society national workshop on enhancing the effectiveness of managementsynthesis report

Ministry of Planning and Investment United Nations Development ProgramProject on Strengthening Capacity for Management of Integrated Rural Development (VIE/01/023)

National Workshop

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Management

of Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Programs

H NiDecember 7 9, 2005

SYNTHESIS REPORT

x

Acknowledgements

This National Workshop was organized by the Project on Strengthening Capacity for Management of Integrated Rural Development (2002 to 2005) under the Department of Agriculture Economy, Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI). Funding for the workshop was kindly granted by the United Nations Development Program in Viet Nam (through Project VIE/01/023).

The workshop organizers would like to thank all the agencies and individuals who participated in the workshop, including the representatives from central government agencies, representatives from province departments in 10 provinces (Ha Giang, Tuyen Quang, Ha Tinh, Quang Tri, Son La, Yen Bai, Kon Tum, Gia Lai, Tra Vinh and Soc Trang), and representatives from donors, NGOs, project offices and research and training organizations. The active involvement and discussion amongst all the participants during the workshop contributed greatly to a successful event and to the quality of the workshop proceedings.

In particular, the organizers would like to thank all the agencies and authors who prepared papers and presentations for the workshop. A great deal of time and effort was put into these papers, which is reflected in their high standard and quality. These contributors include:

Ha Tinh Rural Development Project (IFAD) Improved Livelihoods for Mountainous Communities Project in Thanh Hoa (CECI / CIDA) Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project (World Bank / DFID) Quang Ngai Rural Development Project (AusAid) Research Consulting and Training in Rural Development Ltd. Thua Tien Hue Rural Development Project (Finland) VICA Consultants Ltd Vietnam Institute of Economics Vietnam Sweden Chia Se Program (Sida) World Bank WSP International.

We would like to extend our particular thanks to Mr Vu Ngoc Anh and Mr Nguyen Tien Phong of UNDP for their continuous support in implementing the Project VIE/01/023 and for their guidance on achieving the objectives of the National Workshop. Our appreciation is also extended to all the people who helped with the facilitation and organization of the workshop.

Ms L Th ThngDirector, Project VIE/01/023Department of Agriculture Economy Ministry of Planning and Investment

i

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank AEC Agriculture Extension CentreCDBC Commune Development Budget ComponentCDD Community Driven DevelopmentCIDA Canadian International Development Agency DFID UK Department for International Development GEUs Grassroots Extension UnitsHRDP Ha Tinh Rural Development ProjectIFAD International Fund for Agriculture DevelopmentILMC Improved Livelihoods for Mountainous Communities Project IMBs Infrastructure Management BoardsIPM Integrated Pest Management MDGs Millennium Development Goals M&E Monitoring and EvaluationMIS Management Information Systems MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment NGO Non Governmental OrganizationNMPRP Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction project ODA Official Development AssistanceO&M Operations and Maintenance PER Public Expenditure ReviewPMU Project / Program Management Unit RDF Response Delivery FundRUDEP Quang Ngai Rural Development Program SEDP Socio-Economic Development Plan UNDPUnited Nations Development Program WUAs Water User AssociationsVDGs Viet Nam Development Goals

iiList of Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... i Abbreviations............................................................................................................................ ii List of Contents........................................................................................................................iii OPENING SPEECH ..................................................................................................................... 1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3

Objectives and activities of Project VIE/01/023 ...................................................................... 3

National workshop objectives and themes............................................................................... 4

List of papers and presentations .............................................................................................. 5

THEME 1: DECENTRALIZED COMMUNE MANAGEMENT .............................................. 8

Main issues and recommendations from the workshop .......................................................... 8

Summary of papers and presentations .................................................................................... 9

THEME 2: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE...................... 13

Main issues and recommendations from the workshop ........................................................ 13

Summary of papers and presentations .................................................................................. 13

THEME 3: MOBILIZATION AND INTEGRATION OF RESOURCES ............................... 17



THEME 4: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 21



THEME 5: CAPACITY BUILDING AT GRASSROOTS LEVEL.......................................... 24



Annex 1. List of publications by Project VIE/01/023 ............................................................ 27

Annex 2. List of invited workshop participants .................................................................... 28

x

iiiOpening Speech

Mr o Quang ThuDirectorDepartment of Agriculture Economy Ministry of Planning and Investment

Dear Representative of the United Nations Development Program Office in Vietnam, Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Guests...

