Strengthening Better Development Outcomes with Joint Programming in Cambodia

Children on an EU-funded learning programme in Cambodia

At the European Union Delegation in Cambodia, staff are finding that Joint Programminghas raised the profile of EU donors and at the same time fostered greater trust and cooperation between the EU and EU Member States active in the country.

While China is building infrastructure and influence across Asia, Cambodia’s European donors believe that any country should listen to multiple voices in selecting their own developmental paths - there is no such thing as a ‘one size fits all developmental model’. And while infrastructure is essential to the country’s long-term development, poorly planned projects could have long-term negative consequences for the country’s economy, environment and people.

Joint Programming significantly strengthens the position and leverage of EU donors by bringing their actions and spending power together under one umbrella of cooperation. The European group of donors provide harmonised support particularly in public sector capacity building that are critical areas for Cambodia’s development but which the government does not at this moment wish to take loans for. European technical cooperation and know-how is also greatly valued by the Cambodian government. 

“The Chinese economic interests in this country are rapidly increasing day by day – it’s huge now,” said Fiona Ramsey, Head of Operations at the EU Delegation in Phnom Penh. “It’s important to have a strong voice and a strong voice means having a unified voice with harmonized and similar approaches.”

For EU donors is was important that development programming incorporates consultation with the private sector, civil society representatives and emphasizes working together with the government and its institutions to ensure that EU priorities align with Cambodian priorities.

There are 12 EU partners who in 2014-2015 disbursed some 330 million euros to Cambodia, or together some 16% of all overseas development assistance in this period. Individually, European donors are proportionally small funders of investment in Cambodia. But, by coming together as a single block, the EU is the largest grant donor in the country.

“At the very beginning of our work on Joint Programming, we looked at the rise of Chinese influence in terms of funds and presence,” said Ms Ramsey.  “It was an important part of our discussion that we needed to be stronger as a European voice both within the development partner community but we also needed to be stronger at a political level and offer an alternative position.”

Strengthening their ability to do this was the arrival in 2012 of the EU’s first resident Head of Delegation and EU Ambassador to Cambodia who sought to work closely with Member States and develop a coordinate response to meeting the country’s development needs. Around the same time, the World Bank stepped back from Cambodia leaving something of a void in the development policy dynamic.

“The EU Ambassador was very keen on mobilizing the heads of mission in a joint European framework – at a political level,” said Ms Ramsey. “There were already areas where we worked closely together [with other Member States] but the fact that the political level was also moving ahead with closer coordination while we were trying to move ahead with Joint Programming was mutually reinforcing.”

Joint Programming has also brought the EU donor community closer, fostering trust and understanding amongst the EU Member States and deepening their understanding of the Cambodian operating environment.

EU donors plus Switzerland drafted a political economy analysis of Cambodia in 2013 and crucially, development counsellors from the European partners came together to debate the final document and understand what the document meant for their development planning.

“It was a really useful exercise to better understand each other as development counsellors, as a group, and to build trust among us,” said Ms Ramsey. “It was a very informal, open discussion, with very personal opinions and personal stories.”

“We recognised that there were lots of things that were far beyond what we could do but we had to acknowledge that they exist – as power relationships, as political relationships, as economic interests and we have to think about the best way of working around them, or with them,” said Ms Ramsey.

“We had some very different perspectives in the room and some very different experiences to share and it was a really good in building trust and understanding amongst ourselves,” Ms Ramsey said, adding: “I would strongly recommend those kind of meetings, that are outside of our regular coordination meetings.“