sectors’ with a combined USD 100 million (70% of climate change mainstreamed funds). The environment, climate change, urban planning, agriculture and rural development are major sectors that have mainstreamed the largest share of climate change of their own sector portfolio. ODA support to private sector development: Projects with a value of USD 237 million accounts for 21% of ODA are recorded as having made some form of contribution to PSD in 2015. ITC, industrialization and trade and environment and sustainability are leading sectors that have mainstreamed the largest share of their sector portfolio account for more than 50% of total sector disbursements. The education, agriculture and transportation sectors are the largest sectors with a combined total of more than USD 100 million of PSD mainstreamed funds, which made up 15.5%, 15.4%, and 13.5% of total marker respectively. However, two largest sectors – transportation and health – that received larger support of ODA have only less mainstreamed PSD of around 10% of their portfolios respectively. ODA support to agriculture: USD 162 million, equivalent to 15% of total 2015 ODA, has been allocated to support agriculture sector in which the three largest sub-sectors are: (i) agriculture water and irrigation sub-sector, which received more than 70%; (ii) extension services, 8.2%; and (iii) food security and nutrition, 4.4% of total sector allocation. The main three development partners are China, UN agencies and ADB. Other notable point of disbursements were recorded that all DPs contribute to agriculture less than 35% of their total own funding, indicating that there may be scope for increased specialisation and focus.

v

Support to Industrial Development In Cambodia, the Industrial Development Policy (IDP), a policy framework to promote the country's industrial development, was launched by Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia on 26 August 2015. The IDP aims to maintain sustainable and inclusive high economic growth through economic diversification, strengthening competitiveness and promoting productivity. The IDP-related contribution of ODA is to create an enabling environment for supporting private investment, to serve as a catalyst for mobilising other forms of development finance as well as to provide a direct source of funding for IDP-related public goods and services, significantly the support of four potential areas including(i) support to public infrastructure and logistics development; (ii) direct partnerships with the private sector; (iii) support for strategic investments in trade facilitation and the promotion of economic competiveness; and (iv) support to Government’s efforts to enhance the enabling environment and promote investment. CRDB/CDC’s main task to support resource mobilisation and coordination of external development cooperation to support the IDP implementation starts with the identification of ODA-funded projects that support the IDP in the ODA Database by mapping the sectors and sub-sectors of the ODA Database to the priority programmes and sub-programs of the IDP. Results show that a total of almost USD 95 million, representing 8.5% of total ODA (excluding NGO funds), was disbursed to sectors that support the IDP in 2015. Overall the largest sources of support were from China, Japan, ADB and France, but the data also indicates that 17 development partners in total are active in supporting projects that contribute to IDP implementation mostly in Program 3 – Supporting Policies or in the energy and transportation sectors that comprise 2 of the 4 concrete measures to be implemented by 2018. Over the 5-year period (2014-2018), total ODA funding averaging around USD 100 million annually support IDP. The 4 Key Measures (energy, transport link, labour market mechanisms, and Sihanouk Ville SEZ) account for more than 70% of funding secured to date, mainly from China, Japan and ADB. CRDB/CDC will support the production of an investment plan, conduct needs assessment exercise to identify needs/priority actions and confirm gaps and lead resource mobilisation efforts based on the plan, which will be shared across Government and with development partners to inform a wider Government effort to pursue a pro-active approach to identifying/engaging partners and mobilising IDP resources beyond ODA.

1

1. Introduction

Towards an Effective Development Cooperation Architecture The development cooperation context, both global and national, has rapidly evolved over the last decade. Most significantly, Cambodia is re-classified as a Lower-Middle Income Country in 2016 and is now contemplating graduation from the Least Developed Country group. Since the Millennium Declaration on Development Goals, the Post 2015 Development Agenda and major global commitments have emerged to address 21st century development challenges. The development cooperation agreements made in Paris (2005), Accra (2008), have focused on strengthening national ownership, resource alignment, harmonized process and mutual accountability for results. These have been significantly accelerated in the Busan (2011) and Mexico (2014) High-Level Forums on Effective Development Cooperation, which emphasized development effectiveness through strengthening effective partnerships with a wider range of development actors including the recognition of roles of private sector, non-state actors and South-South Cooperation. Currently, those commitments have been strongly emphasized whereas the world has shifted development concentration to a more results-oriented approach. In the frameworks of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development, the role of ODA has evolved with alternative sources of development finance, including domestic resource mobilisation, taking their place at the vanguard of efforts to attain SDGs by 2030. ODA, which in Cambodia is beginning to move from grant to loan financing, continues to play an important role in leveraging other resources, especially in addressing inequality and vulnerability and in supporting Government reforms aimed at public service delivery, including improving tax reforms, domestic revenue and budget management, public-private partnership and promoting FDI. Emerging priorities are also addressed, especially in scaling up of climate finance. In the Cambodian context, the Royal Government has contextualized these global commitments and has formulated a number of policy initiatives on development cooperation. The impressive progress made towards national socio-economic development and the Cambodia Millennium Development Goals over the last two decades is a testament to the Royal Government’s leadership and its ability to promote social and economic well-being. As part of its commitment to the global partnership, the Royal Government has also participated in the second round of monitoring of the Busan Global Partnership to monitor the result-based partnership in Cambodia in line with global and national development effectiveness priorities. The forthcoming global High Level Meeting in November 2016 in Nairobi will provide a platform for discussion on how development cooperation can support the broader Financing for Development and 2030 sustainable development agendas. To consolidate and maintain this progress, the Royal Government has produced the Rectangular Strategy-Phase III and the NSDP to set out and implement priority actions for the period 2014-2018. These priorities, the RS-III, the NSDP and the CMDGs have shaped Cambodia’s development policies, guided implementation, and are further elaborated with the adoption of Cambodia’s first Industrial Development Policy (IDP), which was launched on 26 August 2015. The Industrial

Clarifying Lower-Middle Income and LDC status Cambodia approaches the threshold for classification as a Lower-Middle Income Country in 2016. However it will continue to be categorized as a Least Developed Country (LDC) for some time. Graduation to lower-middle-income status Based on the current World Bank data in fiscal year 2016, low-income economies are defined as those with a GNI per capita of $1,045 or less in 2014. Cambodia’s 2014 GNI per capita, according to World Bank data, was $1,020. Based on an estimated growth rate of 7%, Cambodia will surpass the current threshold and will therefore be eligible for re-classification as a Lower-Middle-Income Country in 2016. This will affect Cambodia’s access to concessional “IDA only” resources as Cambodia will be termed a “blend country”. Graduation from Least Developed Country status The LDC classification is administered by the UN and is distinct from the World Bank’s income-based country classification. The UN Committee for Development Policy (CDP) identifies LDCs based on three criteria: (i) per capita gross national income (GNI), (ii) human assets, and (iii) economic vulnerability. Classifications are reviewed every three years. Graduation eligibility requires meeting two of the three main criterion or having a GNI of twice the threshold (i.e. currently about $2,200). Once, placed on the graduation list, status shall be reviewed at the next CDP review (3 years later) and then confirmed by the UN General Assembly the following year. A 3-year transition is then provided for and removal from the LDC list will be followed within 3 years after the General Assembly resolution. For Cambodia, LDC status will therefore remain for some further years.

2

Development Policy (2015-2025) was also prepared to provide overall guidance and systematic solutions to promote long-term development through improving competitive industrial sectors in Cambodia to achieve a full integration into regional and global value chains. In recognition of the important role to be played by its development partners, the Royal Government has well-implemented the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy (2014-2018). This Strategy identifies the effective working arrangements, principles and tools that are required to facilitate development effectiveness and results-based partnership amongst a wide range of development actors, including providers of ODA and other forms of development finance, South-South actors, the private sector and NGOs. At the same time that the national and global development landscape has changed and will continue to evolve, significant development results have been achieved across a wider range of sectors and reform agendas. Cambodia ranked at number 5 amongst developing countries that could achieve the MDGs earlier than the United Nations target of 2015. The high economic growth rate over last decade contributed to a sustained poverty reduction rate, with the poverty headcount ratio decreasing from 47.8% in 2007 to 13.5% in 2014. GNI per capita in average recorded an annual compound increase of 7.1% since 2007 and is now in excess of USD 1,200 per capita. The Royal Government has also greatly improved human development as measured by HDI – life expectancy at birth, educational attainment and providing decent living standards – at an annual growth rate about 1.7% between 1990 and 2012. This is faster than both low and medium HDI groups. Based on this empirical evidence, Cambodia is positioned at the threshold of upgrading from Low Income Country and attaining Lower-Middle Income Country (LMIC) status; however, it is likely to continue to be categorized as a Least Developed Country (LDC) for perhaps another decade. As Cambodia is re-classified as a Lower-Middle Income Country in 2016, there has been some discussion and anticipation regarding what might be expected to happen to net ODA after this date. It is commonly understood that two things may happen once a country moves from the Low-Income group to the Lower-Middle Income Country category:

(i) Net ODA falls as new disbursements are reduced or are off-set by loan amortization

(ii) Grant-funding is replaced by concessional loans and non-ODA development finance. Global data, sourced from the World Bank, provides evidence on the first of these possible outcomes. Annex One shows data for 21 countries that have become LMICs since 2003. In common with Cambodia, 11 of these countries continue to be classified as LDCs. In the years after LMIC re-classification there is no clear evidence of either a net increase or decrease in ODA, emphasizing that country context will remain a key determinant of ODA mobilisation. Principles of LDC graduation Cambodia is now preparing to build on its impressive development record and to seek LDC graduation, which depends on more than income levels. This will require progress over the medium-term on three components that reflects socio-economic development as well as income. To graduate from LDC status, Table 1, overleaf, shows that a country requires attaining a threshold on a wide range of variables related to income, a human assets index and an economic vulnerability index.

This report presents data and analysis concerning support provided by development partners. The main year of focus for the analysis is 2015, although longer-run trends are also reviewed. The information provided here shows the continued important role of development partners; their contributions need to be viewed as much more than a source of development finance so that we fully acknowledge the expertise, technical input and knowledge that is also represented across all of the sectors, cross-cutting issues and reforms that are supported. In this way all development objectives can be achieved, including to accelerate graduation from LDC status.

3

Table 1. LDC graduation critieria – 3 components Income Human Asset Index Economic Vulnerability Index

The threshold for graduation is set at USD $1,242 in 2015 (20% above the inclusion threshold of USD 1,035).

A country can graduate by having twice the GNI threshold. (USD 2,484 in 2015(even if the other 2 components are not met).

Percentage of population undernourished (25%)

Mortality rate (under-fives) (25%)

Gross secondary school enrolment ratio (25%)

Adult literacy rate (25%)

Exposure index (50%) Size: population (12.5%) Location: remoteness (12.5%) Economic structure:

(a) Merchandise export concentration (6.25%) (b) Agriculture/forest/fish share (6.25%) Environment: population in low-elevation coastal zones (12.5%) Shock index (50%) Trade shocks: Instability of good & services exports (25%) Natural shocks: (a) Victims of natural disasters (12.5%) (b) Instability of agricultural production (12.5%)

Source: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/ldc/ldc_criteria.shtml

As Cambodia now looks forward to becoming a Lower-Middle Income Country and begins to localize and implement the 2030 Sustainable Development agenda, these partnerships must continue to be strengthened as well as adapted to the evolving needs and priorities of Cambodia, its economy and its people.

4

2. Monitoring a Results-Based Partnership

Efforts to implement the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy and to promote results-based partnership in 2015 focused on JMI monitoring and strengthening the Technical Working Groups (TWGs). Technical Working Groups are the principal mechanisms for coordination and partnership dialogue, in which the JMIs address both the 'managing for development results' agenda as well as promoting the 'mutual accountability' principles of effective development cooperation. A “Mutual Accountability and Partnerships for Results” was published by CRDB/CDC in early 2016. This reported progress on JMI implementation and recounted the six main recommendations for strengthening TWG performance in the short and medium term:

Full implementation of the Development Cooperation and Partnership Strategy

A more active role for CDC in providing leadership for the overall TWG mechanism

Improved accountability and follow-up for performance and progress towards JMIs

Reviewing the coverage and relevance of the TWG mechanism

Implement a review of TWG functions and performance at individual TWG level

Revise the Guidelines on the Role and Functioning of the Technical Working Groups The follow-up to the TWG review and the strengthening exercise has therefore comprised an important part of the Government’s development effectiveness work in 2015 and has resulted in a new TWG Guideline being approved by Samdech Prime Minister HUN SEN in January 2016. At the same time, the JMIs for 2014-2018, which represent medium-term goals based on development outcomes that have been prioritized in the Rectangular Strategy-Phase III, have been monitored to ensure that they remain closely aligned with sector and NSDP goals. Monitoring the development partnership in 2015 In the latter part of the year, the Royal Government also prepared to participate in the second round of monitoring of the Busan Global Partnership. To monitor the result-based partnership in Cambodia, the Busan indicators as well as the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy utilise a largely-common set of monitoring indicators that are in line with global and national development effectiveness priorities. To ensure accuracy, transparency and efficiency in conducting the global survey, the ODA Database has been adapted to gather the required data at project-level in order to produce the required indicators. By using the ODA Database for national monitoring as well as for global surveys linked to the Busan commitments, it is therefore possible to obtain detailed and accurate data that can inform the national development effectiveness dialogue. The objectives, indicators and targets included in the DCPS results framework are as follows (with PBAs and tied aid not being part of the Busan global survey):

Objective 1: External resources are used to promote effective and sustainable development

1a) Extent of use country results frameworks by development partners (baseline & target: tbc)

1b) Share of ODA provided through programme-based approaches (baseline: 28%; target 50%)

1c) Share of untied aid (maintain at > 60%)

Objective 2: Partnerships focus on capacity development & systems strengthening

2a) Use of country PFM systems (baseline: 32%; target: 50%)

2b) Use of country procurement systems (baseline: 20%; target: 35%)

5

Objective 3: All development actors join a partnership for equitable & broad-based growth 3a) Aid on-budget (baseline: 79%; target: 90%) & disbursed on schedule (baseline: 91%; target: 95%)

3b) Conducting annual meetings & mutual assessments of progress, incl. JMIs

Using 2015 disbursement data it is possible to generate the most recent performance statistics, which were submitted to the Global Partnership Secretariat in March 2016. Publishing and analysing these results here is intended to stimulate discussion at sector level on how further progress can be realised. Following a lengthy validation process in quarter 1 of 2016, the overall quality of data provided to the ODA Database is now considered to be very good and the figures can therefore form the basis for evidence-based dialogue.

Table 2. Progress towards DCPS indicators

2015 value 2018 target 2010

(reference)

2007

(reference)

1a) Use of results framework 37% 50% --- ---

1b) Use of PBAs 28% 50% 35% 28%

1c) Share of untied aid 57% > 60% 59% 52%

2a) Use of PFM systems 57% 50% 21% 12%

2b) Use of procurement

systems 26% 35% 24% 16%

3a) Aid on-budget

Predictability

79%

121%

90%

95%

114%

91%

85%

104%

3b) Mutual assessments of

progress (JMIs)

JMIs monitoring

report in 2015

Final progress

report produced Yes Yes

There has been some progress and significant improvements. Most noteworthy is the increase in use of PFM systems, which is driven by the increase in loans and grant-funded investment projects. The use of results frameworks has also increased over the last year when informal monitoring of their use first began; a target of 50% of total funding to be managed in a results framework has been established as a target. In most cases, the targets are still some way off, however, emphasising the requirement to move forward with establishing PBAs (still at 28% of total support) that can promote improvements across a range of indicators such as using results frameworks, improving aid predictability, integrating aid into the national/sector budget as well as strengthening and using country systems (especially in procurement, which shows little progress and will require actions to strengthen the system as well as to facilitate the use of the system by development partners). Aid on budget (79%) and predictability (121%, meaning that more funds were disbursed than planned) remain at a commendable aggregate level although improvements in placing aid on budget have stagnated but there is much variation amongst development partners (see Table 3 below). While most development partners untie their aid, the total figure is affected by some partners that provide significant sums of support, of which the majority is tied. Overall progress has been more than satisfactory. The data is then disaggregated to include a presentation by development partner and sector. This is made possible by using the Cambodia ODA Database to gather data at the level of the project record, which results in the potential for increased accuracy as well as efficiency in reporting (there was no additional transaction cost or reporting burden for development partners associated with this exercise). The individual results for development partners are presented in Table 3 below. There is significant variation across almost all indicators of development effectiveness: from 0-100% for use of results frameworks, PBAs, tied aid, use of procurement systems, and aid on budget.