On behalf of the Agriculture Economy Department of the Ministry of Planning and Investment, I would like to warmly welcome you, distinguished guests, and representatives from donors, central agencies, provinces and projects to this workshop.

The Government of Viet Nam and donors attach high importance to rural development and poverty reduction. In recent years, the Government has issued many policies and regulations to support the implementation of investment programs targeted on rural development and poverty reduction, such as the National Target Program on Poverty Reduction and Job Creation; the Program on Socio-Economic Development of Communes with Special Difficulties in Remote and Mountainous Areas (Program 135); the National Target Program on Clean Water Supply and Rural Sanitation; the Five Million Hectares Reforestation Program and other programs.

In addition to the great efforts of the Government, international donors continue to support Viet Nam to implement many important projects, such as the Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project funded by the World Bank, the rural development projects in Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Tuyen Quang and Ha Giang funded by International Fund for Agriculture Development, the Central Region Poverty Reduction and Livelihood Improvement Project funded by the Asian Development Bank, and the Viet Nam - Sweden Chia Se Program funded by Sida, which are amongst many other donor-assisted projects.

These projects and programs have significantly contributed to the promotion of socio-economic development in Viet Nam in general and to rural development and poverty reduction in particular. Thanks to them, the rate of poverty in Viet Nam according to Government figures has been substantially reduced, from around 17.5% in 2001 to only 7% in 2005.

During the implementation of these projects and programs on rural development and poverty reduction in recent years, there have emerged many successful investment models, good practices and good experiences that need to be exchanged and replicated. At the same time, there are also some inconsistent policies and regulations that need to be revised and completed so that they can help to improve the investment efficiency of programs and projects geared towards rural poverty reduction and community development objectives.

The main objective of the workshop today on Improving the Management Effectiveness of Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Programs is to create an open forum for Government agencies, donors, provinces, and programs and projects to exchange and share experience and to generate recommendations. The recommendations made at the workshop will aim at improving the policies and regulations, and efficiency in designing and implementing projects and programs on rural development and poverty reduction that are being prepared and will be implemented in the coming time.

10In order for the workshop to achieve good results, the workshop has been divided into different topics, including decentralizing project management, mobilizing and integrating resources, monitoring and evaluation, operations and maintenance of infrastructure works at the commune levels, and building capacity at the grassroots level for rural development projects. This division of topics will facilitate discussion and the exchange of ideas and experience.

The valuable contributions and inputs from representatives from all agencies at all levels, central and local, from donors and NGOs, and from projects will be carefully taken note of and consolidated into the Workshop Proceedings that will be disseminated to management authorities, researchers and relevant projects nationwide.

On behalf of the organizing committee, once again, I would like to warmly welcome distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen participating in this workshop. I hope your many good experiences will be shared and exchanged to contribute to the success of the workshop.

On this occasion, allow me to convey our sincere thanks to UNDP for your support and funding for MPI to organize this workshop.

I wish all participants good health and best success to our workshop.

o Quang Thu

National WorkshopEnhancing the Effectiveness of Managementof Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Programs

H NiDecember 7 9, 2005

SYNTHESIS REPORT

Introduction

This Synthesis Report provides a summary of the papers and presentations made at the National Workshop on Enhancing the Effectiveness of Management of Rural Development Programs held in Ha Noi in December 2005. The report also summarizes the main outputs of the workshop in the form of a set of main issues and recommendations related to the workshop themes. The Synthesis Report accompanies a CD containing the full proceedings of the workshop.

Objectives and activities of Project VIE/01/023

The Project on Strengthening Capacity for Management of Integrated Rural Development (UNDP Project VIE/01/023) has been implemented by the Department of Agricultural Economy, Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), in the period from August 2002 to December 2005.

The overall objective of this project is to strengthen the national and provincial capacities in co- coordinating, formulating and implementing the Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction strategy and programs. One of the specific objectives of the project is to contribute to the formulation of a national policy and implementation guidelines on integrated rural development projects, drawing on a systematic review of lessons learned from on-going projects.

By the term integrated rural development it is understood that these projects and programs have adopted a multi-component approach to the provision of rural infrastructure and services to support household livelihood improvement. Commonly, these projects have two or more of the following components: small-scale commune and village infrastructure, support for agriculture extension and other production and household enterprise related activities, support for savings- and-credit and rural financial services, natural resource management such as forestry production and protection, community development activities, and capacity building and training. These projects usually take a province management focus, by working through the provincial authorities and technical departments, and in districts and communes within the provinces.

