1 / 9

CBF – origins of the concept

Capacity Building Facility in Serbia and Montenegro (2001 – 2004) Overview of past achievements and challenges. CBF – origins of the concept. Early 2001 – Government in Post-Milosevic period a) Extremely low capacity even for mere sustaining of regular activities

arty
Download Presentation

CBF – origins of the concept

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Capacity Building Facilityin Serbia and Montenegro(2001 – 2004)Overview of past achievements and challenges

  2. CBF – origins of the concept • Early 2001 – Government in Post-Milosevic period • a)Extremely low capacity even for mere sustaining of regular activities • Public administration neglected for more then a decade • Highly politicized system and deep mistrust between civil servants and new Government b) No donor assistance for institutional development • No factual insight into existing PA system • No clear entry point c) Government highly committed to PAR and overall reforms • Two bodies for PAR established (a Council and an Agency) • Very ambitious agenda in all fields

  3. Development mission CBF – origins of the concept • Develop critical governing capacity required for managing the transition of Serbia and Montenegro to a fully democratic society and market economy

  4. Capacity Building for Institutional reform i.e. CBF CBF – origins of the concept

  5. Changes in the original concept • Government was not REALLY devoted on PAR in 2001 & 2002- Economic development the priority Constant (feeling of) crisis management prevented more sustainable approach to CD and PAR Instead of respecting the original plan – Government increasingly requested external policy advisors At one point CBF transformed – to a large extent - itself into a STAFFING mechanism with no links with PAR No incentive for civil service reform (pay system, in particular) Dependency syndrome created Real partnership amongst all development partners and government ceased to exist

  6. Total funds received: 9.6 million USD Number of projects: 18 Serbian Government: 8 ministries + 2 agencies + 3 cross-cutting PAR State Union of SCG: Capacity Assessment + 2 ministries Vojvodina Government: Provincial Functional Review + training SCTM: Capacity Development of Association of local governments Supreme Audit Institution: Legal drafting (Separate CD Programme in Montenegro) Total number of project staff: 524 (up to 1 000 various contracts) Key donors: OSI / UNDP + Netherlands, Sida, Germany, EAR, RBF, Norway, Austria, Swiss CBF Today – Key deliverables

  7. What was the actual impact? • No CBF monitoring and evaluation system No evaluation of the overall PAR CBF was very beneficial for the short term priorities CBF was not helping PAR on the long run

  8. CBF CTA, David CoombesBuilding the policy making capacity

  9. Issues for consideration - Sustainability / PIU issue - dependency on externally funded advisors - Staffing mechanism vs. Upstream capacity development support - Distinction between structural (PAR) and sectoral (policy) reforms – horizontal CD - UNDP role and mission in development works 10 Default Positions on Capacity Development

More Related