Cambodia: PSIA of Social Land Concession Program – Lessons Learned

1. Cambodia: PSIA of Social Land Concession Program – Lessons Learned Third International Roundtable – Managing for Development Results Hanoi, Vietnam February 2007 Srey Chanthy Independent Consultant – Agriculture & Land

2. Outline • Key features • How PSIA complements other approaches • Relevance of technical, institutional and political aspects • How PSIA strengthens results orientation in design and implementation of the program • How to strengthen incorporation of results into policy making process • How PSIA strengthen mutual and domestic accountability • Challenges in capacity development and institutionalization of PSIA • Lessons learned

3. 1. Key features: Objective and focus Objective: Determine the poverty and social impacts of land distribution and the conditions for the successful realization and sustainability of potential benefits • Focus: • Extent and reasons for landlessness and land-poverty • Institutional and policy issues • Availability of support services and infrastructure • Potential availability of land for distribution • Potential poverty and social impacts

4. 1. Key features:Process LASED Program First meetings with stakeholders (May 2003) Workshop to present and discuss main findings and recommendations (May 2004) ‘Concept Note’ for the PSIA Discussions with potential research partners Draft reports on individual parts Proposed studies were presented at a workshop (October 2003) Fieldwork (December 2003) Small workshop on methodological approach (November 2003)

5. 1. Key features: Partners and audience, and methodologies • Partners and audience: • MLMUPC – Social land concession working group(s) • GTZ – through LMAP Project • World Bank Task Team for this PSIA • Oxfam GB • ABiC – experienced local research/ANRM NGO • Other stakeholders, incl. gov’t agencies (MAFF, MRD, etc.), donors, NGOs/CSOs, research agencies • Research instruments / tools: • Review and analysis of secondary literature • Random sampling procedures • PRA exercises and household survey

6. 2. How PSIA complements other approaches currently used • Provision of both qualitative and quantitative information about impacts of multidisciplinary aspects • Very limited ex ante analyses done • Other ex ante approaches (e.g. PPA, PIA) used not for specific program, policy reform … • Consensus building among stakeholders • Inclusion of beneficiary, non-beneficiary and influential groups (welfare and distributional impact) • Establishment of baseline and aspects for M&E

7. 3. Relevance of technical, institutional, and political aspects • Technical: • Lacking familiarity with qualitative techniques or combined approaches • Issue of consensus on sampling procedures • Lacking involvement in analysis and result interpretation, incl. NIS • Institutional: • Weak capacity and appreciation of concerned agencies • Existence of political platform, strategy, certain legal framework • Now … under national statistics law, PSIA would be potentially under NIS depending on its size • Political: • No major issues – predictable and desirable impacts, yet to realize • Ownership – participation in the process, dissemination of and debate about results, use of results • Resource constraints (for this PSIA: US$8,4000.oo; 24 personnel, 4 months (from training to reporting))

8. 4. How PSIA strengthens results orientation in design and implementation of the program • Awareness of social land concession program committee at national level • Several studies identified under PSIA followed • Important legal framework and guidelines considered, materialized and implemented • Design of improved program, pilot sites chosen, etc. – LASED • Capacity building in pilot areas, …

9. 5. How to strengthen incorporation of results into policy making • Building ownership • Conducting policy advocacy/dialogue • Building consensus on policies / strategies / measures [identified by PSIA] • Pilot-testing the identified policies / strategies / measures – LASED

10. 6. How PSIA strengthen mutual and domestic accountability • Characteristics of the eminent programs, and institutional roles, responsibilities and arrangements as well as obligations of all stakeholders revealed and discussed • Concerns and recommendations shared

11. 7. Challenges in capacity development and institutionalization of PSIA • Issue of familiarity and preference: quantitative vs. qualitative techniques • Complexity: multidisciplinary nature of impact analysis • New approach, and thus limited appreciation • Budgetary / priority issue: development vs. research • Research and analytical capacity of staff • Culture / perception of research within anchoring unit in each agency / body

12. 8. Lessons learned • Building ownership through appropriate engagement • Building consensus • Conducting after-process policy advocacy/dialogue • Allocating adequate time and resources • Lacking streamlining of PSIA effort into the system ( because of (a) resource constraint, (b) capacity constraint, and lack of appreciation of the tools, and (c) lack of visibility of results) • In case of PIA/PPA, investment did not primarily match with priorities, but later increased, while time lapses

13. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!