In the period from 2002 to 2005, the project VIE/01/023 has conducted a number of thematic studies and training courses on topics related to the design and preparation, management and implementation, and technical content of these integrated rural development projects and programs (see Box 1 & Annex 1 for a list of studies and publications by the project).

The topics for these thematic studies and training courses were identified and selected in consultation with provincial and national partners through the Focal Point for Rural Development. In each case, the studies were carried-out in collaboration with government, donor and NGO projects and programs working in different provinces nationwide. A series of review workshops organized by the project has provided an opportunity to discuss, share and widely disseminate the lessons and recommendations from these studies, with the active participation of central and

provincial government representatives, with project and program managers, donor and NGO representatives, and with representatives from research and training organizations.

Box 1. Thematic studies, training materials and publications by Project VIE/01/023

Community contributions in rural infrastructure (2003) Best practices in project design and implementation of integrated rural development projects (2003) Evaluation of applied agricultural demonstrations in integrated rural development projects and government programs (2004) Off-farm income activities in integrated rural development projects: opportunities and constraints (2005) Gender mainstreaming and womens development: best practices in rural development projects (2005)

Decentralized management of infrastructure investments at commune level (2005) Integration of different projects at commune level: experience from rural development projects (2005) Capacity building at grass root level: the role of provincial training institutions (2005) A guide for project monitoring and evaluation: translation of IFAD guidelines (2005) Training course on design of integrated rural development projects using a Log frame approach (2005).

National workshop objectives and themes

This National Workshop on Enhancing the Effectiveness of Management of Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Programs was held in December 2005 as the main concluding event for the Project VIE/01/023. The overall objective of the National Workshop was as follows:

To provide a forum for Government agencies, donors and projects to share and learn from experience, and to make recommendations for policy improvement and enhancing the effectiveness in the design and implementation of rural development and poverty reduction programs in Viet Nam.

The National Workshop included fifteen papers and presentations which were organized around five main themes for the workshop, as follows:

Theme 1: Decentralized management of rural development & poverty reduction projects

Theme 2: Operations and maintenance of infrastructure schemes at commune level

Theme 3: Mobilization and integration of resources

Theme 3: Monitoring and evaluation

Theme 5: Strengthening capacity at grassroots level.

With respect to each of these themes, a central concern of the workshop was to examine the linkages between (a) enhancing the effectiveness of management of these rural development and

poverty reduction projects and programs, as means to (b) enhancing their effectiveness in implementation, outcomes and impacts.

The National Workshop was held over a period of three days. Days One and Two were devoted to presentation of the papers and Working Groups on each theme. On Day Three, with the participation of central government agencies and donor representatives, feedback presentations were made by the Working Groups combined with discussion on the overall workshop results and recommendations.

Participants at the workshop included: (i) representatives from central government agencies, donors, NGOs and project management offices; (ii) representatives from 10 provinces (including the Department of Planning and Investment, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, and the Province Womens Union); (iii) representatives from province projects; and (iv) resource persons making the papers and presentations. A full list of the agencies invited to the workshop is given in Annex 2.

List of papers and presentations

The fifteen papers include 3 overview studies that were commissioned by Project VIE/01/023 on: decentralized management of infrastructure investments at commune level; integration of different projects at commune level; and the role of the provincial training institutions in capacity building at grassroots level. The remaining papers and presentations were invited from rural development projects and programs working in a selection of provinces nationwide.

The full list of papers and presentations, the contributing agencies and authors, and their contacts details is given in the following table. The index number of each paper relates to the corresponding file on the CD of Workshop Proceedings.