6

Table 3. 2015 Development Effectiveness Indicators (by development partner)

Objective 1. External resources

promote effective and sustainable

development

Objective 2. Capacity &

systems strengthening

Objective 3. Planning & budgeting for equitable and

broad-based growth

Results Frameworks

PBA

(%)

Untied

aid

(%)

Use of

PFM

systems

(%)

Use of

procurement

systems

(%)

Aid on

Budget

%

Predictable

aid (%)

1-year Plan

shared with

counterpart

3-year Plan

shared with

counterpart % of

USD

No. of

projects

UN agencies 60% 27/84 59% 100% 3% 0% 0% 137% Yes Yes

IFAD 99% 6/7 72% 94% 4% 6% 100% 108% Yes Yes

ADB 86% 60/65 52% 94% 97% 97% 90% 94% Yes Yes

World Bank 100% 5/5 99% 100% 33% 100% 94% 43% Yes Yes

Global Fund 68% 6/7 84% 59% 0% 0% 100% 355% Yes No

GAVI 0% 0/7 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 649% Yes Yes

EU/EC 65% 13/68 78% 99% 38% 62% 62% 83% Yes Yes

Czech Rep 0% 0/19 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes No

France 11% 4/34 1% 100% 36% 38% 62% 57% Yes No

Germany 44% 7/24 53% 75% 4% 0% 33% 215% Yes Yes

Ireland 0% 0/1 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% No No

Sweden 36% 5/30 50% 100% 47% 47% 0% 64% Yes Yes

UK 0% 0/13 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes No

Australia 83% 10/20 48% 72% 0% 0% 4% 104% Yes Yes

Canada 0% 0/14 2% 98% 0% 0% 0% 11% Yes Yes

China 0% 0/27 0% 0% 99% 0% 100% 137% Yes Yes

Japan 57% 61/91 15% 100% 28% 28% 89% 118% Yes Yes

New Zealand 60% 2/5 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 402% Yes Yes

Rep of Korea 32% 20/35 31% 11% 53% 15% 46% 84% Yes Yes

Switzerland 59% 11/17 47% 100% 27% 27% 100% 877% Yes Yes

USA 0% 2/48 0% 35% 0% 1% 0% 0% Yes Yes

Total 37% 239/621 28% 57% 57% 26% 79% 121% 99% 89%

The use of the ODA Database to gather data on development effectiveness commitments and produce the indicators has the additional advantage of permitting sector-based estimates as well as those for development partners. This analysis can inform Government ministries and TWGs in their development effectiveness and coordination efforts. PBA work can prove to be particularly decisive in advancing aid effectiveness indicators as this can address programming (results-setting), budget and predictability, and strengthening of systems. Some sectors appear to be making good progress across a range of indicators. Education is perhaps the best sector example: nearly half of all projects (representing 68% of total funding) make use of results frameworks, and nearly 60% of aid is managed through the sector PBA. Health & HIV/AIDS also demonstrate the enduring strength of their SWiM approach, with 65% and 95% of funds through the PBA, although aid predictability in HIV/AIDS funding needs to improve through more attention to ex ante reporting. Industrialisation & trade, which covers much of the newly-established Industrial Development Policy, also displays consistently high scores across a range of indicators. Similarly, climate change, which is another sector expected to receive increased funding over the medium-term, although there is little use of RGC systems in this thematic area. Relevant Ministries, together with their development partners active in each sector are encouraged to take note of these findings and to use PBAs as a tool to improve resource planning and use of country systems and results frameworks.

7

Table 4. 2015 Development Effectiveness Indicators (by sector)

Objective 1. External resources promote

effective and sustainable development

Objective 2. Capacity &

systems strengthening

Objective 3. Planning &

budgeting for equitable

and broad-based growth

Results Frameworks PBA

(%)

Untied

aid

(%)

Use of PFM

systems

(%)

Use of

procurement

systems

(%)

Aid on

Budget

%

Predictable

aid (%) % of

USD

No. of

projects

Agriculture 36% 48/98 32% 41% 64% 19% 73% 156%

Business & Fin’l Services 28% 7/17 63% 96% 90% 90% 66% 76%

Climate Change 52% 7/22 40% 97% 2% 4% 59% 66%

Community & Social Welfare 13% 4/22 6% 46% 78% 0% 75% 94%

Culture & Arts 22% 2/11 2% 80% 0% 0% 0% 164%

Education 68% 43/95 58% 85% 44% 54% 69% 129%

Emergency & Food Aid 42% 3/5 0% 100% 99% 99% 0% 1143%

Energy 21% 2/13 0% 16% 87% 12% 92% 189%

Environment & Sustainability 61% 6/23 26% 97% 27% 28% 89% 36%

Gender 62% 6/16 26% 99% 0% 0% 0% 55%

Governance & Admin 41% 25/101 33% 81% 11% 27% 37% 93%

Health 52% 34/74 65% 54% 2% 4% 73% 175%

HIV/AIDS 26% 2/7 96% 71% 0% 3% 0% 1699%

Industrialization & Trade 98% 5/7 62% 100% 0% 50% 93% 38%

Rural Development 47% 10/25 41% 91% 24% 17% 83% 55%

Technology, Info & Com. 0% 0/6 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%

Tourism 87% 3/4 0% 100% 85% 85% 84% 57%

Transportation 26% 20/49 0% 34% 91% 28% 95% 115%

Urban Planning 9% 4/6 0% 100% 12% 12% 100% 50%

Water and Sanitation 37% 7/14 11% 67% 53% 10% 96% 63%

Total 37% 239/621 28% 57% 57% 26% 79% 121%

Currently, in USD terms, only 37% of ODA (239 out of 621 projects) uses results frameworks in a way that supports sector/thematic work. World Bank, IFAD and ADB show an impressive use of results frameworks across their portfolios, suggesting that multilateral programming practices are making good progress in becoming more results-focused. Industrialisation & trade, tourism and education are the lead sectors (shown in Chart 1) with over half of their ODA represented in a results framework that is linked to a Government plan.

Chart 1. Use of Results Frameworks in 2015 (% of total funding)

Programme-based Approaches (PBAs) have been advocated as Government’s preferred

arrangement for managing ODA partnerships since 2010. Health and HIV/AIDS are amongst the

leading sectors (with health partners such as GAVI, GFATM, Germany, the UN and World Bank).

Private sector-related sectors, together with education and climate change, also appear to be

making progress in their PBA work.

8

Overall, however, the total ODA managed through PBAs remains low at 28%. The key to making

progress in the aggregate indicator is to identify larger sectors that can usefully employ this

approach and then to make a concerted effort to engage development partners active in those

sectors (agriculture, for example).

Chart 2. Use of PBAs in 2015 (% of total funding)

Together with PBAs, a major thrust of the Development Cooperation & Partnerships Strategy is the

strengthening and use of country systems. This is measured according to use of PFM (budget,

financial reporting and audit) and procurement systems. Data for the two measures is highly

correlated so only PFM system use is presented here (Chart 3, below). Loan providers such as

China, ADB, Korea and France make significant use of country systems through their use of the

SOPs, together with sector budget support providers such as Sweden and the EU. Most grant-

funding providers of technical cooperation make little to no use of PFM systems and their support

therefore remains largely off-budget and outside of central Government fiduciary oversight. As the

PFM reform progresses, especially with the roll out of programme budgeting and the use of the

Budget Strategic Plan, more ODA funds should be able to make use of country PFM systems and

ensure that the steady progress recorded since 2006 is continued. This will enhance planning,

strengthen accountability for resource use and, above all, will enable the link between resources and

results to be demonstrated and better understood.

Chart 3. Use of PFM systems in 2015 (% of funding to Government sector)

Associated with the use of PFM system is the priority need for ODA that is reflected in Government

programmes to be included in the budget planning exercise (if not explicitly included in the budget

itself). Almost 80% of ODA scheduled for disbursement to the Government sector is considered to

have been included in the budget exercise. All loans are automatically included in the budget

resulting in those development partners (and sectors) with high loan/ODA ratios featuring at the top

of the on-budget ranking together with investment grant providers such as Switzerland and others

such as GAVI that have well-established processes for ensuring that projections are made available

to Government in good time to be included in budgeting.

9

Again, the use of PBAs, which should include an emphasis on coordinated planning and resource

transparency as well as the use of the Budget Strategic Plan, will ensure that development

cooperation is included in the budget planning process.

Chart 4. Aid On-budget in 2015 (% of funding to Government sector)

As the budget is the primary means for Government to implement its policies and achieve its

Rectangular Strategy objectives, the provision of predictable funding is therefore imperative (Chart

5). At the aggregate level, Cambodia has performed well against this measure since the Paris

Declaration monitoring exercise began in 2006. For 2015, 121% of the resources scheduled for

disbursement in 2015 (data provided in October 2014) was delivered. There is significant fluctuation

around the mean, however, with development partners within a reasonable margin of the 100%

measure including Australia, Japan, ADB and Korea (again, mainly loan providers). For partners that

appear to struggle with predictability, one of three things is going wrong: (a) a lack of attention to

providing accurate forecasts; (b) implementation differs radically from the plan; or (c) mis-recording

of data (at plan or reporting stage), e.g. in categorising aid for the Government sector. Accurate

programming, data recording and disbursement reporting are important parts of the planning

exercise that can benefit programme implementation as well as monitoring.

Chart 5. Predictability (funding to Government sector as % of scheduled)

Efforts to strengthen medium-term planning have paid some dividends, however, as, using 2015

weighted disbursements as a baseline, 99% of ODA provision is reported in 2016 schedules and

89% over the period 2016-2018. This commitment to medium-term planning and predictability was a

key global commitment made by all development partners in 2008 as part of the Accra Agenda for

Action. For some years it has proved to be difficult but there are now encouraging signs that

development partners are using the ODA Database to support forward planning. For sectors, it can

be seen that few, if any, receive resourcing at close to the 100% level. Implementation can therefore

be extremely challenging, especially where complementary Government programmes are in place.

In important areas such as industry & trade, and environment, less than half the scheduled funds

were disbursed.

10

By publishing these figures and analysis that were principally used for the Busan global survey, and

extending it to sectors, it is hoped that all development partners – who are the primary source of this

data – will work closely with Government to strengthen partnership practices. There are encouraging

signs of progress. Use of country systems is one example of where significant gains have been

made as this indicator has increased incrementally in each monitoring exercise from 12% in 2007 to

57% in 2015. Similarly, aggregate levels of on-budget aid and predictability have been maintained at

commendable levels even though disaggregated data shows room for improved attention to

providing full details of intended project disbursements.

The use of results frameworks that are linked to Government plans and monitoring systems have

become a central part of the development effectiveness effort and have also shown strong

improvement with more than one-third of all projects (and 75% of projects approved in 2015) having

results frameworks that are closely linked to national/sector M&E systems. The sharing of forward-

plans on resourcing has also now become more of an established routine. The overall survey results

that show good progress has been made and that further efforts can yield even better results in the

future. This will be very important as Government begins to plan and prepare to implement new

policies and plans such as the Industrial Development Policy and the 2030 Sustainable

Development Agenda.

11

3. Trends in Development Cooperation

To complement the report on progress of the results-based partnership in Cambodia, this chapter highlights the main trends in the provision of development assistance, principally focusing on the period 2014-2015 but also taking account of past trends as well as projections for 2016-2018. It also highlights sector trends and the significant role of development partners in aligning their resources with national development priorities. Total Disbursements and the Contribution of Development Cooperation The Royal Government acknowledges the efforts made by most development partners that have made significant progress in providing information in a timely manner through the Cambodia ODA Database. Confirmed disbursements, shown in Chart 6 below reveals, at the aggregate level, in 2011, the ODA amount increased around 30% from the 2010 value (around USD 1.1 billion) mainly due to China’s expanding program of support. ODA levels appear to have peaked at almost USD 1.5 billion in 2012. From 2013 to 2015, ODA levels have decreased gradually and the 2015 level is 10% lower than the 2012 amount. In 2015, ODA disbursements accounted for 1.34 billion (83% of DP funds and 17% of NGO core funds), a decrease of 7% compared to the 2014 amount (USD 1.45 billion). Data for 2016 and beyond is neither complete nor accurate in terms of long-term planned disbursement information provided by development partners and highlights the requirement for improved forecasting. Chart 6. Disbursements and projections 2007-2018 Chart 7. Major ODA trends

(Note: all data reported in this paper was extracted from the ODA and NGO Database on 29 March 2016)

During the last three years (2012-2014), whereas the loan share was only 40% per year, ODA grant (including NGO grant support) has made a significant share of development contribution. But the grant share of external cooperation has reduced over the last decade from over 80% in 2006 to less than 60% in 2016. Even though the grant share declined 7% in 2012 compared to 2011 provision – the peak year of grant receipts (USD 940.5 million) over the last decade – together with the upsurge of loan portion of 30%, the volume of ODA grant still exceeded the loan amount in each of the last three years, and should continue to be higher even in 2015 and next few years. Notably, both cases of exceeding of ODA grant over concessional loan and its stability over the last recent years has suggested that ODA trends are changing but at a gradual pace. Cambodia’s continued LDC status may mean grant funding is maintained though loan funding increases and it may be the case for the country to take advantage of this to ensure that development cooperation funds are used to the maximum effect. Long-term trends (Chart 7) indicates that the ODA/GDP ratio has decreased from 11% in 2012 to 7.4% in 2015, as GDP growth has remained robust while development cooperation has levelled off and declined. ODA per capita (2011-2015) has averaged around USD 97 annually.

12

Trends in Development Partner Disbursements Table 5 shows that five major development partners, including China, Japan, ADB, USA, and Republic of Korea, provided the largest share of ODA, accounting for approximately 60% of the total in 2015. Specifically, China provided almost USD 400 million annually over the last four years (2012-2015) and remains the single largest provider of external development cooperation, disbursing USD 348.8 million in 2015 representing 26% of total resources. Japan (10% of total cooperation) and ADB (10%) make up the three largest providers of development cooperation.

Table 5. Development partner funding 2007-2015 (USD million)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2015

(est) %

UN AGENCIES

Total Programs Delivered 98.6 118.8 148.9 114.0 89.5 88.1 93.2 98.3 83.7 6.2%

Total Own Funds Disbursed 58.3 73.2 101.8 73.9 56.5 53.7 48.6 52.5 46.1 3.4%

World Bank 47.5 41.7 60.4 56.9 73.8 66.0 35.5 50.6 17.6 1.3%

IMF 0.9 - - - - - - - - 0.0%

ADB 69.4 145.7 89.4 75.4 126.9 82.0 171.4 129.8 133.0 9.9%

GAVI Alliance - - 1.7 3.6 6.7 4.9 10.7 2.5 18.9 1.4%

Global Fund 21.1 38.6 46.5 61.2 60.2 20.1 45.4 54.6 33.3 2.5%

Sub-Total UN & Multilaterals 197.1 299.2 299.7 270.9 324.1 226.8 311.6 290.0 249.0 18.5%

European Union

European Commission 44.0 48.4 49.4 32.9 61.0 41.6 36.6 70.6 57.0 4.2%

Belgium 7.2 2.8 4.8 2.2 2.1 0.1 0.4 - - 0.0%

Czech Republic - - - - - - 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.1%

Denmark 9.8 10.6 13.8 15.7 5.7 4.9 - - - 0.0%

Finland 5.2 9.0 6.0 6.7 6.9 4.4 5.4 4.4 - 0.0%

France 21.7 29.8 25.4 22.4 19.5 24.8 17.8 62.6 46.1 3.4%

Germany 20.7 36.6 27.9 35.3 43.7 44.6 34.3 28.9 25.8 1.9%

Ireland - - 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.0%

Netherlands 0.1 2.2 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.0 - - - 0.0%

Spain 3.5 6.1 16.6 26.3 33.6 8.8 4.1 1.6 - 0.0%

Sweden 17.3 15.9 22.8 24.7 28.6 30.2 33.8 41.1 25.3 1.9%

United Kingdom 23.7 29.6 32.6 24.7 34.2 28.2 13.7 0.1 0.2 0.0%

Sub-Total: EU partners 153.2 190.9 200.7 192.7 236.1 187.9 148.3 210.9 156.3 12.0%

Other Bilateral Donors

Australia 29.6 49.1 47.8 63.4 78.2 79.5 59.3 66.2 45.1 3.4%

Canada 12.6 11.5 16.7 12.8 18.5 20.5 11.8 4.5 3.8 0.3%

China 92.4 95.4 114.7 154.1 332.0 460.7 436.6 343.0 348.8 26.0%

Japan 117.2 126.4 134.0 140.0 114.4 172.3 130.8 111.4 135.0 10.1%

New Zealand 4.5 2.8 2.3 5.2 4.4 3.8 3.2 6.0 3.5 0.3%

Republic of Korea 31.3 33.0 15.8 35.2 45.3 46.2 50.1 77.9 55.9 4.2%

Switzerland 3.6 3.9 3.0 3.1 4.5 4.3 7.8 11.8 13.1 1.0%

USA 58.1 55.7 56.9 63.3 64.4 85.0 93.5 90.9 105.1 7.8%

Sub-Total: Others 349.4 377.6 391.3 477.1 661.8 872.3 793.1 711.8 710.2 53.0%

NGOs (core funds) 77.7 110.8 108.5 165.0 200.7 212.3 225.9 231.3 227.5 16.9%

Grand Total 777.5 978.5 1,000.2 1,105.8 1,422.6 1,499.2 1,478.9 1,444.1 1,343.0 100.0%

Annual Changes in Development Partner Disbursement (2014-2015) Chart 8 highlights the annual aggregate change (2014-2015) of development cooperation financed by each development partner. In the previous analysis, overall ODA trends showed sign of descending, relevant to the reduction of support by some development partners such as the World Bank, Australia, Global Fund and EU. The disbursement from China in 2015 was significantly higher than the others. China’s ODA accounted for approximately USD 400 million annually over the last four years (2012-2015). Japan continues to be a major development cooperation provider for Cambodia, where its support

13

increased more than 20% comparing to 2014 provision (USD 111 million). In 2014, France changed the role in external resource provision by increasing the amount of ODA compared to its 2013 disbursement as a result of the introduction of its concessional loan program, including non-sovereign lending. However, ODA from World Bank markedly decreased around 65% from USD 50.5 million in 2014. Australia and Korea have also decreased their ODA provision by 32% and 28% respectively comparing to 2014 data.

