Malaysian-Danish Country Programme for Cooperation in Environment and Development (2002-2006)
5. Programme Management
5.1 Programme Steering Committee
The Programme Steering Committee (PSC) is responsible for the overall development and implementation of the Danish environmental assistance programme. The PSC was established on August 12, 1995 soon after the signing of the MOU formalising the bilateral arrangement between the Danish and Malaysian Governments. The PSC's mandate is to:
 | Ensure the contribution of the programme to environmentally sustainable development within the thematic areas as identified in the Country Programme. |
| Promote the Country Programme and its objectives, in relation to relevant public authorities, institutions, NGOs and the private sector. |
| Promote the transfer, adoption, development and utilisation of appropriate Danish technology and know-how for environmental protection and sustainable natural resource management. |
| Encourage effective cooperation between Malaysian and Danish Government agencies, NGOs, educational institutions, and private enterprises. |
| Promote regional cooperation in environmentally sustainable development, particularly in those countries in the region with a Danced or Danida programme. |
| Monitor and evaluate programme activities and ensure the fulfilment of responsibilities on specific Project Agreements. |
The PSC's composition reflects a cross-section of key government agencies with responsibilities covering various aspects of environmental and natural resource management. High level commitment and interdepartmental decision-making has been enabled through representation of government agencies at ministerial level. The East Malaysian States of Sabah and Sarawak are also represented by their respective development planning agencies on the PSC. In order to integrate the four different channels of Danced cooperation, representatives from the private sector, universities and NGOs have been invited to be members of the PSC for the third Country Programme. The representatives of these groups will inform and provide input to the discussion of the PSC related to the activities within their channel of support. They will have observer status for areas of the agenda that do not pertain to their particular sub programme.
The membership of the PSC is given below:
| Deputy Director General (Sectorial), EPU (Co-Chair). |
| Danced (Co-Chair). |
| Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment. |
| Ministry of Primary Industries. |
| Ministry of International Trade and Industry. |
| Ministry of Agriculture. |
| Ministry of Housing and Local Government. |
| Ministry of Energy, Telecommunication and Multimedia. |
| Ministry of Education. |
| Sabah State Economic Planning Unit, |
| Sarawak State Economic Planning Unit. |
| Invited representative of the Private Sector and |
| Invited representative of the environmental NGOs. |
While the PSC has the overall responsibility for directing the programme in Malaysia the programme should be mainly managed at project level as this is where accountability and responsibility is attached for reaching project specific outputs and immediate objectives. However, an overall programme management will be necessary in order to:
| Plan and identify the future projects within the country framework. |
| Extend and deepen the dialogue between Danced and key lead cooperation agencies. |
| Monitor and report on the progress of the programme as a whole making use of project based progress reports. |
| Make recommendations for adjusting and updating the Country Programme. |
Programme management will require resources that will need to be mobilized and designed in detail.
5.3 Programme Implementation PlanActivities to be funded should be developed together with the lead agencies and should be embedded and form part of the annual and five year plans and budgets. At the start of the programme a series of potential areas of cooperation should be identified based on the existing and already partially financed plans but where external assistance is required to improve the impact or to add value in some significant way. Co-financing between the cooperating institution and Danced outside of the cost of Danish technical assistance should in general be 50% each (including consideration of contributions in kind) unless exceptional circumstances prevail.
A first attempt at programming following these principles should take place in the first year of cooperation. This will involve the joint efforts of teams representing Danced and the relevant Malaysia lead agencies within the major areas of cooperation. The teams should develop an outline for a number of projects within the budget constraints of both Danced and the Malaysian institutions. A programme implementation plan should thus emerge and be updated every year during an annual review of the entire programme.
A minor part of the activities to be funded can be developed with one of the identified lead agencies outside of the scope of the annual or the five-year pans due to their catalytic or high experimental nature.
Activities to be funded under the NGO, Private Sector Facility and University elements of the cooperation will be guided by special considerations for each of these elements.
