instituting broad-based, robust consultation mechanisms. Coordination would be more effective through the widening of stakeholder participation to include a broader segment of civil society organisations and the private sector, and expanding the aid coordination process and mechanism to local levels. It is also recognised that there is under-investment in the core capacity of ministries to manage sector working groups effectively. Aid effectiveness is enhanced when donors use common arrangements to manage and deliver aid in support of partner country priorities. In 2010, only 18 per cent of total aid provided to Laos made use of programme-based approaches, an increase of 9 per cent from 2007. Line ministries, donors and civil society organisations do not yet share a common understanding of programme-based approaches and much room remains for improvement in developing sector strategies, costing them and increasing capacity at the central and local levels. In order to reduce aid fragmentation, the Government of Laos recognises the benefits of more joined-up programming, co‑financing and delegated co‑operation arrangements. However, it is not at the stage of promoting synergies between similar activities in development areas undertaken at the national, regional and local levels. The sector working groups’ secretariats are deemed to be and unable to play a significant role in facilitating collaboration and thus reducing the fragmentation caused by the delivery of aid in many small pieces from many donors. Development initiatives in rural development As indicated earlier, progress towards the target of reducing hunger by half, as part of attaining the Millennium Development Goal 1 (MDG 1) is noted as being seriously off-track (Government of Laos/United Nations 2010). The Poverty Hunger Index indicates that progress on poverty overall is being undercut by persistent levels of chronic malnutrition and inequalities. This kind of a situation illustrates the inadequacy of on-going development interventions in terms of making a significant traction in rural poverty reduction. The impact of most programs on reduced household poverty are undermined by limited expertise in analysing and facilitating improvements in rural market value chains, the limited access to financial services for poor farmers, and an inability to find appropriate development solutions for many of the most vulnerable households. These households’ circumstances preclude them from being able to participate in traditional donor programs that provide agriculture and other rural livelihoods strengthening services. Integration of these services with approaches that transfer assets and provide other forms of social protection is an area which has received little donor attention to date.
Committees Advocating for: >Gender equity in infrastructure jobs >Monitoring of impact of roads on women’s access to, and control of, resources Donors: >World Bank GOL: >Ministry of Transport and Public works; >The Lao Women’s Union (LWU) Multi-donor forums: >Infrastructure Sector Working Group Policy engagement Minimal cost - support facilitation of forums and workshops; support information dissemination A proposed Learning Facility can support research to underpin our policy dialogue First Secretary Program Manager, Infrastructure Advocating for improved disabled access to infrastructure and services Donors: >World Bank GOL/civil society: >Lao Disabled People’s Association; >Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MLSW) Multi-donor forums: >Infrastructure Sector Working Group Policy engagement – Minimal cost - support facilitation of forums and workshops; support information dissemination A proposed Learning Facility can support research to underpin our policy dialogue First Secretary Program Manager, Infrastructure
Strategic Priority Program within this strategic priority Area for Policy dialogue Stakeholder engagement Financing requirements Responsibility 2. Improved and inclusive access to finance, productive assets and market opportunities Laos Australia Rural Livelihoods Program (under design) Building stronger support for a formal social protection program GOL: > Ministry of Finance; > Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MLSW) Multi-donor forums: > we will work with MLSW to establish a social protection working group and will seek to become the lead development partner in the group. Programming – significant investment- around 45% of the delivery strategy budget for strategic priority 2 will be applied to social protection and market development. Policy engagement - Minimal cost – the proposed Learning Facility under the program can support research to underpin our policy dialogue in this area. Counsellor Senior Program Manager, Rural Development Supporting an improved policy and regulatory environment for microfinance to underpin the expansion of services in rural areas Multi-donor forums: > Steering Committee of the Fund for Inclusive Finance; > We will support the work to establish a Sector Working Group. GOL: > Bank of Laos Programming – significant – around 25 % of the delivery strategy budget for strategic priority 2. Policy engagement – minimal cost - The Learning Facility can support research to underpin our policy dialogue Counsellor Senior Program Manager, Rural Development Advocating for: > Increased GOL funding for the sector to accelerate UXO clearance progress; – competitive GOL salaries in the sector to ensure institutional effectiveness and sustainability; > Opening the UNDP Trust Fund to NGOs to help underpin continued sector innovation. Multi-donor forums: > UXO Sector Working Group GOL: > Ministry of Finance; > Ministry of Foreign Affairs; > National Regulatory Authority; > UXO Lao. Programming – modest – around 15% of the delivery strategy budget for strategic priority 2. Policy engagement – minimal cost – we are already an active participant in the sub-working group. The Learning Facility can support research to underpin our policy dialogue Counsellor Senior Program Manager, Rural Development Cross-cutting issues Build critical support for ‘Do No Harm’ approaches into rural development initiatives Donors: > Multilaterals (including Banks) > NGOs (international and local) GOL: > National Leading Committee on Rural Development and Poverty Eradication Policy engagement – minimal cost - support facilitation of forums and workshops; support information dissemination. The Learning Facility can support research to underpin our policy dialogue Counsellor First Secretary All Program Managers