Chart 8. Annual changes in development partner disbursements 2014-2015

Trends in Provision of Development Cooperation Funding by Sector Even though there was a 7% decline in ODA disbursements in 2015 compared to 2014, Table 6 shows that, in 2015, social sectors received the largest share of ODA disbursements accounting for 37% of the total, followed by infrastructure sector around 30%. Economic sectors shared 20% while cross-cutting sectors received 13%.

Table 6. Sector disbursements & projections 2007-2017 (USD million)

Sectors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

(proj) 2017 (proj) est %

Social Sectors

Health 107.1 136.7 161.8 211.4 205.3 203.0 203.9 195.7 192.0 14.3 146.9 61.1

Education 89.9 100.5 95.5 115.6 154.6 135.3 143.3 166.1 169.4 12.6 183.0 84.0

HIV/AIDS 42.0 57.9 56.3 46.4 69.4 33.5 34.7 44.1 29.1 2.2 19.5 15.7

Community & Social Welfare 56.9 51.7 54.5 58.9 138.2 136.4 81.8 86.2 100.8 7.5 46.9 13.8

Sub-Total 295.9 346.8 368.1 432.3 567.5 508.2 463.7 492.1 491.3 36.6 396.2 174.6

Economic Sectors

Agriculture 46.4 46.1 80.9 90.4 144.9 185.4 184.6 216.5 166.5 12.4 175.0 97.6

Rural Development 68.0 56.8 64.4 67.8 48.6 81.3 77.0 93.2 54.8 4.1 51.8 34.9

Manufacturing, Mining Trade 16.4 24.5 11.1 9.0 13.4 11.4 11.1 3.0 4.0 0.3 1.8 2.8

Banking and Business Services 15.9 44.9 12.8 30.9 73.1 4.0 43.8 14.3 34.3 2.6 59.7 76.8

Urban Planning & Management 2.0 4.5 16.1 10.9 2.7 11.9 0.3 11.6 12.2 0.9 18.5 23.6

Sub-Total 148.7 176.8 185.3 209.0 282.7 294.0 316.8 338.6 271.8 20.3 306.7 235.7

Infrastructure Sectors

Transportation 97.4 161.9 180.3 184.7 271.2 383.6 379.0 309.4 287.6 21.4 219.2 196.1

Water and Sanitation 17.2 25.5 17.3 24.4 36.1 52.3 59.3 59.2 49.7 3.7 34.8 33.3

Energy, Power & Electricity 12.7 32.8 21.7 41.5 57.3 66.7 60.1 66.5 55.7 4.1 64.2 111.3

Information & Communications 26.3 7.1 7.5 1.8 0.2 1.3 3.0 10.8 12.3 0.9 1.7 0.3

Sub-Total 153.6 227.3 226.8 252.4 364.8 503.9 501.4 445.9 405.3 30.1 319.9 341.0

Cross-Cutting Sectors

Gender 5.7 5.5 5.2 6.0 6.4 8.7 10.0 7.6 5.7 0.4 3.6 0.2

Tourism 2.9 5.0 6.0 4.0 2.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 5.0 0.4 8.5 7.6

Environment & Conservation 8.3 16.7 11.5 36.8 18.1 14.2 24.2 21.5 29.9 2.2 14.8 12.9

Climate Change

9.1 5.3 5.9 7.3 8.8 6.8 7.1 0.5 10.1 9.3

Culture & Arts 7.3 6.3 5.9 6.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 6.1 6.1 0.5 3.1 1.8

Governance & Administration 108.0 118.5 126.0 113.5 111.9 100.7 117.7 89.5 77.8 5.8 46.6 25.6

Budget & BoP Support 36.0 21.9 20.5 0.3 0.3 14.8

- - -

Emergency & Food Aid 1.9 16.0 11.1 14.8 25.5 25.0 19.3 24.7 14.6 1.1 0.1 0.2

Sub-Total 179.3 227.4 219.9 212.0 207.5 193.1 196.9 167.3 174.7 13.0 167.0 163.1

Other 9.2 37.5 24.6 25.1 32.9 17.0 11.6 10.6 28.5 2.1 80.2 105.7

Grand Total 777.5 978.3 1,000.1 1,105.7 1,422.5 1,499.2 1,478.8 1,443.9 1,343.1 100.0 1,189.9 914.5

14

Compared to the previous year sector funding trends, support to agriculture has almost tripled from USD 46.4 million in 2007 to USD 166.5 million in 2014, which is driven by Chinese concessional financing. However, in annual terms, support to this sector has declined 23% from USD 216.5 million in 2014, a result of a reduction of China’s support to agriculture of around 15% in 2015. Transportation also ranked not only in the top of priority in infrastructure sector but also appeared at top ranking compared to other sector ODA allocations, which received up to 21% of total aid, mostly received supports from China, ADB, Japan and Republic of Korea. Due to major support from Global Fund, USA, and Australia, health sector ranked as the second largest ODA recipient in 2015, receiving 15% of total, followed by education (13%), agriculture (12%) and community and social welfare (8%). ODA disbursement to Governance sector, that used to be stable around USD 115 million equivalent to 10% of total ODA package in average over the last five years period (2009-2013), has significantly decreased since 2014 and is expected to further decline in 2016.

Thematic Profile – Development Partner Engagement in Technical Working Groups The analysis on project support and development partner activity in each TWG, presented in Table 7 below, reflects efforts to strengthen TWG performance and sector management.

Table 7. 2015 Funding and Development Partner Activity in TWGs

TWG Total 2015 (USD 000s)

# of DPs Projects in TWG Average project size

(USD 000s)

Social sectors

Health 93,139 14 44 2,117

HIV/AIDS 5,643 6 8 705

Education 86,653 12 39 2,222

Food Security and Nutrition 14,074 3 4 3,518

Rural Water & Sanitation 8,333 4 5 1,667

Sub-total social sectors 207,841

100 2,078

Economic sectors

Agriculture and Water 114,197 11 50 2,284

Fisheries 1,037 3 3 346

Forestry 7,971 11 17 469

Land 4,795 3 9 533

Mine Action 13,607 7 8 1,701

Private Sector Development 5,677 4 5 1,135

Sub-total economic sectors 147,284

92 1,601

Infrastructure sectors

Infrastructure Regional Integration 336,353 7 64 5,256

Cross-sectoral and administrative sectors

Public Administrative Reform 2,064 1 1 2,064

Public Financial Management 13,248 6 8 1,656

Decentralization and Deconcentration 21,482 9 18 1,193

Gender 5,403 9 9 600

Legal and Judicial Reform 8,130 4 6 1,355

Partnership and Harmonization 250 4 1 125

Planning and Poverty Reduction 2,428 5 5 486

Sub-total cross-sectoral 53,006

49 1,082

No TWG 309,544 26 323 958

Multiple TWG (> 4) 61,456 1 2 30,728

Grand Total 1,115,484 32 630 1,771

Note: all development partners are members of P&H TWG

The data is presented according to the NSDP categories, however the mapping is not precise (the standard ODA Database sector classifications are more closely referenced to the NSDP). The importance of the health (14 partners, 44 projects), agriculture & water (11/50) and education (12/39) TWGs is immediately apparent. Other TWGs with fewer partners and projects may consider this data in order to reach informed decisions about the best approaches to secure their coordination and development effectiveness objectives. The 2015 data reveals that the Infrastructure and Regional

15

Integration TWG coordinates the largest portfolio (USD 336 million) in 2015, 30% of funding but only 10% of total projects). Social sectors account for approximately more than one-fifth of both funding and projects, while the economic sectors make up an additional sixth. It is also significant to note that more than half of all projects (323/630), representing 30% of total funding, are not associated with any TWGs. This emphasises the need for mechanisms outside of the TWG framework to support coordination work. This data only reports what has been recorded by development partners regarding their TWG activity linked to project funding. It is also acknowledged that some development partners make an important contribution to TWGs and partnership works without having any projects or funding (e.g. the Partnership & Harmonisation TWG includes all development partners but only 4 recorded partners and 1 project). NGOs are also TWG members but their membership and contributions are not included in this analysis. Development Partner Funding Modalities This analysis shows how modalities of support by development partners have evolved over the past decade. Chart 9 reveals Technical Cooperation (TC) support has been stable of over USD 300 million per year for the last decade (2006-2015). Investment projects shared largest portion of all funds and almost 3 times higher than TC support, whereas over the last 5 years (2011-2015), it has dominated more than two-third of total funding modalities which comprised for around USD 1 billion annually. This can be influenced by China’s support which is approximately USD 400 million annually since 2011. However, the Investment Project support, in 2015, slightly declined compared to the previous years due to major infrastructure projects supported by China were completed. It should be noted that investment projects financing would deliver to physical investments including fundamental infrastructure, where the technical cooperation project funds would allocate to Government reforms, service delivery and capacity development. The red line (right-hand scale) in Chart 9 also shows the decline in the grant share of funding in the period 2006-2015. The increased amount of loan in total ODA in recent years markedly in 2012 made the influence on the decline of trends in grant portion. For instance, as per the previous analysis on aggregate ODA trends, grant share of external cooperation has reduced over the last decade from over 80% in 2006 to less than 60% in 2015 with the rise in concessional loan. This is consistent with funding patterns for a country like Cambodia that is fast approaching towards the LMIC status. Alignment with National Priorities Improving the alignment of development cooperation with national priorities, as amongst the five principles of Paris Declaration, has been emphasized to ensure that resources are allocated in accordance with national development needs as part of accelerating development effectiveness work. At the aggregate level, Chart 10 below shows that the NSDP (2014-2018) funding requirement was estimated to be USD 7.6 billion over 5 years. In 2015, USD 1.5 billion of funds is therefore required for implementing the NSDP across four main sectors – social, economic, infrastructure, and cross-cutting sectors. As per previous ODA trends analysis, total 2015 external financing (ODA grant plus concessional loan and NGO support) amounted to approximately USD 1.35 billion (90%) disbursed, a 10% shortfall compared with NSDP resource requirement for implementing Government priorities articulated in the RS-III.

Chart 9. Development Partner Funding Modalities 2006-2015

16

Table 8. Provincial support (USD million)

Province 2014 2015 2016 (est) 2017 (proj)

Phnom Penh 129.0 130.6 96.2 81.0

Battambang 107.5 88.4 71.0 60.9

Siem Reap 117.6 98.8 83.8 49.2

Kandal 75.5 50.4 48.3 25.8

Kampong Thom 69.4 54.6 48.4 23.8

Prey Veng 52.6 42.3 36.8 24.4

Kampong Cham 53.3 45.6 30.8 20.8

B. Meanchey 49.9 44.5 59.3 80.0

Preah Sihanouk 28.9 40.6 23.9 5.9

Kampot 44.7 26.0 16.2 16.7

Other provinces 253.9 258.7 221.1 179.3

Nationwide 461.9 462.5 454.2 346.8

Total 1444.1 1343.0 1189.9 914.5

Chart 11. Provincial support (USD per capita)

131.5

117.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Phnom Penh

Siem Reap

Battambong

National Average

K. Thom

Kandal

K. Cham

B. Meanchey

Prey Veng

P. Sihanouk

K. Speu

K. Chhnang

Stung Treng

Pursat

Kampot

Mondul Kiri

Preah Vihear

O. Meanchey

Takeo

Svay Rieng

R. Kiri

Kratie

Koh Kong

Kep

Pailin

NGO pc DP pc

173.8

Chart 10. The alignment of development cooperation to the NSDP (2015)

Chart 10 indicates both absolute proportion of funding requirement and disbursement by sectors (bar chart) and relative funding allocations (the scatter plot) to each main sector. The right-hand chart reveals that health, agriculture, and transportation received higher support than funding requirement. Transportation is the most notable sector in funding profile which has been secured to be above funded since 2008, and continued to be highly above the NSDP line in 2015. However, community and social welfare, rural development, and education are amongst important sectors that received funding below the NSDP requirement. Support to the Provinces

Table 8 shows the trends in development assistance to provinces. In 2015, 65% of total development assistance was disbursed at provincial level. Development assistance disbursed to the ten largest beneficiary provinces amounted to USD 622 million (45% of total ODA) received more than double of support against other provinces combined (only USD 258 million). Phnom Penh received the highest resource of USD 130.5 million (10% of total funding) followed by Siem Reap (USD 99 million) and Battambang (USD 88.5 million), while Kep and Pailin received the lowest support of USD 2.3 million and USD 1.7 million respectively. For provincial support per capita, as shown in the Chart 11, Phnom Penh also received the highest ODA of USD 174 per person, followed by Siem Reap (USD 131 p.c) and Battambang (USD 118 p.c.), which were well supported marginally above the national average of USD 90 per capita. By contrast, the rest of the country received below the average, and the smallest recipients are Kep and Pailin whose ODA received amounted to roughly USD 3 per capita. NGO funding shares are notably higher in Phnom Penh and

Siem Reap. Chart 11 also reveals two main points as following:

NGO per capita support by province is very varied. Phnom Penh received the highest per capita support from NGOs amounted to around USD 76.5 p.c followed by Siem Reap (USD

17

60 p.c). The rest which received smallest NGO p.c support was Kep and Pailin which received the relative amount of about USD 0.90 p.c and USD 0.60 p.c respectively.

NGOs appear to be more concentrated in cities/towns like Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, not in rural locations. The focus on Community and Social Welfare and Rural Development needs to be considered further.

NGO Support to National Development The Royal Government recognizes the significant contribution of NGOs in supporting national development. Table 9 illustrates NGO funding trends by sectors from 2013 to 2015. NGO core fund disbursements (excluding funds delegated by other DPs) are stable at around USD 225-230 million per year over the last three years (2013-2015). NGOs contributed about USD 228 million (17% of the total external resource in 2015), while combined resources provided by other development partners to NGOs accounted for approximately 24% of total external funding. Most NGO resources were mobilised to Health, Education, and Community Welfare.

