Donor Support Mapping for Social Protection Sector: Interim Report

1. Ministerul Protecţiei Sociale, Familiei şi Copilului MAPPING DONOR SUPPORT TO THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SECTOR Interim Report to the Social Protection Coordination Group 24 January 2008

2. Status • agreed in principle on 31 October that mapping exercise would be worthwhile • form of questionnaire as survey instrument agreed by email • returns received from most respondents by 22 January – thank you! – and paper circulated 23 January • interim report – needs completion when all returns received, and checking/updating by respondents

3. Form of report • paper which summarises some of the key data reported and tries to draw some conclusions • only presents information included in returns • annexes which compile all of information in the returns, plus information from other sources, and estimates/inferences • amendments invited to both parts - please

4. Some findings (1) • external assistance reported at 22.01.08 totals €40.396m (2004-2012) – overall total may be over €73m • precision difficult: may • capture some non-SP project expenditure • omit SP components of other projects • omit NGO/community contributions • record some but not all closed projects • not yet capture all donors’ plans for future years

5. Some findings (2) • number of different routes or channels for assistance – but largest amount goes in contributions to the SIF • apparently good spread of donor engagement across all focus areas (aspects of MSPFC’s work) and strategic objectives – except disability assessment and accreditation & quality inspection • [apologies to SIDA – omitted from gender equality line (!)]

6. Some findings (3) • number of donors or amount spent does not necessarily mean that the right amount of support is being provided to key objectives, or in the right way • but may provide a starting-point for dialogue between MSPFC and concerned donors • not all areas of work have lead donor, some have more than one

7. Some findings (4) • wide range of current thematic and project-related channels of communication between donors and Ministry • SPCG only opportunity for sector-wide overview of plans, commitments and developments

8. Conclusions and next steps • can (with help) refine and improve the mapping, but will never be definitive • need to focus on key issues of coordination – eliminating major gaps and overlaps in coverage • perhaps concentrate on smaller core of projects/programmes directly supporting strategic objectives • step towards integrated programming of national and donor resources

9. Conclusions and next steps (2) • need to ensure allocation of resources by SIF – as largest channel of donor funding – is closely aligned with MSPFC intentions • group may wish to give further consideration to how this can best be done

10. Conclusions and next steps (3)- monitoring and reporting • need to ensure that information collected is not wasted, and can be used by SPCG as basis for monitoring activity in the sector • could make database available on internet (preferably MSPFC website) so donors can update directly – either in “private” area or open (read-only) to public • need decision on way forward

11. Conclusions and next steps (4) • please provide outstanding returns, and any amendments/improvements to paper and annexes by 14 February • we will collate changes, re-circulate amended version, and investigate internet options • will also prepare, in the light of discussion here, a draft action plan setting out some practical steps for strengthening harmonisation/coordination