Annex 4: Performance Assessment Framework Tier 1 Goal 2015-16 Outcomes 2015 Outcome Indicators 2012/13 Milestones Australian Assistance (planned/under preparation in italics) Improved economic livelihoods of the vulnerable poor, with a focus on equitable opportunities for women. Our success indicators include: >Wealth distribution (Gini coefficient) >Malnutrition among women and children (malnutrition and 1. Improved and inclusive access to finance, productive assets, and market opportunities 1.1 Productive land released from UXO contamination 1.2 Rural households benefiting from lands released from UXO contamination 1.3 Poor households able to access social transfers 1.4 Productive assets accumulated by poor households 1.5 Women and men able to access financial services 1.6 Smallholders who realised a net increase in income 1.7 Value chains >Rural Livelihoods Program design >FMA 9/10 >MSA with GOL >NGO competitive grants process Initiatives >Laos Australia NGO Cooperation Agreement >Rural Livelihoods Program Advocacy, Policy Dialogue & Donor Coordination >Sector Working Groups (ANR, UXO) Sector-based Analysis >Research (Land and Safeguards, Social Protection, Markets for the Poor, Financial Services for the Poor) Linkages >Education: adult language literacy & numeracy, and social protection & value chain (school feeding) >Trade: financial inclusion, market barriers, and pro-poor growth >Scholarships: GOL capacities in agriculture, livelihoods, social protection & governance
Monitoring & evaluation “Is a robust monitoring and evaluation system being used to effectively measure implementation progress, and progress towards meeting objectives?” > Is there a robust monitoring and evaluation system in place? Is it clear what will be assessed, by whom, when and how? > Is the monitoring and evaluation system being used as planned? > Is the monitoring and evaluation system delivering useful information for management and decision making, as well as evidence of effectiveness? > Is the information being used appropriate for management, accountability and learning needs? > Is data gender-disaggregated to measure the impact of the strategy on men and women, boys and girls? > Do monitoring and evaluation arrangements use or strengthen local monitoring and evaluation systems and/or capacity as appropriate? Sustainability “Will benefits last?” > To what extent will significant benefits endure after Australia’s contribution has ceased? Is it clear what sustainable benefits and changes the strategy aims to generate? > Is this strategy producing environmentally sustainable outcomes? Is it likely to be adversely affected by environmental changes? Gender equity “Are we achieving it and how are we achieving it?” > Is the strategy producing meaningful changes in the lives of women and girls? Do women and girls have equal access to the benefits from this strategy? > How well does the initiative strategy integrate gender equality into objectives and the consideration of risks and sustainability? > What progress has been made on addressing/resolving any gender equality issues identified during the development of the strategy? > Is the monitoring and evaluation assessing and reporting on progress towards desired gender equality outcomes and impact? Cross cutting issues “What else is at stake?” > How does the strategy contribute to Australia’s policy commitments on aid effectiveness, use of government systems, anti-corruption, as well as cross-cutting thematic issues such as HIV/AIDS, environment and climate change, disability, or other Australia or Australian Government policy commitments, as relevant? Risk management “How is risk being managed?” > What are the significant risks requiring management attention? Are there any new risks emerging? > Are there strategies in place to manage risks? How well are these strategies working? Do other controls need to be put in place?
2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016 Annex 6: Risk Matrix A number of strategy level risks have been identified and these will be prudently managed while delivering Australia’s rural development assistance. Some of the major risk events, implications, and mitigation measures are identified below. Key risk events Impact on strategy outcomes Mitigation measures National imperatives on economic growth and foreign direct investments With the emphasis on growth through large-scale resources and foreign investments, widening wealth disparities may continue and the circumstances of poor and vulnerable households will deteriorate beyond the capacity donor programs to meaningfully address. AusAID will engage GOL in a sustained dialogue, emphasising that a critical key to poverty reduction is the generation of growth that also ensures cash incomes for the poor, through employment and increased agricultural incomes. Work undertaken by both the Trade and Rural Development pillars will pursue pro-poor economic growth. Current national policies on land Access to productive land is critical to community livelihoods outcomes. The implementation of current policies on land has the potential to weaken the development outcomes aid interventions seek to achieve. Adverse and perverse outcomes may include newly-built schools without students, cash crops being left untended by missing farmers, and communities separated from sources of food and livelihoods. The government is already examining with critical lenses investment applications that entail reallocation of land. AusAID will support initiatives that have the support of local government units and communities and ensure that implementing partners are in a constant dialogue with GOL counterparts so that they are aware of forthcoming development plans.