Table 9. NGO funding 2013-2015 (USD million)

Sector 2013 2014 2015

DPs NGO own Total DPs NGO own Total DPs NGO own Total

Health 28.4 72.1 100.6 22.1 75.1 97.1 31.3 74.3 105.6

Education 8.4 52.8 61.2 5.3 58.3 63.6 5.4 55.1 60.5

Community Welfare 0.3 55.2 55.6 3.9 51.3 55.2 2.8 52.5 55.3

Rural Development 4.4 20.6 25 6.3 20.4 26.7 2 25.9 27.9

Agriculture 9.4 6.8 16.2 15.9 5.9 21.8 12.5 4.2 16.7

HIV/AIDS 5.9 6.2 12.1 10.3 7 17.3 9.1 4.9 14

Environment 13.5 6.2 19.7 8.8 7.2 16 17.5 5.8 23.3

Governance 17.6 2.9 20.5 20.6 2.4 23 16.6 1.6 18.2

Other 5.2 2.9 8.1 3.5 3.7 7.4 3.7 3.6 7.3

Total 93.1 225.7 319 96.7 231.3 328.1 100.9 227.9 328.8

Chart 12 displays NGO resourcing contributed by NGO own funds and DP delegated resources by sector in 2015. Chart 13 details percentage shares of NGO financing over the three year period (2013-2015). This shows the most concentrated sectors support by NGO own resources which are community and social welfare as well as education and health, while governance, environment, and agriculture related activities are funded by DPs. On the recent 3-year trends (2013-2015) in average, NGO core fund supported majorly to health (USD 220 million per year) following by community and social welfare (USD 160 million per annum), and rural development (USD 67 million per annum). Chart 12. NGO sector support 2015 (USD million) Chart 13. Relative NGO funding shares 2013-2015

For development partner related activities, USA (USD 67 million equivalent to 65% of its portfolio support) and the European Commission (USD 9.5 million representing to 17% of its total own resource) were the largest funding sources in support to NGO activities in 2015. For detailed

18

previous trends in development partner funds to NGOs over the last three years (2013-2015), USA average annual disbursements to NGOs, was around USD 60 million, representing 70% of their total support. EC disbursed an annual average of USD 8 million (15% of total support) Table 10 identifies that amongst the 439 NGOs reporting activities to CDC in 2015, the 23 largest ones represented USD 162 million in 2015, 53% of total NGO financial activities. Over the last there years (2013-2015), Kantha Bopha (averaging about USD 35 million, 11% of NGO funding), World Vision Cambodia (USD 25.8 million, 8% of total NGO resources) and Plan International (USD 12 million, 4% of total NGO funds) are the largest three NGOs.

Table 10. Major NGOs by Funding 2013-2015 (USD thousand)

Name 2013 2014 2015

NGO DP Total NGO DP Total NGO DP Total

Kantha Bopha Hospital 29,000 4,000 33,000 30,555 4,445 35,000 33,303 4,197 37,500

World Vision 23,564 2,897 26,460 21,474 2,634 24,108 23,928 2,877 26,805

Plan International 2,727 7,892 10,619 3,064 11,115 14,179 2,416 8,354 10,770

Khmer HIV/AIDS Alliance - 7,629 7,629 - 7,381 7,381 - 7,409 7,409

Pour un Sourire d'Enfant 7,090 - 7,090 7,503 - 7,503 7,175 - 7,175

University Research Co., LLC - 7,207 7,207 - 6,253 6,253 - 5,771 5,771

Angkor Hospital for Children 3,249 - 3,249 3,842 223 4,065 5,219 17 5,236

Japan Relief for Cambodia 5,081 460 5,541 4,446 487 4,933 4,892 313 5,205

Population Services Khmer 2,798 383 3,181 3,620 937 4,557 3,682 1,518 5,200

Netherlands Devt Organization - 2,323 2,323 287 3,933 4,221 1,465 3,384 4,849

Hazardous Area Life Support 480 3,460 3,940 271 3,728 3,999 109 4,505 4,614

CARE International 693 2,199 2,893 796 2,642 3,438 1,303 2,856 4,159

Save the Children International 2,501 33 2,534 2,788 2,521 5,309 2,400 1,704 4,104

Hope Worldwide 2,485 - 2,485 3,400 - 3,400 3,760 - 3,760

The Fred Hollows Foundation 1,453 1,741 3,194 886 1,554 2,439 815 2,941 3,756

Child Fund Cambodia 1,494 454 1,949 2,320 285 2,605 2,888 590 3,479

Don Bosco Foundation 3,560 - 3,560 3,222 207 3,428 3,336 19 3,356

International Dev’t Enterprises 1,696 1,993 3,690 1,470 2,319 3,788 1,147 2,183 3,331

Cambodian Children's Fund 4,966 - 4,966 7,768 - 7,768 3,131 - 3,131

DanChurchAid 186 933 1,119 614 3,218 3,832 716 2,390 3,105

Aide et Action 275 - 275 934 56 991 3,098 - 3,098

Room to Read 3,073 - 3,073 2,957 - 2,957 3,075 - 3,075

Jay Pritzker Academy 2,612 - 2,612 3,743 - 3,743 3,014 - 3,014

Total 23 largest NGOs 98,985 43,604 142,589 105,959 53,939 159,898 110,874 51,029 161,903

Total 43 other major NGOs 47,593 27,657 75,251 51,775 21,841 73,617 54,286 18,391 72,677

Other 373 active NGOs 79,365 26,707 106,072 73,683 31,974 105,657 62,387 15,210 77,596

Total 225,943 97,968 323,912 231,418 107,754 339,171 227,546 84,629 312,715

Summary of Main Findings This chapter reveals a closer link between progress in development partnership work and efforts to realize improved development results in Cambodia through the changing roles in development cooperation provisions. It also shows the Royal Government’s efforts in maximizing resource mobilisation and ensuring alignment of these resources with national priorities set out in the NSDP 2014-2018. In summary, the analysis shows that the aggregate ODA trends are well aligned with national development priorities as per NSDP (2014-2018) resource requirement. The changing roles in development cooperation provisions (stability in ODA grants along with the increase in concessional loans in recent years) are consistent with funding patterns for a country that is moving towards attaining the LMIC status, where roles of ODA have become more significant as the catalyst in private sector development and climate change and some other areas like gender equality.

19

4. Cross-cutting thematic profiles

Development cooperation has become increasingly complex. As Cambodia’s reforms move forward and the economy becomes more sophisticated, so the development challenges confronting the country become more cross-sectoral in nature. Addressing these challenges demands the mobilisation of resources and coordination of effort across a range of public and private actors. Amongst these development challenges, three are frequently cited as examples of cross-cutting issues that require a multi-stakeholder response: gender equality; private sector development and climate change. Improved knowledge related to the use of external financing can assist in ensuring that resources are used to maximum effect. The Cambodia ODA Database is designed to support planning, coordination and monitoring as well as promoting resource transparency. It is particularly useful in supporting sector management and, as PFM reform progresses, it can make an important contribution to recording external cooperation in Budget Strategic Plans. Beyond sector work, however, is the important topic of cross-cutting issues. The data in this section is drawn from projects that have been associated with the principal sectors as well as ‘thematic markers’. These markers are used in the ODA Database to indicate that a project makes some form of contribution to a development objective even though it is not directly working in that sector or on that cross-cutting issue. A contribution can also sometimes be of a non-financial nature. For gender equality, for example, it is well understood that best practice involves mainstreaming gender equity objectives in projects. But while this is an accepted practice, it is challenging from a programmatic perspective to gauge the full set of resources that are being deployed or to identify the partners/projects that are most effectively responding to cross-cutting priorities. The thematic markers, while imperfect and incomplete, go some way towards improving the information available by grouping these projects together for further analysis by responsible ministries that lead the coordination of such cross-cutting efforts. Following modifications to the ODA Database in late-2015, thematic markers show a range of contribution to a cross-cutting issues gauged as significant, moderate or minor in cross-cutting issues shown in Table 11.

Table 11. List of Thematic Markers

Builds or strengthens Government capacity/systems

Supports Public Financial Management reform implementation

Supports Public Admin Reform implementation

Supports Decentralisation reform implementation

Supports Legal & Judicial Reform implementation

Gender equality and women's empowerment

Environmental protection (not climate change-related)

Climate change

HIV/AIDS (awareness, prevention and treatment)

Industrial Development Policy (non-sector support)

Income and employment generation

Private Sector Development

South-South and/or Triangular Cooperation

Community-based project

Engagement with civil society or non-state actors

Food security

Social protection

Youth support and development

Markers are categorized as making a ‘significant’, ‘moderate’ or ‘minor’ contribution

20

ODA Support to the Promotion of Gender Equality The Royal Government has fully acknowledged that continued social and economic progress in Cambodia requires making further advances towards women’s empowerment and gender equality. As a cross-cutting issue, it can, however, be challenging to identify all of the actors and contributions (including non-financial) to gender equality activities. This, in turn, can make planning, implementation and monitoring more challenging than for conventional sectors. The Cambodia ODA Database can shed some light on resourcing and engagement through focusing on activities that are specifically classified as gender projects (the ‘principal sector’) or by identifying other projects that include gender as a ‘thematic marker’ (meaning that gender is an important project objective if not the main sector of support). Information has been extracted from the ODA Database and is summarised in Table 12, below. Based on information provided by development partners about their gender projects and implementation arrangements, the numbers are illuminating: projects with a value of more than USD 238 million of ODA are recorded as having made some form of contribution to gender equality in 2015 (support to gender as a principal ‘sector’ was USD 5.74 million). The education and health sectors are the largest ‘mainstreaming sectors’ with a combined USD 100 million of gender mainstreamed funds. Sectors that have most successfully mainstreamed gender to a ‘significant’ extent in USD terms are agriculture and health. However, as a percentage of total sector disbursements, it is the governance, emergency, education, HIV/AIDS and health sectors that have mainstreamed the largest share of their sector portfolios.

Table 12. Sector mainstreaming of gender equality in 2015 (USD thousand)

Sector Significant Moderate Minor Total Gender as % of

sector total

Governance & Administration 548.8 22,237.0 10,580.6 33,366.3 43%

Emergency & Food Aid --- 5,292.0 50 5,342.0 37%

Education 1,071.2 40,538.5 12,435.0 54,044.6 32%

HIV/AIDS 89.8 168.7 9,132.9 9,391.4 32%

Health 6,332.5 18,830.8 24,407.8 49,571.1 26%

Climate Change 216.6 55.3 1,541.9 1,813.8 26%

Tourism --- 1,055.9 --- 1,055.9 21%

Business & Financial Services --- --- 6,015.5 6,015.5 18%

Agriculture 8,823.9 11,548.4 4,456.5 24,828.8 15%

Rural Development 574.1 5,077.7 2,336.8 7,988.5 15%

Community and Social Welfare 1,780.8 7,529.7 3,777.7 13,088.2 13%

Water and Sanitation --- 4,609.2 --- 4,609.2 9%

Culture & Arts 514.5 --- 514.5 8%

Environment and Sustainability 7.7 23.4 1,369.7 1,400.7 5%

Industrialization & Trade --- 160 --- 160 4%

Transportation --- 6,171.0 893.1 7,064.1 2%

Other 5,737.2 4,268.70 1,957.4 5,737.2 20%

Total 25,182.5 128,080.6 78,954.9 232,218.0 21%

Note: support to gender as a sector in 2015 totalled USD 5.74 million

The same analysis presented from the perspective of development partners is also insightful. The largest contributors to gender as a sector are Australia (USD 2.4 million), UN agencies (USD 1.9 million) and Japan (USD 0.7 million). Using the thematic marker data, however, Table 13 shows that there are many development partners who are working hard, and with some considerable success, to mainstream gender across all of their projects: UN Women, WHO, WFP and UNAIDS rate their mainstreaming at 100% while 12 partners in total consider more than two-thirds of their portfolios to mainstream gender at least to some extent.

21

Table 13. Development partner mainstreaming of gender equality in 2015 (USD thousand)

Development partner Significant Moderate Minor Total Gender as % of

total

WHO 836.2 836.2 100%

UN Women 777.1 777.1 100%

WFP 574.1 2,299.5 2,873.6 100%

UNAIDS 122.6 122.6 100%

World Bank 17,481.5 17,481.5 99%

ILO 2,100.6 2,100.6 99%

FAO 420.5 177.8 598.3 93%

IFAD 8,823.9 2,946.3 11,770.2 93%

UNFPA 978.7 3,512.7 4,491.3 87%

Australia 3,416.1 22,221.7 6,492.1 32,129.9 71%

UNODC 213.2 213.2 71%

Switzerland 18.8 4,494.6 4,145.1 8,658.4 66%

New Zealand 655.8 1,196.8 64.9 1,917.4 55%

Germany 2,225.5 8,776.9 2,336.8 13,339.2 52%

EU/EC 367.8 15,977.4 12,399.3 28,744.5 50%

UNICEF 4,192.2 4,192.2 46%

UNDP 3,810.9 3,810.9 46%

USA 8,254.5 35,823.8 44,078.3 42%

Sweden 1,780.8 5,603.4 356.2 7,740.3 31%

UK 15.2 31.5 46.6 28%

ADB 20,032.0 12,143.1 32,175.1 24%

Canada 423.3 125.1 291.9 840.3 22%

Republic of Korea 2,955.0 3,497.8 6,452.8 12%

France 715.3 1,136.1 1,851.5 4%

Japan 619.1 4,356.8 4,975.8 4%

Total 25,182.5 128,080.6 78,954.9 232,218.0 21%

Note: support to gender as a sector in 2015 totalled USD 5.74 million

The data indicates that a significant share of ODA resources (more than 20% of ODA) contributes to gender equality in Cambodia. While gender-specific projects implemented by MoWA make up a very small fraction of the resources involved in gender equity work, the truly cross-cutting nature of funding and engagement is demonstrated by evidence on broad development partner mainstreaming achievements and the wider resources being deployed. MoWA’s role in coordination and advocacy, as opposed to implementation, therefore cannot be over-stated. Important tasks in coordinating support for gender equality, ideally through the PBA work being led by MoWA, include establishing a comprehensive and coherent resource and partnering framework, through the GMAGs, for example, so that a results-based approach to planning, implementation and monitoring of progress can support Neary Rattanak IV. ODA support to Climate Change Climate change has been a major global concern where it was part of global sustainable development agenda, significantly as one of SDGs Goals. According to Climate Funds Update, the global climate finance architecture is complex, where finance is channeled through multilateral funds – such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Climate Investment Funds – as well as increasingly through bilateral channels along with a growing number of recipient countries. Therefore, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) served as the framework in creating the Financial Mechanisms for climate change affected developing countries. In Cambodia, the RGC has produced a 10-year Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP) as well as climate change coordinating mechanisms which was under the national committee for disaster management (NCDM). Ministry of Environment has been the national designated authority for the Adaptation Fund, Green Climate Fund, and GEF mechanisms. The National Council for

22

Sustainable Development (NCSD) and General Secretariat of NCSD was established in May 2015 to manage climate change financing framework. CRDB/CDC, the RGC’s focal point for ODA mobilisation, coordination and management, shall work closely with development partners and lead partnership dialogues (e.g. TWG mechanism) to support in aligning ODA with climate change financing. Notably, the Cambodia ODA Database, managed by CRDB/CDC, would provide framework for customizing and tracking data on climate change finance in Cambodia.

Table 14. Support to climate change in 2015 by implementing agency (USD)

Implementing agency Climate Change as Principal sector

Ministry of Environment 1,824,748

Other Ministries (than MoE) 847,003

Development Partners 2,647,922

NGOs 1,815,817

Sources

Sweden 1,719,017

EU/EC 1,658,705

UNIDO 838,083

USA 634,411

Japan 619,067

UNDP 601,562

Canada 216,645

Czech Republic 42,000

FAO 6,000

NGOs 800,000

Grand Total 7,135,490 7,135,490

In 2015, total ODA fund to climate change as principal sector was USD 7.1 million addressing the increase of 14.5% from 2014 while climate change mainstreaming support as ‘Thematic Marker’ declined of around 15% from USD 159.5 million in 2014. Table 14 above shows that USD 1.8 million (equivalent to 26%) of climate change financed projects are implemented through Ministry of Environment, with the remaining around 12% being implemented through other Government’s agencies and another 60% are channelled outside Government. Sweden, EU/EC and UNIDO are the top resource provider to support climate change sector with disbursement accounts for 24%, 23%, and 11.7% respectively of total climate principal source. Table 15 reveals that agriculture, transportation and environment sectors are the largest climate change ‘mainstreaming sectors’ with a combined USD 100 million (70%) of climate change mainstreamed funds. Sectors that have mostly received mainstreamed climate change funds as a ‘significant’ marker in USD terms are climate change, community & social welfare and agriculture. However, as a percentage of total sector disbursements in 2015, the environment & sustainability, climate change, urban planning, agriculture and rural development are major sectors that have mainstreamed the largest share of climate change of their own sector portfolio. But, the ‘significant marker’ accounts for only 1% of whole 2015 ODA package. As the proportion of Thematic Marker funds, climate change (27%), community and social welfare (23%), and agriculture (21%) are three prominent sectors. Meanwhile, government priority sectors such as transportation, education and health receive quite little proportion of climate change mainstreaming which accounted for approximately 11%, 2%, and 0.7% respectively comparing to their 2015 portfolio support. This implies that greater attention should be paid by development partners to further mainstream climate change into their program activities. It could, for example, be in the form of raising awareness about introducing climate change issues in education or addressing climate change resilience in infrastructure.