PaperAgency & main authorContact details

Theme 1: Decentralized Management of Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Projects

1.1Decentralized Management of Infrastructure Investments at Commune Level: experience from rural development projects.Mr. Nguyen Thanh Hai, VICA Consultants Ltd. Study commissioned by Project VIE/01/023.Email: [email protected] and VIE/01/023: [email protected]

1.2Implementing the Commune Development Budget Component of NMPRP.Mr. Nguyn Tho Nguyn, Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project (NMPRP). MPI, World Bank, DFID.Email NMPRP:[email protected]

1.3Decentralizing Procurement and Maximizing Local Economic Benefits in Rural Poverty Reduction Programs.Mr. Edwin Shanks (workshop consultant VIE/01/023).Email :[email protected]

1.4Participatory Planning and Decentralized Management.Mr. L Vn Tnh, Vice Chairperson, Nhu Xuan District People's Committee. Improved Livelihoods for Mountainous Communities Project in Thanh Hoa (ILMC). CIDA/ CECI.Email: [email protected] Website:www.cecivietnam.com/ilmc

1.5A Birds-eye View on Effectiveness of Targeted Rural Development and Poverty Reduction ProjectsMr. Nguyn Th Dng,World Bank.Email:[email protected]

Theme 2: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of Infrastructure Schemes at Commune Level

2.1Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Models for Commune Level Infrastructure.Mr. Nguyen Khanh Binh, WSP International. Study for the Committee on Ethnic Minorities and DFID/UK.Email:[email protected]

2.2Experience from HRDP on the Organization and Strengthening Capacityof Water User Associations (WUAs).Mr. Tran Dinh Hoa, Project Director, Ha Tinh Rural Development Project. IFAD.Email:[email protected]

Theme 3: Mobilization and Integration of Resources for Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Projects

3.1Integration of Different Projects at Commune Level: experience from rural development projects.Mr. Nguyen Van Huan, Vietnam Institute of Economics. Study commissioned by Project VIE/01/023.Email: [email protected] and VIE/01/023: [email protected]

3.2Resources Integration in Planning at the Village and Commune Levels.Mr. Steffen Weidner. Vietnam-Sweden Chia S Poverty Alleviation Program. Sida.Email:[email protected]

3.3Integrated Commune Development Planning in Quang Ngai Province.Mr. Bede B. Evans, Participatory Development Adviser. Quang Ngai Rural Development Program (RUDEP). AusAid.Email: [email protected] Website: www.rudep.org

3.4Agriculture Development Planning and Extension System Development: a challenge for local Government and projects towards integration.Mr. Hans Bissdorf, Agricultural Extension Advisor. Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Program (Phase II). Finland.EMAIL: [email protected] and/or [email protected]

Theme 4: Monitoring and Evaluation for Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Projects

4.1The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation in Rural Development in Quang Ngai.Mr. Pham Van Quang, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer. Quang Ngai Rural Development Program (RUDEP). AusAid.Email:[email protected]:www.rudep.org

Theme 5: Strengthening Capacity at Grass Roots Level for Rural Development

5.1Capacity Building at Grassroots Level: potential role of Provincial Training Institutions.Prof. Bui The Vinh and consultants, Research Consulting and Training in Community Development Ltd. Study commissioned by Project VIE/01/023.Email RCTCD Ltd.: [email protected]

and VIE/01/023:[email protected]

5.2Competency Based Training in Quang Ngai.Ms. Tran Thi Le Tuyen, Capacity Building Officer. Quang Ngai Rural Development Program (RUDEP). AusAid.Email: [email protected]:www.rudep.org

5.3Supporting Rural Development through a Community-Based Extension Network.Mr. Truong Van Lich, Director, Agriculture & Rural Development Section, Ba Thuoc District. Improved Livelihoods for Mountainous Communities Project in Thanh Hoa (ILMC). CIDA/ CECI.Email: [email protected] Website:www.cecivietnam.com/ilmc

x

Theme 1: Decentralized Commune Management

Main issues and recommendations from the workshop

Decentralization is an integral and cross-cutting issue that includes administrative, financial management and technical matters. There is a need, therefore, for a clear and comprehensive legislative framework and guidelines on what State Management tasks and responsibilities should be decentralized to communes and what should not. Decentralization does not mean absolute devolution, but rather the transfer ofappropriate decision-making rights and administrative responsibilities to commune level.

The trend of decentralization is indispensable and necessary. However, there should be a suitable roadmap for effective decentralization following a step-by-step approach. This should be based on four main considerations: (i) developing a comprehensive legislative framework; (ii) the transfer of budget management and financial management should be done synchronously with other activities; (iii) decentralization should be based on the scope and size of investment expenditure; and (iv) it should also be based on the capacity of the commune administrations.

The main focus of capacity building should be on local institutions rather than individuals.A learning-by-doing approach should be adopted by combining capacity building and training programs with the step-by-step approach to decentralization. Training contents should be based on the real needs and contents of decentralization with respect to specific tasks and responsibilities. And the rate of the decentralization process should be consistent with the capacity strengthening program.