The proposed project management process would start with the submission to EPU by February each year of project proposals from the agencies, under the framework of the Country Programme and developed as part of the implementation plan. The PSC would meet in March to evaluate new project submissions for implementation in the following year as well as review and monitor existing projects and plans. By April approval would be given for the project to be implemented in the following year thus integrating it with the main government financial and approval cycles that will ensure that all Danced support activities within the core programme are co-financed.
Typical Project Cycle
| Project idea prioritised (from within framework of Country Programme and then documented as part of the later project implementation plan). |
| First level screening occurs when the rolling programme implementation plan is approved in March by the PSC. This screening allows the mobilization process to start. |
| Project design - Mobilisation - Planning of project preparation process. Initial stakeholder analysis and institutional screening to develop TOR Results in the Draft Project Document. The Project formulation should have measurable indicators, derived from the cooperation objectives, which in turn are derived from the thematic objectives. Sustainable development principles should also be in place. During this phase, formal comments are received from the lead agency, EPU, relevant stakeholders and Danced. |
| Project appraisal –an independent quality control of the Project Document to obtain the final Project Document. |
| Formal agreement, Tendering and Contracting. |
| Start of Project implementation. |
Figure 5.1 Look
Here!
Typical Project Cycle
The main criteria for project selection are summarised below:
| Within the core rather than the periphery of one of the chosen focal areas. |
| Part of the one-year and 5-year plan and budget ( for government projects). |
| Degree of co-financing by Malaysian institutes. |
| Visible positive environmental impact. |
| Assisting local and decentralised environmental initiatives. |
| Contribution to implementation of environmental conventions. |
| Contribution to awareness raising. |
| Contribution to environmental information management or dissemination. |
| Contribution to application of economic instruments. |
| Demonstration value and likelihood of replication. |
| Transfer of Danish technology and know how. |
| Participation of stakeholders and civil society. |
| Link to regional activities or exchange. |
Measurement of the impact of support is important - not for its own sake but to increase accountability and allow adjustment of the programme so as to optimise the impact of the cooperation. In some core areas of cooperation it will be desirable to avoid parallel project indicator monitoring. Instead projects, which should be closely aligned to national priorities, should make use of national impact monitoring. Where this is insufficient it could, within key areas of focus, be relevant to add a component of support that assists in the measurement of environmental impact.
Every year EPU and Danced will carry out a brief annual review of the programme. This annual review will not replace the mid-term review but will benefit from any in-depth technical reviews made at the project level. The purpose of the review will be to present a report on the major progress achieved within the cooperation programme and to make recommendations for improving the impact of the programme. The updated programme implementation plan will also be reviewed. The review report will be presented shortly before the PSC meeting so that the PSC can consider the findings.
A mid-term review of the programme will be taken to coincide with the mid term review of the 8th Malaysia Plan. Thus the review of the Malaysian – Danced cooperation within environment and sustainable development will both contribute to and benefit from the overall mid-term review of the 8th Malaysia Plan.
Once the Country Programme has ended and the impacts have matured an external evaluation may be undertaken.
5.6 IndicatorsPotential indicators for the programme are discussed in chapter 4. As part of the ongoing programme management these will need to be developed and made part of the overall monitoring system. The indicators are a mixture of impact and output related indicators and in some cases it will be advantageous to use participatory monitoring approaches.
5.7 Assumptions and Management of RisksThe major assumptions are:
| Continuity in economic growth and political stability. |
| Continuing and growing political willingness to emphasise environmental and sustainable development concerns. |
There are risks that:
| Environment and sustainable development will be marginalized by more powerful economic and social forces. |
| Institutional jealously will prevail and projects dependent on cooperation will yield low results. |
| Project design will be too complex to be implemented in reality. |
| Programme management and adherence to programme design will be weaker than special interests to promote particular projects. |
These risks can be minimised by: emphasising projects which lift the awareness and profile of environment, designing projects based on a realistic assessment of cooperation possibilities, simplifying project design where ever possible and reducing the level of ambition and, assigning sufficiently well qualified resources to programme management and project appraisal.