23

Table 15. Sector mainstreaming of climate change in 2015 (USD thousand)

Sector Significant Moderate Minor Total Climate Change

as % of total

Environment and Sustainability 377 20,162 164 20,704 85.9%

Climate Change 2,102 2,300 0 4,402 69.9%

Urban Planning and Management 0 6,599 0 6,599 54.1%

Agriculture 1,622 19,615 23,022 44,259 27.3%

Rural Development 574 2,337 4,487 7,398 25.6%

Water and Sanitation 0 5,571 556 6,128 12.4%

Transportation 0 26,370 4,285 30,655 10.7%

Business & Financial Services 0 2,139 1,001 3,140 9.2%

Energy, Power & Electricity 428 0 4,205 4,633 8.4%

Community & Social Welfare 1,781 0 0 1,781 3.7%

Education 0 0 2,010 2,010 1.8%

Health 836 0 30 866 0.7%

Emergency & Food Aid 0 0 61 61 0.4%

Other 0 5,037 0 5,037 18.3%

Total 7,720 90,130 39,820 137,671 12.3%

Support to climate change mainstreaming, in 2015 is therefore varied in ‘range of contributions’ – i.e. significant, moderate and minor – by each development partner. For instance, three main development partners including WHO (100% as significant marker), WFP (80% as moderate marker) and IFAD (70% as minor marker) mainstreamed climate change in the project for 100% of their total portfolio support, while ADB, USA and Japan also shared largest support to climate change mainstreaming around USD 82 million combined but this effort made up just 26%, 24% and 17% of their total own source respectively.

Table 16. Development partner mainstreaming of climate change in 2015 (USD thousand)

Development Partner Significant Moderate Minor Total Climate Change

as % of total

WHO 836 836 100%

WFP 574 2,300 2,874 100%

IFAD 800 2,946 8,824 12,570 99%

UN Women 465 465 60%

FAO 6 162 149 317 49%

UNDP 106 2,934 3,040 36%

ADB 27,536 7,005 34,541 26%

UNIDO 496 496 25%

USA 281 24,690 103 25,074 24%

Germany 2,372 3,240 5,612 22%

Japan 619 8,933 13,097 22,650 17%

Republic of Korea 582 5,971 2,010 8,563 15%

Sweden 2,374 1,125 3,500 14%

Australia 3,416 1,666 5,082 11%

France 2,448 2,712 5,160 11%

EU/EC 1,037 4,782 5,820 10%

UK 8 7 15 9%

Switzerland 863 863 7%

Czech Republic 42 30 72 6%

Canada 121 121 3%

Total 7,720 90,130 39,820 137,671 12%

24

ODA Support to Private Sector Development Data on thematic markers derived from the Cambodia ODA Database sheds some insights into the support to the private sector provided by development partners and by sector allocation in 2015. Many direct partnerships with the private sector will not be included in this data set, and are therefore additional, but there are the financial and non-financial contributions which lie in relevant sectors. 2015 data shows that projects with a value of USD 237 million, accounting for 21% of ODA, are recorded as having made some form of contribution to PSD in 2015. The education, agriculture and transportation sectors are the largest sectors with a combined more than USD 100 million of PSD mainstreamed funds, which made up 15.5%, 15.4%, and 13.5% of total marker respectively. Sectors that have most successfully mainstreamed PSD to a ‘significant’ importance are agriculture and transportation, industrialization & trade. However, some 6 leading sectors that have mainstreamed the largest share of their sector portfolio account for more than 50% of total sector disbursements. Those include ITC (95%), Industrialization and trade (83%) and environmental and sustainability (83%). Two largest sectors –transportation and health – that received larger support of ODA have less mainstreamed PSD of around 10% of their portfolios respectively.

Table 17. Sector mainstreaming of private sector development in 2015 (USD thousand)

Sector Significant Moderate Minor Total PSD as

% of total

Technology, Information and Communications

4 11,695 11,699 95%

Industrialization & Trade 2,564 690 3,254 83%

Environment and Sustainability 19,199 870 20,069 83%

Tourism 189 3,649 167 4,005 80%

Culture & Arts 2,609 668 3,277 55%

Business & Financial Services 638 16,933 713 18,284 53%

Education 2,523 28,338 6,074 36,935 32%

Rural Development 2,113 4,955 7,067 24%

Governance & Administration 214 7,869 9,146 17,229 23%

Agriculture 9,511 17,465 9,500 36,476 22%

Community and Social Welfare 2,101 3,539 4,545 10,184 21%

Gender 698 698 13%

Energy, Power & Electricity 240 2,641 3,600 6,481 12%

Transportation 3,235 24,047 4,751 32,033 11%

Health 80 5,163 5,033 10,276 9%

Urban Planning & Management 200 685 885 7%

Water and Sanitation 2,748 2,748 6%

Other 7,012 8,254 15,266 56%

Total 21,298 144,914 70,656 236,867 21%

There are many development partners who are working hard to mainstream PSD across all of their projects: WHO (in the minor term), UNICEF (in the moderate level), and ILO (in the significant level) rate their mainstreaming at 100% of their portfolio support, while 8 partners amongst all consider more than half of their portfolio to mainstream private sector to some extent. Having looked into percentage of PSD mainstreaming support, Japan and ADB are the main development partners whose efforts made up 20.5% and 16% of total combined PSD mainstreamed funding. It is also notable that Australia has made most progress in terms of ‘significant’ mainstreaming of PSD; almost USD 10 million of funding is categorised as significantly mainstreamed.

25

Table 18. Development partner mainstreaming of private sector in 2015 (USD thousand)

Development partner Significant Moderate Minor Total PSD as

% of total

WHO 836 836 100%

UNICEF 9,112 9,112 100%

ILO 2,101 2,101 99%

UNDP 4,914 883 5,798 70%

Switzerland 629 2,217 5,026 7,871 60%

Australia 9,431 6,695 7,583 23,709 53%

Czech Republic 611 30 641 51%

France 20,905 2,656 23,561 51%

UNESCO 538 538 46%

Germany 70 8,382 2,682 11,135 43%

Japan 1,238 21,598 25,178 48,014 36%

USA 24,134 9,373 33,507 32%

Canada 422 758 1,181 31%

IFAD 132 3,615 3,746 29%

EU/EC 2,670 13,488 638 16,796 29%

ADB 26,616 11,285 37,901 29%

World Bank 3,527 142 3,669 21%

Republic of Korea 4,548 1,283 5,831 10%

Sweden 890 890 4%

UNIDO 30 30 2%

Total 21,298 144,914 70,656 236,867 21%

ODA Support to the Agriculture Data in Table 19 indicates efforts of many development partners in supporting the agriculture sector. The analysis reveals that USD 162 million, equivalent to 15% of total 2015 development cooperation, has been allocated to support the agriculture sector. The three main sub-sectors are: (i) agriculture water and irrigation sub-sector (receiving more than 70% of total sector funding); (ii) extension services (8.2%); and (iii) food security and nutrition (4.4% of the total sector allocation).

Table 19. Development partner support to agriculture in 2015 (USD thousand)

Sub-Sectors USD

Agriculture water & Irrigation 118,638

Extension Services 13,332

Food Security, Nutrition 7,168

Agriculture Sector policy and management

5,388

Agriculture financial services 4,299

Fisheries 4,083

Education, Training 2,040

Other 2,014

Livestock & Veterinary 1,590

Forestry 1,365

Food Crops 1,188

Cash and Export Crops 915

Post-harvest 132

Agriculture inputs 99

Total 162,251

Development Partners

USD Agriculture

as % of donor aid

New Zealand 1,197 34%

UN 14,816 32%

Canada 1,127 30%

China 87,473 25%

Australia 11,097 25%

Switzerland 1,692 13%

EU/EC 6,646 12%

ADB 14,609 11%

USA 10,198 10%

Czech Republic 80 6%

Japan 8,223 6%

France 2,250 5%

Republic of Korea 2,036 4%

Germany 807 3%

Total 162,251 15%

26

Development partners that have made a significant disbursement to the agriculture sector include China, who contributed approximately 54% of the total support to agriculture sector, UN agencies and ADB, who provided around 9% each of the total. Other notable points of disbursements were recorded that all development partners contributed to agriculture less than 35% of their total own funding, which suggests there may be a case for increased specialisation. There is a continued vital role for development partners and their assistance in supporting this sector. Government and its partners should continue to make a concerted effort to actively engage in supporting agriculture and its contribution to employment, livelihoods and income. Agriculture will also contribute to the Industrial Development Policy since Cambodia is an agricultural country with potential for adding value to its produce.

27

5. Support to Industrial Development To move Cambodia to a higher level of economic and social development, the Royal Government has formulated a number of policy initiatives that are outlined in the Rectangular Strategy-Phase III and the NSDP. These policy priorities were further elaborated with the production and adoption of Cambodia’s first Industrial Development Policy (IDP) on 6 March 2015. The IDP was launched by the Royal Government at a meeting chaired by Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia at the Peace Palace on 26 August 2015. The IDP is a policy framework to promote the country's industrial development. This will maintain sustainable and inclusive high economic growth through economic diversification, strengthening competitiveness and promoting productivity. The IDP also recognizes important roles for a wide range of national and external actors, including Cambodia’s development partners. Their prioritised and coordinated support will help Cambodia to reach its ambitious goal to become an upper-middle income country by 2030 and a high-income country by 2050. During this transition, it is also necessary to avoid falling into the “middle income trap” of stagnating productivity and growth The Royal Government of Cambodia has acknowledged a need to re-emphasise and adapt the IDP-related role of ODA to respond to IDP priorities and the changing global, regional and country context. ODA will continue to play an important role as a direct source of finance for Cambodia’s socio-economic development but will increasingly also serve as a catalyst as other sources of development finance, both public and private, are expected to grow. In leveraging other sources of development finance to further promote inclusive growth and the sustainable economic development of Cambodia, development partners are encouraged to programme their support in close collaboration with CDC, which is the IDP lead agency on behalf of the Royal Government. The defined catalytic role of ODA is consistent with the RGC’s view, as set out in the Rectangular Strategy-Phase III (RS III), that the private sector is considered to be the primary engine of growth. ODA therefore has an important role in creating an enabling environment for mobilising private investment as well as for directly financing goods and services that can promote the industrial sector. This is also aligned with the approach at the global level that identifies the private sector as a principal driver of inclusive and sustainable industrialisation to achieve economic growth, poverty eradication and the ultimate goals of sustainable development. The conditions for successful collaboration with the private sector to ensure sustainable and equitable development have been discussed, for example, by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), the 2015 Financing for Development Conference (FfD), and in the context of supporting implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (SDGs). The Role of ODA in Supporting Industrial Development in Cambodia In Cambodia, the IDP-related contribution of ODA is to create an enabling environment for supporting private investment, to serve as a catalyst for mobilising other forms of development finance as well as to provide a direct source of funding for IDP-related public goods and services. The IDP itself, which aims to elevate Cambodia’s economy to a higher level in the regional and global value chain, proposes four strategies and four sets of policy measures, or action plans that are linked to objectives and targets to be achieved by 2025. Four key concrete measures, to be achieved by the end of 2018, are also proposed: energy, transport links, labour market mechanisms, and Sihanouk Ville SEZ. ODA can actively provide comprehensive support for Cambodia’s industrial development in terms of infrastructure development, institution building, and human resource development, mainly skilled labour development. This aims to increase Cambodia’s economic competitiveness and enhance the enabling environment to promote trade and investment. Four specific potential areas for ODA support have been identified, which include (i) support to public infrastructure and logistics development; (ii) direct partnerships with the private sector; (iii) support for strategic investments in trade facilitation and the promotion of economic competiveness; and (iv) support to Government’s

28

efforts to enhance the enabling environment and promote investment. Details are further elaborated in Table 20 below.

Table 20. Potential role of ODA in promoting the IDP Support to public infrastructure & logistics

development

Transport infrastructure & logistics

Power generation and distribution

Water and irrigation services

Economic corridor development and promotion of

Special Economic Zones

Opportunities to use ODA infrastructure loans to

attract private-sector financing (i.e. connectivity,

transport corridors, logistics)

Direct partnerships with the private sector

Direct support to the micro-finance sector

Promoting corporate social responsibility initiatives

Partnering on private sector philanthropy initiatives

(using ODA as venture) (i.e. Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation)

Supporting the private sector to be effective

development actors

Strategic investments in trade facilitation and the promotion of economic competitiveness

Capacity development on trade facilitation,

diversifying production and accessing markets

Facilitating business and commercial ties between

Cambodia and its partners

Investing in human capital, mainly skilled labour

through vocational education, that promotes

improved opportunity, livelihoods and productivity

Ensuring that ODA aligns with Government actions

to promote urban-rural linkages and climate change

adaptation to ensure balanced, equitable and

sustainable development

Support and/or access to knowledge and technology

transfer (including South-South) on innovative

technologies (e.g. digital technologies)

Support to Government efforts to enhance the enabling environment & promote investment

Supporting established policy dialogue between the

Government and private sector to understand and

identify opportunities for engagement

Support to the development and regulation of the

financial sector, including for micro & SMEs

Labour law & relations and improvements to the

working environment

Policy advice on legal matters such as financial

sector regulation, contract law, registration and

regulation of businesses, taxation & investment

codes

Continued support to Government reforms and

institution building that provide quality public

services and environmental protection (e.g. EIA

capacities)

An Analysis of ODA Provision to the IDP in 2015 One of CRDB/CDC’s main tasks in supporting IDP implementation is to support resource mobilisation and coordination of external development cooperation. To perform this task, the starting point is to identify ODA-funded projects that support the IDP in the ODA Database. This is accomplished by mapping the sectors and sub-sectors of the ODA Database to the priority programmes and sub-programs of the IDP (i.e. the Policy Measures and Action Plans on pp. 17-27 of the IDP). Reports can then be formatted to map database sectors to IDP priority programs. The results are presented in Table 21, which shows that a total of almost USD 95 million was disbursed to sectors that support the IDP in 2015. This represents 8.5% of total ODA (excluding NGO funds). Almost 2/3 of support was provided to the priority programmes to be achieved by 2018: USD 55 million was directed to the energy sector (of which China contributed USD 45 million) and USD 4.3 million was directed to the transport sector (of which Japan contributed USD 3.7 million). Overall the largest sources of support were from China, Japan ADB and France but the available data indicates that 17 development partners in total are active in supporting projects that contribute to IDP implementation. Most partners are active in Policy measure number 4 – Supporting Policies or in the energy and transportation sectors that comprise 2 of the 4 priority measures to be implemented by 2018.

29

Table 21. Support to the IDP in 2015 (USD thousand)

IDP Policy measures

Development partner

Investment Promotion

Expanding SMEs

Regulatory Environment

Supporting Policies

4 key concrete measures (2015-18)

Total

China --- --- --- --- 45,101.6 45,101.6

Japan --- 619.1 --- 6,103.5 8,400.6 15,123.2

ADB --- --- 1,013.0 5,674.0 4,195.0 11,082.0

France --- --- 6,001.5 4,120.4 667.7 10,789.5

EU/EC --- --- 2,512.1 416.8 427.7 3,356.5

Australia --- --- --- 2,555.8 300.7 2,856.4

World Bank --- --- --- 1,790.5 --- 1,790.5

New Zealand --- --- --- 1,193.6 --- 1,193.6

Sweden --- --- --- 1,187.2 --- 1,187.2

USA --- --- --- 400.0 --- 890.0

Switzerland --- --- --- 457.0 --- 457.0

Czech Republic --- --- --- 40.0 240.0 280.0

Canada --- --- --- 90.6 --- 90.6

UNIDO --- --- --- 30.0 51.1 81.0

Germany --- --- --- --- 23.8 23.8

UNESCO --- --- --- 15.0 --- 15.0

UK --- --- --- --- 7.3 7.3

Total 200.0 619.1 10,176.6 24,074.1 59,415.3 94,485.1

The 4 priority 2015-2018 measures are: (i) lowering energy prices; (ii) implementing the transport master plan; (iii) labour market management; and (iv) developing Sihanouk Ville as an SEZ.