Strengthening capacity of commune cadres is an essential task for the decentralization process. However, the unstable staffing situation (turn-over of elected officials and some technical staff working part-time) causes difficulties in the decentralization process. Capacity building and training therefore needs to be continuous and systematically carried out over a number of years. It should also be combined with the introduction of practical incentive systems.

The Government should develop specific guidelines and regulations for commune investment and financial management, and commune procurement of goods, services and works. There is a need for more harmonized local procedures with respect to communes working as the Investment Owners under different projects and programs. In this respect, it should be recognized that some technical management tasks are not appropriate for fullcommune management (such as the procurement of larger complex infrastructure schemes that require a high level of technical design and safety standards).

Decentralization should be combined with the clear delegation of both decision-making authority and administrative responsibilities, combined with monitoring by higher management levels and strengthening supervision and monitoring by the local community. In this respect, an appropriate balance needs to be achieved between promoting upward, downward and horizontal accountability and reporting mechanisms.

Local government at different levels should pay attention to, direct and coordinate the line agencies to actively support the decentralization process. The role of central agencies in drawing good lessons and experiences and disseminating these more widely is essential.

Summary of papers and presentations

This first paper under this theme on Decentralized Management of Infrastructure Investments at Commune Level (Paper 1.1) sets the scene for the workshop by providing a comprehensive review and analysis of issues relating to the decentralized management of investment activities at commune level. The paper was commissioned by Project VIE/01/023 and is based on a survey of several Government and donor-assisted projects and programs in provinces nationwide. Although the paper concentrates primarily on infrastructure investments, many of the issues raised and recommendations are broadly applicable to the topic of decentralized commune management.

The paper begins by defining decentralization in State administration system in its broadest sense as a means of transferring power and responsibility from higher levels to local authorities to implement and manage public works. Decentralization of investment management has been gradually introduced in the state management system in recent years through the Public Administration Reform Program (PAR), as well as in implementation of rural development projects and programs. Decentralization is seen to go hand-in-hand with promoting good governance and grassroots democracy, by strengthening community consultation and supervision processes, and in order to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the investment activities.

The paper provides a valuable summary of the Governments current policies and the regulatory framework for decentralized commune management of infrastructure investment activities. The paper also summarizes donor policies on decentralization, as applied in projects supported by the UNDP, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD). The paper then goes on to examine the factors that influence application of these policies and regulations in project and program implementation.

Decentralized management of infrastructure investments is the assignment of rights and responsibilities to the commune authorities to act as Investment Owners and managers for small- scale commune and village infrastructure works. This includes the following main elements: (i) planning for infrastructure sub-projects (identifying needs and selecting infrastructure sub- projects, preparing investment reports); (ii) carrying out project implementation plans (bidding and procurement, payment and disbursement, construction supervision, mobilization of community participation and contributions); and (iii) operating and maintaining sub-projects. Other related stages (which may be implemented by communes, or by higher levels or other relevant agencies) include the appraisal and approval of plans and related technical contents (design and cost estimates, bidding, contract payment and finalization documents etc.).

In recent years, decentralized management of small-scale infrastructure investments to commune level has been piloted and implemented by a number of Government, donor and NGO supported projects and programs. A variety of approaches have been applied and the degree of decentralization varies between them. However, decentralization is seen to facilitate local peoples access to project activities. As a result, local people have contributed their resources and labor to improve infrastructure conditions in rural areas. In some localities, the capacity of staff at grassroots level and of local people has been stimulated through the decentralization process. And an open and democratic relationship has been established from province to communal level, with local authorities and people actively participating in project activities.

Significant efforts have been made in some localities to work out a suitable methods for the process of decentralization. However, in some other provinces and localities, decentralization faces difficulties and even becomes a burden for the local authorities. This may be caused by specific socio-economic conditions in each locality. For instance, in the mountainous regions, communities are isolated in terms of geography and sometimes separated in terms of culture, low

literacy rates and language barriers that hinder community participation in implementing complicated projects. In addition, poor access to basic infrastructure and communication facilities, limited capacity of local authorities and the dependent habit of people have considerably affected the efficiency of the decentralization process. As a result, localities have faced difficulties in providing guidance for implementation of decentralization.

