Projects and Programmes (p&p) A new concept for defining the implementation modalities TRAINING LAF – JUNE 2009

Context for the definition of the implementation modalities in p&p Paris Declaration Third Management contract Belgian H&A Plan Indicative Cooperation Programmes in some countries Instruction for the preparation of the ICP and JC in 2009

Context for the definition of implementation modalities in p&p Present situation Clear commitment of the Belgian State towards more « national execution » Unclear view on how the concept of national execution applies to the execution modalities of p&p The efforts toward more national execution during the formulation of new p&p lead to a variety of modalities and terminologies, that are discussed case by case, without a clear reference framework

Defining the execution modalities of p&p consists in answering 3 basic questions : What must be done to manage the project? which processes apply?  Mutual accountability How to do it? which system apply?  Alignement / Harmonization Who’s doing what? How to share responsibilities?  Ownership

What must be done to manage the project ? (which processes apply ?) Procurement Risk Communication Processes for managing p&p are grouped in 9 knowledge areas = process model for managing projects Scope Quality Cost Time Human resources Integration

What must be done to manage the project ? (which processes apply ?) Processes are the right support for the discussion with the partner about his system (similarity Qplatform – National execution manuals) According to the management areas, discussion can be lead at group level or at a more detailed level (process level) Examples: Management of international long-tem experts Financial management

How to do it ? (Which system apply?) 2 possibilities for each process: Partner BTC or Third party (WB – EU – Common arrangements) Alignment (Paris and Accra): Select the partner’s system for as many processes as possible Explain why it is decided not to use the partner’s system

How to do it ? (Which system apply?) Not that simple Is it important ? Yes, because of Paris Yes, from a strictly operational point of view (because TFF has to refer to the system description, otherwise everything should be described in the TFF) If the Belgian system is chosen, it is important that an analysis of the harmonization possibilities has occured beforehand Differing procedures  competition between interventions

How to do it ? (Which system apply?) System’s identification rules If the system remains in use after the end of the intervention, then it is probably a national system (or it became national) If some purely validation steps are incorporated in the system then BTC considers that the system has not been modified Examples Special account for Belgian funds Procurement

Who’s doing what? (How to share responsibilities?) 3 ways to share responsibilities within each process: Responsibility R C I national belgian joint National responsibility: a posteriori control by BTC Belgian or joint responsibility: a priori control by BTC Joint responsibility requires a consensus

Who’s doing what? (How to share responsibilities?) 3 ways to share responsibilities within each process: Responsibility R C I national Partner (BTC) BTC belgian (Partner) joint Partner and BTC C stands for Capacity developmenet or partnership: is it compulsory or not? Where is the consensus reached : PMU and/or SC? Examples : Financial management, procurement

National execution National execution at process level = NEX = partner’s system + national responsibility System Partner BTC Third Party National National execution Belgian Joint Responsibility

National execution /Cogestion Stop using words like regie or cogestion System Responsibility National CTB Partner National execution Cogestion Joint National execution /Cogestion Belgian Cogestion / Régie Régie Use the new terminology : system and responsibility Ex : national procurement system in joint responsibility

National execution at project level Discard good old rusty framework REGIE/COGESTION !  Go for more accuracy, using the process table More adaptability More possibilities to measure and control progress towards more alignement More possibilities to support consistent dialogue with the partner about his project management capacities

National execution at project level National execution at project level = still to be defined … Not all processes can be in national execution because a posteriori control can not apply on all aspects of project management (total budget, total duration, specific objective changes are obvious examples) The choice of system/responsability can be different for each knowledge area (process) The concept could be restricted to some areas of management (finance, procurement, HR)