Swiss involvement in the NPRS process can be best described as “business as usual”. There has been a limited effort; the menu of options to influence the process has not been used for a variety of reasons. Ten key observations can be made:
1) Mainly because of insufficient prioritisation and very broad formulation of policies, a majority of donors does not consider the NPRS as a coordination tool.
2) The involvement of donors varies from proactive support to virtual abstention; the broad range of instruments used by the active donors presents a wealth of experiences for shaping Swiss involvement in the NPRS and its implementation.
3) Swiss (SDC, seco) HQ do not provide general guidance or country specific instructions on the priority of and the involvement in the NPRS process.
4) Swiss representatives doubt whether adequate resources for active NPRS involvement could be mobilised.
5) Neither Government nor donors try to use the NPRS process for revisiting strategic approaches to the reforms in the country. The process of the NPRS could become a forum for discussion of alternative development policies.
6) ODA is often tied to specific changes in the policies of the Government; it is an ambiguous situation, alsowith regard to the NPRS, that unfulfilled conditionalities are renegotiated and the Government is well aware of this flexibility.
7) To answer the question whether the NPRS paves the way to programme/budget support, it has to be noted that so far there is no budget transparency in the Kyrgyz Republic.
8) Often it is unclear whether there are coherent Swiss positions on key NPRS issues which are common to all Swiss offices involved.
9) Channelling the experience of Swiss NGOs into the NPRS process has been happening only accidentally.
10) Looking at the high reputation Switzerland enjoys in the Kyrgyz Republic, it is obvious that Switzerland can make a difference in the NPRS implementation. Are the means adequate and the political will clear enough to seize this opportunity?