For the analysis in medium-term resourcing to support IDP, Table 22 shows total external funding averaging around USD 100 million annually support IDP over the 5-year period 2014-2018. The 4 Key Measures (energy; transport links; labour market mechanisms; and Sihanouk Ville SEZ) account for more than 70% of funding secured to date, mainly from China, Japan and ADB.

Table 22. Medium-term resourcing of the IDP (USD thousand)

IDP sector 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Investment Promotion 190 200 1,100 4,500 16,600 22,590

Expanding SMEs 942 619 30 30 30 1,651

Regulatory Environment 10,587 10,177 8,815 7,686 2,657 39,922

Supporting Policies 26,164 24,074 12,111 6,445 5,555 74,349

4 Keys Measures 66,765 59,415 69,373 116,478 58,243 370,275

Grand Total 104,649 94,485 91,430 135,139 83,085 508,788

Development partner 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

China 33,214 45,102 30,056 30,145 30,145 168,661

Japan 20,304 15,123 14,456 60,037 28,649 138,569

ADB 14,951 11,082 27,450 32,850 22,500 108,833

France 6,925 10,790 7,835 1,642 --- 27,191

EU/EC 11,655 3,357 1,774 1,357 1,053 19,196

Australia 4,924 2,856 2,625 3,164 --- 13,569

New Zealand 3,181 1,194 2,531 --- --- 6,906

World Bank 4,623 1,790 10 --- --- 6,624

Republic of Korea --- --- 1,618 --- 30 6,278

Germany 3,167 24 --- --- --- 3,191

Sweden 440 1,187 974 151 --- 2,751

USA 150 890 830 440 400 2,710

Czech Republic 249 280 240 240 --- 1,009

UNDP 61 160 605 131 --- 956

Switzerland 243 457 214 --- --- 914

Canada 45 91 154 154 307 750

UNIDO 468 81 60 --- --- 609

UK 33 7 --- --- --- 40

UNESCO 15 15 --- --- --- 30

Grand Total 104,649 94,485 91,430 135,139 83,085 508,788

30

Future Actions to Support IDP Resource Mobilisation and Management CDC has been given significant responsibilities related to IDP leadership, management and monitoring. CRDB will therefore include IDP-related activities in its work plan to be consistent with the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy for promoting partnership, alignment and results. In addition to preparing analysis of resource provision, CRDB/CDC will accordingly support the production of an investment plan in consultation with ministries/agencies that implement IDP activities and have indicated a prioritised costing of their needs. Based on the needs/priority actions identified and the gaps confirmed during the needs assessment exercise with line ministries, CRDB/CDC will lead resource mobilisation efforts based on the investment plan, which will be shared across Government and with development partners. Funding of the IDP will be a priority agenda item in all bilateral consultations while CRDB/CDC will also review and identify alternative non-traditional funding sources. CRDB/CDC will inform a wider Government effort to pursue a pro-active approach to identifying/engaging partners and mobilising resources beyond ODA.

31

6. Conclusion

This objective of this report was to review the quantitative evidence relating to the performance of the Cambodia development partnership and the delivery of results. The main focus of the report has been to review resources provided by development partners and NGOs and, through an assessment of their alignment to national development plans and the use of global development effectiveness indicators, to assess the link between resources, effectiveness and results. It is therefore useful to conclude by reflecting on the extent to which ODA has supported national development effectiveness practices in line with the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy. This report has emphasised the transmission mechanisms that associate the development effectiveness agenda with improved development results. First, transparency and accuracy in data reporting that contributes to improved policy and planning, as well as directly supporting enhanced service delivery. The overall level and alignment of development cooperation, together with the Busan indicators on predictability, demonstrate that the Royal Government and its development partners continue to perform well in this area. Second, the extent to which development cooperation supports capacity and systems strengthening; the level of support to the governance sector has been in decline since 2009 and in 2015 was only 60% of the USD 126 million provided that year. Third, and finally, the link between development effectiveness and results is assessed through the strength of the partnership; although any assessments are necessarily subjective and variable across sectors, the work undertaken in 2015 to update the JMIs and to strengthen TWG performance demonstrates a strong commitment to maintaining effective partnership mechanisms. The forthcoming review of the NSDP, combined with the localisation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, will provide further opportunities to ensure the development partnership is firmly grounded in results-based approaches. The Busan monitoring survey, and its modification to generate sector-based indicators, demonstrates how effective monitoring tools can be used in an innovative way to assess how development finance is contributing to national priorities and institutional capacities. These monitoring systems, in combination with the JMIs, can therefore play an important role in promoting lesson learning and improved transparency at sector and TWG level. An analysis of broad development cooperation trends over time provides an enhanced understanding of resource allocation and utilisation. This can inform policy on how Cambodia can manage the transition to becoming a Lower-Middle Income Country and can use these funds to best effect to secure further progress towards graduation from Least Developed Country status. External resources must increasingly complement domestic financing and other sources of development finance, including those from the private sector and from South-South Cooperation. The challenge for the Government ministries and agencies of the Royal Government is therefore to ensure effective leadership and coordination at policy and technical levels so that all of these diverse sources effectively support the implementation of priority programmes, including the Industrial Development Policy and cross-cutting challenges that address issues such as vulnerability and climate change. Beyond analysis at the macro level, the data presentations in this report not only equip Government ministries and agencies and development partners with the information that is required to manage development cooperation more effectively, they can also go some way to identifying issues at sector level related to the application of the main reforms and measures that are required to support the strengthening of planning, budgeting, programming and monitoring of results. This Report therefore has practical utility. It takes us beyond a simple reflection on how development assistance has been used and provides empirical evidence that can be used to support our efforts to deliver results. Actions must be now be identified to promote the necessary measures that are required if development assistance is to maximise its contribution to national development goals. Based on the significant progress made to date, and the commitment to our partnership that has been demonstrated and regularly reaffirmed by Government and development partners, there is every reason to be confident that the Development Cooperation and Partnerships Strategy can continue to be an effective guide to promote resource management and the realisation of results.

32

ANNEX ONE

WHAT HAPPENS TO NET ODA AFTER LMIC RE-CLASSIFICATION?

As Cambodia is re-classified as a Lower-Middle Income Country in 2016, there has been some discussion and anticipation regarding what might be expected to happen to net ODA after this date. It is commonly understood that two things may happen once a country moves from the Low-Income group to the Lower-Middle Income Country category:

(i) Net ODA falls as new disbursements are reduced or are off-set by loan amortisation

(ii) Grant-funding is replaced by concessional loans and non-ODA development finance.

Global data, sourced from the World Bank, provides evidence on the first of these possible outcomes. The upper panel shows data for 21 countries that have become LMICs since 2003. In common with Cambodia, 11 of these countries continue to be classified as LDCs. In the years after LMIC re-classification there is no clear evidence of either a net increase or decrease in ODA. Factors other than attaining LMIC status seem to affect net ODA inflows. Which countries receive more ODA? The middle panel shows 10 countries that, 5 years after LMIC re-classification, are receiving increased net ODA. 5 of these 10 countries are LDCs; similarly 5 are in Asia. Which countries receive less ODA?

The lower panel shows 8 countries that, 5 years after LMIC re-classification, are receiving reduced net ODA. It is noteworthy that 6 of these countries are still LDCs, indicating that LDC status is not a guarantee of continued ODA support. Country context matters. After Cambodia is confirmed as an LMIC, it will be important to strengthen resource mobilisation, using its LDC status to maximise ODA inflows but also increasing domestic resource mobilisation as well as identifying other sources of development finance.

Data extracted from World Development Indicators (April 2016) All LDCs are marked in red font in legend

33

ANNEX TWO

DISBURSEMENTS BY DEVELOPMENT PARTNER AND SECTOR 2013 (USD THOUSANDS)

Development partner

Term Health Edu Agri Indus.

& Trade

Rural Dev.

Bank & Biz

Urb. Plan

& Mana

Tech., Inf. & Com

Ene. Pos. &

Ele Trans.

Water &

Sani.

Comm. &

Social

Culture & Art

Enviro. &

Conserv.

Climate Change

Gender Hid/Aids Gov. & Admin

Tourism

Emer. &

Food Aid

Other Total

UN (own resources)

Grant 9,892 10,046 4,013 436 2,431 279 - 292 413 - 1,753 4,890 855 2,024 2,451 1,030 805 5,364 318 - 82 47,374

Loan - - 1,242 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,242

World Bank Grant - 3,410 1,689 - 12,215 219 - - - - - - - - 565 - - 5,212 - - - 23,311

Loan 1,409 1,319 - - 1,321 -

- - 8,113 - - - - - - - - - - - 12,162

ADB Grant 3,100 14,596 7,178 - 1,000 2,907 173 - 294 391 8,179 - - 561 - - - 854 274 2,309 590 42,407

Loan - 6,807 18,925 - - 40,094 - - 4,888 34,532 - - - - - - - 23,752 - - - 128,998

GAVI Alliance Grant 10,688 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,688

Global Fund Grant 25,171 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,260 - - - - 45,431

Sub-Total: UN & Multilateral

Total 50,260 36,178 33,048 436 16,967 43,500 173 292 5,596 43,036 9,932 4,890 855 2,585 3,016 1,030 21,065 35,182 591 2,309 672 311,614

- European Commission

Grant 816 4,703 4,993 5,970 69 - - - 620 - 1,384 295 - 1,069 1,179 721 80 13,964 - 543 199 36,606

- Belgium Grant 415 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 415

- Czech Republic Grant 270 251 146 - - - - - 250 - - - - - - - - 75 - - - 992

- Finland Grant 383 303 1,629 - 2,267 - - - - - - 478 - - 92 4 - 23 - 198 - 5,376

- France Grant 2,129 2,592 1,133 - 660 60 - - - - - - 3,104 - - - - 2,077 - - 1,513 13,267

Loan - 350 - - - - - - - - 4,143 - - - - - - - - - - 4,493

- Germany Grant 5,928 - - - 12,184 201 - - 6,559 - - - - - - - - 5,213 - - 4,169 34,254

- Ireland Grant - - 172 - 660 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 415 - 1,247

- Spain Grant 235 99 90 - 625 - - 268 - - - - - 126

2,233 - 429 - - - 4,105

- Sweden Grant - 11,756 1,229 - - - - 1,076 - - - - - 461 2,367 615 - 16,315 - - - 33,818

- UK Grant 12,581 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 199 895 - - - 13,678

Sub-Total: EU Total 22,756 20,056 9,392 5,970 16,465 261 - 1,343 7,430 - 5,527 773 3,104 1,656 3,638 3,572 279 38,991 - 1,156 5,882 148,251

- Australia Grant 13,103 4,705 12,279 - 1,937 - - - - 6,554 1,453 499 - 90 - 2,867 590 6,566 - 3,874 4,749 59,265

- Canada Grant 492 230 1,391 - 4,143 - - - - - 110 - - 1,035 147 243 16 3,822 - 211 - 11,839

- China Grant - - 400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 400

Loan - - 106,829 - - - - - 36,135 262,245 10,709 20,298 - - - - - - - - - 436,216

- Japan Grant 9,982 10,157 6,771 2,851 4,142 - 79

4,687 43,693 10,566 26 121 59 1,283 1,173 - 9,132 - 2,805 27 107,554

Loan - - 1,325 - - - - 228 6,261 6,032 9,357 - - - - - - - - - - 23,204

- New Zealand Grant - 2,288 816 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 125 - - 3,230

- Rep of Korea Grant 6,241 8,458 938 - - - - 1,030 - 2,872 - - - - - - - 1,473 - - - 21,012

Loan - - - - 3,399 - - - - 14,182 11,536 - - - - - - - - - - 29,117

- Switzerland Grant 4,643 - 76 - 1,539 - - - - - - 107 100 - - 185 - 1,123 - - - 7,772

- USA Grant 24,347 8,379 4,546 1,864 7,811 - - - - - - - - 12,580 148

6,564 18,517 - 8,700 - 93,457

Sub-Total: Other Bilateral

Total 58,809 34,217 135,371 4,715 22,970 - 79 1,258 47,083 335,578 43,731 20,929 221 13,765 1,578 4,467 7,170 40,632 125 15,589 4,776 793,066

NGO (own resources)

Grand 72,118 52,844 6,768 4 20,627 20 - 132 - 336 130 55,243 445 6,173 575 947 6,154 2,908 20 253 247 225,943

GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 203,943 143,295 184,578 11,125 77,029 43,780 252 3,026 60,109 378,950 59,320 81,835 4,624 24,179 8,808 10,017 34,668 117,714 737 19,307 11,577 1,478,875

34

ANNEX THREE


Development partner


& Trade

Rural Dev.

Bank & Biz

Urb. Plan & Mana

Tech., Inf. & Com

Ene. Pos. &

Ele Trans.

Water &

Sani.

Comm. &

Social

Culture & Art

Enviro. &

Conserv.

Climate Change


Tourism

Emer. &

Food Aid

Other Total

UN (own resources)

Grant 9,689 4,534 10,390 458 1,417 419 - 66 72 - 1,127 6,240 605 2,156 2,127 1,632 482 5,244 53 - - 46,710

Loan - - 5,754 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,754

World Bank Grant

10,029 826 - 3,817 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,418 - - - 16,089

Loan 9,589 2,085 - - 19,823 - - - - 3,029 - - - - - - - - - - - 34,526

ADB Grant 2,024 7,999 9,286 - 321 3,556 255 - 964 1,315 6,518 - - 1,275 - - - 663 326 15,633 - 50,135

Loan - 6,998 8,679 - - - 659 - 7,042 56,333 - - - - - - - - - - - 79,711

GAVI Alliance Grant 2,485 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,485



Total 52,858 31,643 34,935 458 25,377 3,976 914 66 8,078 60,677 7,645 6,240 605 3,431 2,127 1,632 26,004 7,325 379 15,633 - 290,003


Grant 914 24,305 6,594 133 - 3,840 - - 7,446 - 5,817 2,240 338 1,611 785 753 - 15,482 - - 299 70,559

- Belgium Grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Czech

Republic Grant - - 60 - - - - - 199 - - - - - - - - 90 - - - 1,078

- Finland Grant - - 4,400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,400

- France Grant 2,094 2,903 1,549 - 1,090 118 - - - - - - 4,174 227 - - - 1,711 - - 91 13,955

Loan - - 26,667 - - 5,000 5,000 - - - 11,971 - - - - - - - - - - 48,638

- Germany Grant 5,398 - - - 9,770 141 - - 3,167 - - - - - - - - 6,599 - - 3,795 28,870

- Ireland Grant - - 67 - 667 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 733

- Spain Grant - - - - 95 - - - - - - - - - - 1,273 - 200 - - - 1,567

- Sweden Grant - 13,796 - - - - - 1,613 - - - 2,199 - - 1,814 - - 21,673 - - - 41,095

- UK Grant - - - - - - - - 33 - - - - 8 - - - 30 - - - 72

Sub-Total: EU Total 8,914 41,224 39,336 133 11,621 9,099 5,000 1,613 10,845 - 17,788 4,440 4,512 1,846 2,599 2,026 - 45,786 - - 4,185 210,967

- Australia Grant 15,476 3,073 10,740 - 8,677 - - - 1,851 8,548 947 3,734 - - - 1,768 388 6,745 - - 4,270 66,216

- Canada Grant 321 45 1,311 - 448 - - - - - 176 - - 139 108 182 - 1,641 - 139 - 4,512

- China Grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Loan - - 101,592 - - - - - 33,214 177,201 10,707 20,293 - - - - - - - - - 343,007

- Japan Grant 9,262 14,572 7,009 1,191 3,992 589 5,709 131 8,317 26,518 6,376 190 163 15 909 1,431 - 3,188 63 - 1,292 90,917

Loan - - 506 - - - - 8,451 4,201 3,627 3,718 - - - - - - - - - - 20,503

- New Zealand Grant - 3,181 1,703 - - - - - - - - - - 1,090 - - - - - - - 5,974

- Rep of Korea Grant 11,331 6,523 941 - 4,955 589 - 232 - 2,053 - - - - - 58 - - - - - 26,682

Loan - - - - 9,247 - - - - 30,315 11,660 - - - - - - - - - - 51,221

- Switzerland Grant 4,445 243 1,184 - 1,814 - - - - - - 22 244 - - 107 - 3,579 104 52 13 11,807

- USA Grant 18,018 7,323 11,411 1,230 6,616 - - - - 223 - - - 7,715 183 - 10,712 18,792 - 8,600 90 90,913


Total 58,853 34,961 136,398 2,421 35,749 1,178 5,709 8,814 47,583 248,484 33,584 24,239 407 8,959 1,200 3,547 11,099 33,945 168 8,791 5,664 711,752

NGO (own resources)

Grand 75,055 58,304 5,856 20 20,428 37 - 315 40 268 153 51,313 550 7,215 921 425 6,960 2,417 - 285 782 231,342

GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 195,679 166,132 216,525 3,032 93,175 14,290 11,623 10,808 66,546 309,429 59,170 86,231 6,073 21,451 6,847 7,630 44,063 89,473 547 24,709 10,631 1,444,064

35

ANNEX FOUR


Development partner


& Trade

Rural Dev.