This paper draws out a number of main lessons from the successes and failures of this decentralization experience, and provides a detailed set of recommendations related to these:

Lesson 1: Decentralized infrastructure management faces a number of significant administrative and bureaucratic constraints and difficulties during implementation. Some legal documents are overlapping causing complications in implementation. The administrative system in many provinces is also still hampered by red-tape habits, which are deeply rooted and hard to change quickly. In particular, the report stresses the importance of developing a comprehensive and consistent legislative framework as a prerequisite for successful decentralization given the fact that decentralized investment management to communes in Viet Nam is still being piloted and the limited capacity of local stakeholders. The report also recommends synchronous implementation of policies for decentralized investment management and financial management. Simplified financial management procedures and banking procedures must be streamlined and linked to decentralized investment management.

Lesson 2: Too quick or too cautious steps in implementation of decentralized projects are unsuitable and both result in a risk of failure. It is important to implement decentralization comprehensively and consistently, in a multi-sector way, and with adequate support for institutional capacity building.

Lesson 3: Provinces should take the initiative and be flexible in identification of the scale and degree of decentralization in project design and take the real context of each province into consideration. It is vital to promote willingness and a driving force for all State administrative agencies involved in decentralized project implementation.

Lesson 4: Training and capacity building are the decisive factors for decentralized projects.Successful projects have made large investments in capacity building and training for project managers at all levels, especially at commune level. It is recommended that a reasonable ratio out of total investment should be spent on software activities including advisory services and capacity building as a vital support for decentralization.

Lesson 5: Community participation in all steps of project implementation has a great impact on the success of projects that are promoting decentralized management and implementation. Participatory planning approaches need to be simplified with the use of practical tools and methods that can be applied on a large scale.

Lesson 6: In the decentralization process, there are many procedures which are unfamiliar to communes or they unable to handle certain technical requirements. Adequate technical assistance significantly contributes to project success (such as from District Technical Support Teams and Community Facilitators) The design of decentralized projects must pay due attention to the district level by delegating authority and responsibility to them in implementing decentralization models, and building the capacity of district administrations and staff to adequately support the communes.

The following papers under this theme document the experience of particular projects in introducing decentralized approaches to project management and implementation, as well as exploring related topics in more detail.

Paper 1.2 describes the experience of the Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project (NMPRP) with Implementing the Commune Development Budget Component. The NMPRP is one of several projects and programs in Viet Nam that are now transferring some responsibilities for Investment Ownership to commune level. This includes models such as Commune Development Budgets (Ngn sch pht trin x) and Commune and Village Development Funds (Qu pht trin x / thn bn). Some of the common features of these models are that:

Financial resources are transferred to the commune (and sometimes village) level for management, usually in the form of a block grant on an annual basis;

This is used to finance small-scale sub-projects and activities, that are selected by local people through participatory planning processes;

These sub-projects are often implemented by local communities themselves (for example, through community participation contracting methods);

The Commune Peoples Committee is the Investment Owner and financial manager, with commune accounts held either at the State Treasury or at a commercial bank.

This paper begins by highlighting the challenges of effectively supporting and implementing this type of component on a large-scale. In the Commune Development Budget Component (CDBC) of the NMPRP, eligible sub-projects include: small-scale commune and village infrastructure; production support activities; natural resources management; improvements in household living conditions; and education and healthcare support activities. The NMPRP project area covers around 3,660 villages in 356 communes in 44 districts, with 89% ethnic minority population from 20 ethnic groups. The Commune Development Boards that are implementing the CDBC include around 3,789 people that require training. Many commune staff positions are part-time, with frequent turnover of some positions, and a lack of full-time staff to guide the local communities.

Given this situation, the paper recommends that the following issues should be addressed to help ensure success. Because the CDBC financial management and procurement methods are completely new to the Commune Development Boards, intensive training and re-training is required over several cycles. This should be combined with careful preparation of CDBC training manuals using standard formats to minimize complexity and confusion amongst grassroots staff. Information dissemination and training methods should also be diversified, in order to enhance peoples knowledge, especially people in remote areas. It is also necessary to have close and concrete directions and instructions from the Peoples Committees at all levels, and effective cooperation and coordination between district line-agencies. The experience from NMPRP shows that in locations where the District Project Management Units have provided effective support, the communes have also done a good job implementing the CDBC.

