3. Program level planning, management and governance a. Continue to be guided by ASEC management guidelines on issues such as reporting, human resources, financial management and transparency in procurement and evaluation of program supported activities. b. Clarify budget sub-committee responsibilities and authority in addressing any concerns they may have about proposals that have already been endorsed by relevant FJC sub-committees. c. Explore options (including improved annual planning processes and direct support to sector agencies) to improve the quality of proposals for AECSP financing d. Strengthen ASEC information base on related bilateral programs and improve AECSP linkages with complementary bilateral programs. a. Agree. The delivery model for AECSP is based on a partnership involving management of the program by ASEC and AusAID is committed to continuing supporting this approach. b. Agree. AusAID agrees with the FJC response that the Economic Cooperation Budget Sub-Committee may raise technical concerns to relevant subsidiary bodies or to FJC. c. Agree. AusAID notes the importance of ensuring high quality ECWP proposals. AusAID further notes the standard of the proposals has improved over time due to the growing awareness by project proponents of the ECWP proposal guidelines. AusAID particularly acknowledges the role of the ASU in appraising the ECWP proposals. d. Partially agree. AusAID notes that within ASEC there is existing work to promote donor coordination and increase awareness of activity underway. However East Asia Regional Jakarta, rather than AECSP, will pursue this with ASEC and our key partners. a. No further action required b. No further action required c. The FJC will actively monitor the development of quality economic cooperation proposals for AECSP funding, including the role of the Economic Cooperation Budget Sub-Committee in supporting project proponents and subsidiary bodies of the AANZFTA in preparing quality applications. d. East Asia Regional Jakarta will continue to advocate for a more systematic approach to the exchange of information on programs, particularly in Dialogue Partners’ meetings, to better identify and strengthen linkages with complementary programs. c. FJC and Economic Cooperation Budget d. East Asia Regional Jakarta
4. Program monitoring, evaluation, communication and knowledge management a. Resources should be allocated to better monitor, analyze, document and disseminate evidence of the links from AECSP supported activities to the facilitation of regional trade, investment and employment. b. Develop and implement an AECSP communications strategy, including strategies to raise awareness of AANZFTA related business results and opportunities in AMS, New Zealand and Australia, and more effective use of the AECSP website to highlight program results and lessons learned c. Consider the need for a review of program priorities and work program following the AANZFTA review of progress in implementing the built-in agenda. d. Prepare, and present to ASEC leadership, periodic summary results review reports (e.g., AADCP II reports may provide useful models). a. Partially agree. AusAID very much acknowledges the importance of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), particularly in terms of demonstrating the effectiveness of programs and their link to aid outcomes. However the approach outlined in the IPR is highly resource intensive and has both budgetary and human resources implications. There will always be a practical limit to the program’s ability to conduct the research required to link such capacity development to on-the-ground outcomes. It is noted that the IPR itself largely uses examples of capacity built as commendable outcomes of the program. Obtaining evidence of how this capacity development has been applied and thereby translated into improved statistics and effects, other than through follow-up reporting by participants, would require very significant additional resources.. The recently implemented M&E instruments, which will monitor participant results six months after the ECWP activity, are designed to capture the link between these activities and results and potential development outcomes. These instruments are being managed by the ASU and AusAID acknowledges the considerable effort they are putting into this task. As these instruments have only recently been implemented, AusAID (and the program’s M&E specialist) to monitor, with the ASU, progress in the collection of data from the M&E instruments, and investigate options for improving the current approach, for example increasing participant response rates. AusAID will also liaise with the M&E specialist to assess the capacity to improve the current approach in the future, once M&E capacity is built through incremental increases to project reporting requirements. AusAID East Asia Regional officers in consultation with the M&E specialist and ASU.