Bank & Biz

Urb. Plan & Mana

Tech., Inf. & Com

Ene. Pos. &

Ele Trans.

Water &

Sani.

Comm. &

Social

Culture & Art

Enviro. &

Conserv.

Climate Change


Tourism

Emer. &

Food Aid

Other Total

UN (own resources)

Grant 7,205 3,759 8,978 190 574 541 - 571 51 - 1,523 6,523 568 1,635 1,446 1,894 357 4,442 - - 30 40,286

Loan - - 5,838 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,838

World Bank Grant - 15,720 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15,720

Loan 25 1,736 - - - - - - - 142 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,903

ADB Grant 1,295 4,972 7,280 500 782 1,983 297 - - 3,172 2,700 - - 2,356 - - - 200 100 5,777 1,132 32,546

Loan - 18,700 7,329 - 1,271 19,246 685 - 3,600 48,178 537 - - - - - -

860

- 100,406

GAVI Alliance Grant 13,731 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,213 18,943



Total 41,130 44,888 29,425 690 2,627 21,770 982 571 3,651 51,492 4,760 6,523 568 3,991 1,446 1,894 14,829 4,642 960 5,777 6,375 248,989


Grant 620 17,462 6,646 1,945 105 568 - - 428 - 417 1,720 515 1,358 1,659 210 - 23,359 - - - 57,010

- Belgium Grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Czech

Republic Grant 533 279 80 - - - - 4 240 - - - - - 42 - - 70 - - - 1,249

- Finland Grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France Grant 463 1,386 2,250 - 556 1,335 - - 668 - 556 - 3,206 691 - - - 1,240 723 - 1,113 14,188

Loan - 2,910 - - - 9,000 5,000 - - - 12,265 - - - - - - - 2,782 - - 31,957

- Germany Grant 7,717 - 807 - 9,840 70 - - 24 -

- - - - - - 3,781 - - 3,596 25,835

- Ireland Grant - - - - 556 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 556

- Spain Grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Sweden Grant - 11,262 - - - - - - - - - 1,781 - - 1,719 - - 10,584 - - - 25,346

- UK Grant - 67 - - - - - - 7 - - 8 - 8

8 - 67 - - 5 169

Sub-Total: EU Total 9,333 33,366 9,783 1,945 11,058 10,973 5,000 4 1,366 - 13,238 3,509 3,721 2,057 3,420 217 - 39,102 3,505 - 4,713 156,309

- Australia Grant 10,864 2,556 11,097 - 2,255 - - - 301 122 301 4,253 - - - 2,439 25 7,491 - - 3,416 45,118

- Canada Grant 685 91 1,127 - 137 - - - - - - - - 61 217 207 - 1,169 - 61 - 3,754

- China Grant - 4,464 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,464

Loan - - 87,472 - - - - - 45,102 173,783 10,515 27,507 - - - - - - - - - 344,379

- Japan Grant 10,963 15,269 4,162 1,238 3,641 165 5,817 - 4,132 21,266 14,507

396 - 619 619 - 3,508 - - 13,042 99,344

Loan - - 4,061 - - - - 11,695 603 18,726 570 - - - - - - - - - - 35,654

- New Zealand Grant - 1,194 1,197 - - - - - - - - - - 1,092 - - - - - - - 3,482

- Rep of Korea Grant 16,035 4,335 1,636 - 2,327 962 380 - - 3,235 - - 1,250

- 83 - - 380 - - 30,624

Loan - - 400 - 893 - - - - 18,362 5,571 - - - - - - - - - - 25,226

- Switzerland Grant 4,236 457 1,692 - 466 - - - - - - - 102

- 19 - 5,914 196 - - 13,082

- USA Grant 24,461 7,642 10,198 60 5,500 430 - - - 318

6,500

16,885 634 - 9,435 14,397 - 8,600 - 105,059


Total 67,245 36,006 123,043 1,298 15,219 1,557 6,197 11,695 50,137 235,810 31,463 38,260 1,748 18,037 1,470 3,366 9,459 32,478 576 8,661 16,458 710,185

NGO (own resources)

Grand 74,256 55,117 4,233 53 25,942 - - - 551 267 192 52,486 54 5,822 763 261 4,859 1,552 - 168 968 227,546

GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 191,963 169,377 166,484 3,986 54,846 34,300 12,179 12,270 55,706 287,569 49,654 100,778 6,092 29,907 7,099 5,738 29,147 77,774 5,041 14,605 28,514 1,343,029

36

ANNEX FIVE

DISBURSEMENTS & PROJECTIONS BY DEVELOPMENT PARTNER 1996-2018 (USD MILLIONS)

Major Donor 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 1996-2015 2016

(Plan) 2017 (Plan)

2018 (Plan) (USD) %

UN (core resources) 50.3 42.7 49.5 45.3 49.4 44.9 42.2 44.2 36.3 41.1 54.0 58.3 73.2 101.8 73.9 56.5 53.7 48.6 52.5 46.1 1,064.6 6.4% 69.6 32.2 15.1

World Bank 40.4 28.1 29.3 26.7 32.7 43.1 47.2 63.7 49.5 37.8 24.5 47.5 41.7 60.4 56.9 73.8 66.0 35.5 50.6 17.6 872.9 5.2% 62.5 65.8 77.4

IMF 0.4 - - 11.5 11.5 23.0 23.5 12.3 2.4 0.3 83.5 0.9 - - - - - - - - 169.2 1.0% - - -

ADB 49.2 18.4 36.5 26.9 51.1 48.7 78.5 73.3 76.7 89.4 67.5 69.4 145.7 89.4 75.4 126.9 82.0 171.4 129.8 133.0 1,639.1 9.8% 245.9 251.5 218.8

GAVI Alliance - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.7 3.6 6.7 4.9 10.7 2.5 18.9 48.9 0.3% 10.3 4.2 3.4

Global Fund - - - - - - - - - 18.8 21.9 21.1 38.6 46.5 61.2 60.2 20.1 45.4 54.6 33.3 421.7 2.5% 45.5 41.9 -


140.4 89.2 115.3 110.4 144.7 159.6 191.4 193.4 164.8 187.5 251.2 197.1 299.2 299.7 270.9 324.1 226.8 311.6 290.0 249.0 4,216.4 25.3% 433.8 395.7 314.7

European Commission 57.6 36.8 49.3 28.3 27.9 22.7 25.8 32.7 15.0 23.7 46.5 44.0 48.4 49.4 32.9 61.0 41.6 36.6 70.6 57.0 807.9 4.8% 74.5 48.6 14.0

Belgium 2.0 1.7 3.2 4.8 2.6 1.3 2.2 3.7 5.2 11.7 7.3 7.2 2.8 4.8 2.2 2.1 0.1 0.4 - - 65.3 0.4% - - -

Czech Republic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 1.1 1.2 3.3 0.0% 0.9 0.5 -

Denmark 20.8 5.1 4.5 2.7 3.5 2.8 4.8 4.3 5.8 4.8 4.1 9.8 10.6 13.8 15.7 5.7 4.9 - - - 123.6 0.7% - - -

Finland - 0.1 0.3 0.7 3.3 1.2 0.9 - 3.3 3.3 4.5 5.2 9.0 6.0 6.7 6.9 4.4 5.4 4.4 - 65.4 0.4% - - -

France 42.9 26.5 23.2 18.6 27.8 36.0 28.3 25.9 23.0 24.4 21.8 21.7 29.8 25.4 22.4 19.5 24.8 17.8 62.6 46.1 568.6 3.4% 38.3 9.4 -

Germany 9.6 10.1 9.8 12.3 12.2 10.0 17.2 17.6 14.1 27.3 32.4 20.7 36.6 27.9 35.3 43.7 44.6 34.3 28.9 25.8 470.5 2.8% 26.7 15.8 4.0

Ireland - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 4.9 0.0% - - -

Netherlands 11.5 3.3 5.7 6.1 4.9 3.6 3.7 2.8 1.6 1.1 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.0 - - - 48.6 0.3% - - -

Spain - - - - - - - - - - 2.8 3.5 6.1 16.6 26.3 33.6 8.8 4.1 1.6 - 103.4 0.6% - - -

Sweden 16.1 17.4 13.5 10.8 14.1 13.1 13.6 12.4 22.0 13.6 16.0 17.3 15.9 22.8 24.7 28.6 30.2 33.8 41.1 25.3 402.4 2.4% 17.6 5.7 0.6

United Kingdom 4.1 2.3 9.9 9.4 13.0 8.7 11.6 15.4 17.0 20.6 20.7 23.7 29.6 32.6 24.7 34.2 28.2 13.7 0.1 0.2 319.5 1.9% 0.0 - -

Sub-Total: EU 164.7 103.1 119.3 93.6 109.4 99.5 108.2 114.7 107.1 130.6 156.1 153.2 191.0 200.7 192.7 236.1 187.9 148.3 211.0 156.3 2,983.4 17.9% 158.0 80.0 18.6

Australia 20.2 27.3 18.2 18.4 29.4 19.9 17.8 22.7 24.3 16.8 22.5 29.6 49.1 47.8 63.4 78.2 79.5 59.3 66.2 45.1 755.5 4.5% 31.4 18.9 14.6

Canada 3.2 4.2 4.8 2.6 0.8 5.2 3.4 2.6 1.5 9.1 7.9 12.6 11.5 16.7 12.8 18.5 20.5 11.8 4.5 3.8 158.0 0.9% 2.6 1.1 0.3

China 10.9 9.5 14.3 3.0 2.6 16.3 5.7 5.6 32.5 46.6 53.2 92.4 95.4 114.7 154.1 332.0 460.7 436.6 343.0 348.8 2,578.1 15.5% 178.4 110.1 81.4

Japan 111.0 59.8 71.4 88.0 106.0 100.0 105.6 101.2 101.8 111.7 103.7 117.2 126.4 134.0 140.0 114.4 172.3 130.8 111.4 135.0 2,241.5 13.4% 91.5 188.7 175.0

New Zealand 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.4 2.1 1.7 4.5 2.8 2.3 5.2 4.4 3.8 3.2 6.0 3.5 48.9 0.3% 4.3 1.2 0.9

Norway 1.4 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 3.4 2.7 3.4 - - - - - - - - - - - 17.6 0.1% - - -

Republic of Korea 0.3 - 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.2 22.5 10.3 24.1 14.9 13.3 31.3 33.0 15.8 35.2 45.3 46.2 50.1 77.9 55.9 478.9 2.9% 78.3 55.4 33.6

Russian Federation 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.5 0.0% - - -

Switzerland - - - - - - 2.9 2.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 3.6 3.9 3.0 3.1 4.5 4.3 7.8 11.8 13.1 69.0 0.4% 11.9 4.5 0.0

United States of America 28.8 30.5 30.4 23.0 17.6 23.8 22.1 34.3 40.6 43.3 51.0 58.1 55.7 56.9 63.3 64.4 85.0 93.5 90.9 105.1 1,018.3 6.1% 36.1 23.5 2.9

Other Bi-Lateral Donors 1.1 7.2 1.2 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.5 0.1% - - -

Sub-Total: Bilateral Donors 177.3 141.0 142.6 140.7 160.8 169.1 185.7 184.2 234.1 247.2 255.7 349.4 377.6 391.3 477.2 661.8 872.3 793.1 711.8 710.2 7,382.7 44.3% 434.5 403.3 308.8

NGO (own resources)

35.8 49.9 56.1 55.0 51.9 43.6 45.6 47.2 49.4 44.7 50.2 77.7 110.8 108.5 165.0 200.7 212.3 225.9 231.3 227.5 2,089.1 12.5% 163.6 35.5 10.2

TOTAL 518.1 383.2 433.3 399.7 466.8 471.8 530.9 539.5 555.4 610.0 713.2 777.5 978.5 1,000.2 1,105.8 1,422.6 1,499.2 1,478.9 1,444.1 1,343.0 16,671.7 100.0% 1,189.9 914.5 652.3

37

ANNEX SIX

DISBURSEMENTS & PROJECTIONS BY SECTOR 1996-2018 (USD MILLIONS)

SECTOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

TOTAL DIS.1992-2015 2016

(Plan) 2017 (Plan)

2018 (Plan)

US$ %

Health 43.70 32.03 62.97 70.86 67.71 66.08 67.61 83.10 95.87 110.30 109.02 107.09 136.69 161.80 211.38 205.31 203.04 203.94 195.68 191.96 2,426.15 15% 146.87 61.15 10.04

Education 34.74 48.27 58.25 40.46 40.50 44.98 68.86 75.02 73.42 69.28 79.73 89.85 100.46 95.53 115.60 154.59 135.33 143.30 166.13 169.38 1,803.66 11% 182.97 83.96 12.67

Agriculture 64.56 18.01 12.43 25.57 44.14 35.38 36.97 37.79 45.26 33.82 123.50 46.38 46.14 80.85 90.41 144.85 185.36 184.58 216.53 166.48 1,639.00 10% 175.01 97.64 102.09

Indus. & Trade 2.78 7.50 5.40 0.96 0.09 1.54 1.54 1.73 6.95 9.97 24.18 16.42 24.55 11.10 8.98 13.42 11.39 11.13 3.03 3.99 166.66 1% 1.75 2.81 2.64

Rural Dev’t 78.10 67.92 63.27 58.09 67.32 61.88 50.05 35.88 60.48 50.01 49.85 68.04 56.85 64.37 67.79 48.65 81.35 77.03 93.18 54.85 1,254.93 8% 51.78 34.89 41.42

Banking and Biz

- - - - - - - - - 12.72 9.74 15.95 44.92 12.79 30.86 73.14 3.98 43.78 14.29 34.30 296.46 2% 59.66 76.82 60.96

Urban Pla. & Mana.

- - - - - - - - - 3.93 0.94 1.96 4.50 16.13 10.88 2.68 11.93 0.25 11.62 12.18 77.00 0% 18.54 23.58 30.91

Tech, Info. & Comm

22.34 16.76 11.01 5.56 0.68 1.24 1.52 1.17 1.21 0.86 9.91 26.31 7.10 7.54 1.84 0.16 1.26 3.03 10.81 12.27 142.58 1% 1.65 0.27 -

Energy,Pow & Elec

13.77 17.34 30.89 28.79 21.36 5.71 6.32 20.27 12.87 15.63 13.74 12.74 32.79 21.65 41.46 57.35 66.73 60.11 66.55 55.71 601.78 4% 64.24 111.34 57.30

Transportation 60.25 37.24 47.07 33.94 47.14 59.71 78.08 65.61 81.96 73.86 54.83 97.43 161.86 180.31 184.72 271.17 383.57 378.95 309.43 287.57 2,894.68 17% 219.24 196.12 194.72

Water & Sanitation

- 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.00 15.05 22.91 4.88 24.49 18.24 17.22 25.52 17.27 24.45 36.12 52.30 59.32 59.17 49.65 426.92 3% 34.78 33.31 22.54

Com & Social Wel.

20.83 18.83 33.11 24.75 36.42 69.62 64.13 81.02 43.75 35.32 38.53 56.92 51.71 54.49 58.94 138.22 136.43 81.84 86.23 100.78 1,231.86 7% 46.91 13.76 4.53

Culture & Arts 12.30 15.83 9.79 47.24 66.92 40.10 14.20 15.94 18.43 4.80 14.11 7.27 6.34 5.92 6.23 4.27 4.56 4.62 6.07 6.09 311.01 2% 3.09 1.78 -

Envir & Conserv.

3.35 5.84 3.47 2.84 2.13 0.98 15.28 18.18 19.59 12.31 14.59 8.32 16.70 11.47 36.81 18.13 14.16 24.18 21.45 29.91 279.68 2% 14.83 12.91 11.41

Climate Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.11 5.28 5.92 7.26 8.81 6.85 7.10 50.32 0% 10.11 9.26 6.50

Gender - - - - - - - - - 2.59 3.85 5.69 5.54 5.21 6.04 6.39 8.73 10.02 7.63 5.74 67.43 0% 3.65 0.15 -

HIV/AIDS - - - - - - - - - 25.36 35.38 41.97 57.89 56.32 46.40 69.39 33.53 34.67 44.06 29.15 474.11 3% 19.49 15.72 -

Govern & Admin

161.37 97.46 95.48 60.66 72.40 84.63 100.97 58.44 46.84 67.35 96.83 107.96 118.51 126.05 113.52 111.95 100.74 117.71 89.47 77.77 1,906.09 11% 46.56 25.58 12.28

Tourism - - - - - - - - - 1.24 2.51 2.95 4.97 5.98 3.98 2.17 0.78 0.74 0.55 5.04 30.89 0% 8.47 7.58 5.20

Budget & BoP - - - - - - - - - 11.10 - 35.95 21.95 20.51 0.32 0.32 14.77 - - - 104.91 1% - - -

Emer. & Food Aid

- - - - - - - - - 3.04 0.38 1.89 16.02 11.14 14.80 25.53 25.05 19.31 24.71 14.61 156.46 1% 0.12 0.16 -

Other - - - - - - 10.34 22.45 43.89 42.00 13.40 9.16 37.55 24.64 25.13 32.90 16.97 11.58 10.63 28.51 329.13 2% 80.19 105.73 77.05

TOTAL 518.08 383.19 433.28 399.71 466.81 471.84 530.92 539.51 555.39 609.95 713.24 777.46 978.52 1,000.20 1,105.80 1,422.61 1,499.20 1,478.88 1,444.06 1,343.03 16,671.69 100% 1,189.89 914.51 652.26

38

ANNEX SEVEN

DISBURSEMENTS TO GOVERNMENT &NON-GOVERNMENT SECTOR 2013-2015 (USD MILLION)

Development Partner

2013 2014 2015

Government Sector

Non Government Sector Total

Government Sector


Government Sector


Donor NGOs Other Donor NGOs Other Donor NGOs Other

United Nations (core funds) 38.8 8.2 0.3 1.3 48.6 39.4 10.7 0.7 1.6 52.5 32.9 10.7 1.6 1 46.1

ADB 171.2 0.2 - - 171.4 129.3 0.6 - - 129.8 131.7 1.3 - - 133

World Bank 34.4 - 0.8 0.3 35.5 50 - - 0.6 50.6 17.6 - - - 17.6

GAVI 3.7 - - 7 10.7 2.5 - - -0.1 2.5 18.9 - - - 18.9

Global Fund 31.7 - - 13.7 45.4 33.2 3 - 18.4 54.6 20.7 4.3 - 8.3 33.3

Czech Republic - - 0.6 0.4 1 - - 0.6 0.5 1.1 - - 0.7 0.6 1.2

Belgium 0.4 - - - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - -

Finland 3.1 - 0.2 2.1 5.4 4.4 - - - 4.4 - - - - -

France 9.5 5.6 0.9 1.8 17.8 43.8 6 1.3 11.4 62.6 20.1 4.5 1.9 15.6 46.1

Ireland - - 1.2 - 1.2 - - 0.7 - 0.7 - - 0.6 - 0.6

Germany 31.6 - - 2.4 34.3 27.6 - - 1.2 28.9 24.7 - - 1 25.8

Spain 1 0.2 1 1.9 4.1 0.4 - 0.1 1.1 1.6 - - - - -

Sweden 20.2 3.3 2.6 7.8 33.8 18.1 9.9 6.7 6.4 41.1 10.4 4.3 4.9 5.2 25.3

UK 7 6.2 - 0.4 13.7 - - 0.1 - 0.1 - - 0.1 - 0.2

EU/EC 7.6 8.2 10.9 9.9 36.6 34.5 18.6 10.2 7.2 70.6 33 11.1 9.3 3.7 57

Australia 19.1 16.6 1.2 22.3 59.3 28.6 12.6 0.9 24.1 66.2 9.7 12.9 1.9 20.6 45.1

Canada 3.6 2.6 - 5.6 11.8 - 1.1 - 3.4 4.5 - 0.9 - 2.9 3.8

China 436.6 - - - 436.6 343 - - - 343 348.8 - - - 348.8

Japan 115 12.2 3.5 - 130.8 96.9 9.6 4.8 - 111.4 124.2 7.2 3.5 0.1 135

New Zealand - 2.3 0.8 0.1 3.2 1.1 3.2 1.7 - 6 1.1 1.2 1.2 - 3.5

Republic of Korea 47.5 - 2.6 - 50.1 74.4 - 3.5 0.1 77.9 52.9 - 3 - 55.8

Switzerland 1.1 1.7 4.9 0.1 7.8 2.2 2.1 5.2 2.3 11.8 3.3 0.6 5.1 4.1 13.1

USA 9 1.9 61.4 21.1 93.5 8.5 1.9 60.2 20.4 90.9 6.7 2.4 67.1 28.9 105.1

Total 992.1 69.2 93.1 98.4 1252.9 937.8 79.4 96.8 98.5 1212.7 856.7 61.3 100.7 92.1 1115.5

NGOs (Core Funds) - - 225.9 - 225.9 - - 231.3

231.3 - - 227.5 - 227.5

Total Disbursement 992.1 69.2 319 98.4 1478.9 937.8 79.4 328.2 98.5 1444.1 856.7 61.3 328.2 92.1 1343

39

ANNEX EIGHT

DISBURSEMENTS TO PROVINCES 2012-2015 (USD THOUSAND)

Province Development Partner (group) 2012 2013 2014 2015

Banteay Meanchey

United Nations Agencies 544 780 1,706 1,246

Int'l Financial Institutions 8,335 10,357 18,238 13,812

European Union 741 432 5,036 995

Bilateral 17,470 17,959 16,572 19,487

NGO 7,176 9,076 8,347 8,972

TOTAL 34,266 38,604 49,899 44,511

Battambang

United Nations Agencies 1,000 726 1,022 766


European Union 1,984 1,431 2,304 1,182

Bilateral 110,947 100,214 80,797 63,406

NGO 11,609 13,332 13,244 12,273

TOTAL 133,434 124,178 107,452 88,423

Kampong Cham

United Nations Agencies 1,145 1,216 1,534 1,200


European Union 2,375 1,840 2,211 1,979

Bilateral 17,412 20,259 27,308 26,152

NGO 5,536 5,085 6,605 4,682

TOTAL 32,751 38,144 53,288 45,561

Kampong Chhnang

United Nations Agencies 1,602 1,445 863 629


European Union 1,045 2,459 3,281 2,587

Bilateral 9,940 5,322 15,817 16,790

NGO 5,406 6,258 5,657 6,483

TOTAL 24,231 24,039 35,236 30,537

Kampong Speu



European Union 3,045 2,647 2,280 2,034

Bilateral 20,305 24,273 20,414 18,476

NGO 7,224 6,723 8,359 8,218

TOTAL 36,755 39,298 37,446 32,744

Kampong Thom



European Union 7,616 4,441 9,182 4,556

Bilateral 30,671 41,282 39,015 35,358

NGO 5,454 6,825 6,554 7,511

TOTAL 51,774 63,713 69,361 54,605

Kampot


Int'l Financial Institutions 4,992 4,307 6,879 867

European Union 5,156 4,616 2,859 3,297

Bilateral 34,709 31,059 28,266 14,945

NGO 3,706 4,767 4,846 4,980

TOTAL 49,131 45,287 44,746 26,027

Kandal


Int'l Financial Institutions 2,348 1,266 552 758

European Union 981 493 14,819 1,899

Bilateral 44,234 47,640 48,440 36,177

NGO 9,991 9,687 9,783 9,648

TOTAL 58,125 59,611 75,470 50,443

Koh Kong

United Nations Agencies 24 24 27 134

Int'l Financial Institutions 208 455 847 1,219

European Union 586 394 294 480

Bilateral 1,117 1,028 522 155

NGO 1,857 2,049 2,268 2,107

TOTAL 3,793 3,949 3,958 4,095

Kratie

United Nations Agencies 1,437 719 764 590

Int'l Financial Institutions 907 885 192

European Union 2,461 2,272 1,027 1,304

Bilateral 1,348 1,157 1,671 1,976

NGO 2,006 2,981 3,148 4,299

TOTAL 8,158 8,014 6,802 8,169

Mondul Kiri

United Nations Agencies 29 52 44

Int'l Financial Institutions

96 563 678

European Union 1,537 1,550 486 1,667

Bilateral 26,022 23,906 19,526 19,851

NGO 2,702 2,616 2,897 2,748

TOTAL 30,289 28,219 23,516 24,944

Phnom Penh

United Nations Agencies 4,733 1,723 2,628 875


European Union 17,939 8,650 20,782 24,104

Bilateral 80,214 47,796 40,844 47,138

NGO 56,736 61,465 63,042 57,493

TOTAL 163,549 121,702 129,041 130,576

Preah Vihear

United Nations Agencies 1,343 985 1,075 726

Int'l Financial Institutions 308 224 1,395 529

European Union 1,706 516 1,467 774

Bilateral 22,094 20,889 15,580 15,771

NGO 3,170 5,672 5,439 6,500

TOTAL 28,620 28,285 24,956 24,301

Prey Veng



European Union 3,537 2,781 1,658 2,504

Bilateral 42,060 47,408 34,421 22,875

NGO 3,861 4,197 4,190 4,395

TOTAL 57,400 61,521 52,576 42,307

40

Province Development Partner (group) 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pursat



European Union 1,041 1,278 2,297 700

Bilateral 20,982 22,425 18,077 17,870

NGO 4,704 4,947 4,877 4,694

TOTAL 31,542 34,151 29,777 26,710

Ratanak Kiri



European Union 2,916 2,426 2,527 2,296

Bilateral 8,443 6,808 6,482 3,517

NGO 2,660 2,862 3,110 3,423

TOTAL 14,642 12,542 12,367 9,340

Siem Reap



European Union 11,415 6,513 9,688 3,284

Bilateral 38,748 37,590 48,198 43,222

NGO 40,998 41,420 44,380 44,503

TOTAL 99,132 95,973 117,551 98,807

Preah Sihanouk




Bilateral 34,009 18,621 15,620 34,058

NGO 6,802 5,339 5,377 4,455

TOTAL 48,975 29,187 28,866 40,551

Stung Treng


Int'l Financial Institutions 1

269

European Union 1,737 1,074 524 246

Bilateral 31,511 52,708 18,261 25,620

NGO 2,018 1,735 1,953 1,701

TOTAL 35,396 55,701 20,838 27,945

Svay Rieng

United Nations Agencies 1,574 913 2,041 1,898



Bilateral 247 988 2,747 2,643

NGO 2,496 2,826 2,900 2,994

TOTAL 7,004 6,815 11,717 9,924

Takeo


Int'l Financial Institutions 1,021 233 1,459 767

European Union 4,081 4,001 2,558 658

Bilateral 4,523 7,727 9,575 7,487

NGO 6,535 6,115 6,097 7,419

TOTAL 16,739 18,731 21,911 18,313

Otdar Meanchey



European Union 1,583 1,401 2,068 830

Bilateral 3,107 2,704 4,574 16,744

NGO 2,565 2,507 2,677 2,520

TOTAL 8,788 8,185 16,858 21,248

Kep



301


Bilateral

112 164

NGO 674 306 208 716

TOTAL 1,172 350 853 2,275

Pailin




Bilateral 990 1,376 1,283 950

NGO 409 847 707 453

TOTAL 1,487 2,325 2,203 1,661

Tbong Khmum

United Nations Agencies

4 234 234

Int'l Financial Institutions 15 70 199 32

European Union

100 248

Bilateral

NGO 2,804 1,967 2,339 1,924

TOTAL 2,819 2,041 2,872 2,437

Nation-Wide



European Union 112,331 96,137 122,482 96,777

Bilateral 268,239 211,528 197,631 211,902

NGO 9,949 12,562 9,912 11,549

Others 25,023 56,119 57,077 52,290

TOTAL 512,945 525,809 461,882 462,544

Unknown

United Nations Agencies


5,448

European Union

325 199 244

Bilateral 2,931 400

7,453

NGO 3,247 1,777 2,424 888

Others

TOTAL 6,177 2,502 2,623 14,032

Grand Total



European Unions 187,758 148,251 210,967 156,309

Bilateral 872,273 793,066 711,752 710,185

NGO 212,293 225,943 231,342 227,546

Others 25,023 56,119 57,077 52,290

TOTAL 1,499,097 1,478,875 1,444,064 1,343,029

41

ANNEX NINE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY – OVERVIEW OF STRUCTURE AND APPROACH

Vision: modernization of Cambodia's industrial structure to a skilled driven industry by 2025 (a) link with global value chain (b) regional production network integration, (c) production linkages (d) industrial competitiveness and productivity. Move towards technology/knowledge based industry. Three phases: (1) promote industrial potential & diversify labour intensive industry (manufacturing & agro-industry); (2) industrial restructuring & diversification; (3) specialization (sciences & technology).

IDP Objectives & Targets Current status Proposed Policies & Actions Focus of Government & Policies

Objectives (14)

Address structural challenges and to invest in key industrial infrastructure Targets (14) 1. Transforming and strengthening the industrial

structure.

(Industrial sector to 30% GDP (2025) from 24.1% (2013). Manufacturing to 20% from 15.5%).

2. Increase/diversify export products.

(Non-textile manufacture exports 15% of total by 2025 (1% - 2013). Processed agric. exports to 12% from 7.9%).

3. Strengthen SME development & management,

improve corporate governance.

(By 2025, register 80% (small) & 95% (medium) enterprises. 50-70% have accurate accounts balance sheets).

Overview of present situation (4)

Narrow industrial base Missing middle and informal industrial structure Weak and urban-centred entrepreneurship Low Value-Added and weak use of technology

Four Strategies for Industrial Development (15)

1. Mobilising FDI & domestic private investment (export mkt devt & promotion

of technology & transfer)

2. Developing & modernizing SMEs (manufac base , modernize/register enterprises, tech devt/transfer, dom/ext industrial linkages esp agro-industry)

3. Legal environment (competitiveness, investment climate, trade facilitation, market information, fees)

4. Supporting policies (HRD, skills, industrial relations, land m’ment, urbanization & land use, infrastructure, transport/logistics, digital connectivity, elec & water, public/social services, & financial services).

Scope and Priority Sectors

A focus is placed on priority industries, links with the global value chain & regional production networks. Scope (16)

1. Manufacturing & agro-processing industries (FDI and domestic investment)

2. Integrating into regional & global production networks

3. Development of industrial zones

4. Establishment of SEZs

5. Support to social enterprises

6. Knowledge & modern tech-based industries Priority Sectors (RGC facilitating role) (17)

1. New industries or manufacturing ventures with the capability of breaking into new markets, with high value-added products

2. SMEs (esp drugs & medical equipment, construction materials, packaging equipment for export, furniture manufacturing and industrial equipment)

3. Agro-industrial production for export and domestic markets

4. Supporting industries for the agriculture, tourism and textile sectors

5. Industries serving regional production (ICT, energy, heavy industries, cultural/historical/ handicraft, and green technology).

Challenges (8) Leadership, coordination and decision-making Technical knowledge and skills base Linking infrastructure and coordination Financial markets & access Labor market and industrial relations

Policy measures & Action plans (19) Investment Promotion (19)

a) Investment climate

b) SEZs and preparation of Industrial Zones Expanding & Modernizing SMEs (22)

a) Institutional arrangements and incentives

b) Registration and Account Ledgers

c) Promoting Agro-Industrial Development Improve Regulatory Environment (23)

a) Trade Facilitation and Export Promotion Measures

b) Industrial Standards and Property Rights

c) Facilitation for Payment of Tax and Excise

d) Labour Market Development & Industrial Relation Coordination of Supporting Policies (26)

a) Skills and Human Resource Development

b) Promoting Sciences, technology and innovation

c) Industrial infrastructure

d) Financing measures

Four extra measures by end-2018 (30) 1. Electricity coverage , cost

2. Master plan for transport & logistic system development (poles & corridors)

3. Labour market management & skills

4. Sihanoukville multi-purpose SEZ.

Grey number in brackets refers to page number in IDP document (May 2015 version)

development coorperation and partnerships report · the report will be used in their future work....

Documents