The following paper on Decentralizing Procurement and Maximizing Local Economic Benefits in Rural Poverty Reduction Programs (Paper 1.3) begins by noting that many rural communes today have two, three or more Government, donor and NGO projects and programs operating side-by-side, but the procurement methods vary quite considerably. The paper suggests that, at this point in time, there is an urgent need and opportunity to reassess the procurement strategies and methods used in these decentralized projects and programs. This is in order to promote greater harmonization of local procedures and consistency in the procurement methods.

Related to this, the paper addresses two main questions. Firstly, how can public investment and procurement strategies be designed to more fully engage local businesses and other economic units (such as local companies, small-scale enterprises, cooperatives, village production groups, household enterprises and artisans) in bidding for and undertaking small public works and

services? Secondly, how can these activities help to create better long-term employment opportunities for local people in poor rural areas? The paper recommends that these aspects should receive more attention in both the policies on decentralization and in the design of rural poverty reduction programs. It suggests that the procurement strategy is in many respects the key aspect of program design, around which other components should be planned. This is because the procurement strategy has major implications not only for the distribution of economic benefits, but also for community participation and supervision processes, sub-project planning and approval steps, fund flow arrangements and financial management systems, and mechanisms to promote transparency, accountability and anti-corruption.

The paper on Participatory Planning and Decentralized Management (Paper 1.4) from the Project on Improved Livelihoods for Mountainous Communities (ILCM) in Thanh Hoa Province describes the decentralized planning, budget allocation and implementation process that has been introduced by this project. The project uses a Response Development Fund (RDF) mechanism to support decentralization, combined with enhanced community participation in planning, and strengthening the role of local government.

This paper makes a good assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, by comparing the conventional methods of planning and budget allocation with the new approach. It identifies a number of clear advantages of the new approach, which include: more accurate identification of community needs; community responsibility is increased; the quality of infrastructure construction is improved; reduced losses in investment; and more transparent financial management. At the same time, some important challenges remain, including:

Limited dissemination of information and awareness of Government policies at commune level and below;

Decentralization and consultation processes have not been officially institutionalized;

The need for better collaboration and coordination between line-agencies;

Difficulties for donor projects in collaborating with provincial decision-makers to replicate and scale-up the achieved results and lessons learnt;

The low capacity of commune accountants;

The heavy emphasis on infrastructure in existing projects, while there are many other needs that should be included in community development programs.

The last paper in this theme A Birds Eye View on Effectiveness of Targeted Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Projects (Paper 1.5) begins by tracing the evolution of different types of rural development and poverty reduction projects and programs in Viet Nam over the last decade. This includes sector-based delivery programs, projects that introduced more participatory approaches in during the 1990s, and more recent projects that have introduced Community Driven Development (CDD) approaches on a larger scale. The paper assesses this experience, and goes on to identify some key issues that should be addressed to enhance the effectiveness of future programs of the Government. These include: (i) improved targeting at the design stage and in program implementation mechanisms; (ii) local empowerment through decentralization, participation, community control and capacity building; (iii) enhanced fiduciary management in procurement and local financial management capacity; (iv) enhanced sustainability in livelihood support services and operations and maintenance of infrastructure; and(v) Improved program administration particularly with respect to monitoring and evaluation.x

Theme 2: Operations and Maintenance of Infrastructure


It is essential to take a holistic approach to assessing the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) requirements for all categories of commune and village infrastructure, rather than only for infrastructure schemes constructed by particular projects and programs. This assessment should include the total O&M work load and funding requirements.

Studies have shown that a substantial maintenance gap and funding gap exists for O&M in a majority of rural communes. Addressing this maintenance and funding gap will require an increase in the recurrent budgets made available to communes. This is a priority issuefor attention by the Government.

The level of community contributions and user-fees for infrastructure construction, and operations and maintenance, should be at a level that is affordable to poor people in poor communes. In general:

Community contributions and user fees for O&M should be prioritized for those types of infrastructure that will bring direct benefits to households (such as irrigation, electricity, water supply, kindergartens, village paths...);

O&M of larger public infrastructure (such as larger commune roads, health clinics, secondary schools...) should be covered by the recurrent commune budgets and/or sector budget sources.

Local management organizations such as Infrastructure Management Boards (IMBs) and Water User Associations (WUAs) should be established at the beginning of the construction cycle, and they should be actively involved in design and construction of schemes to help improve quality and sustainability. They will take responsibility for O&M after completion of construction works.

Formulating Operational Regulations for the IMBs and WUAs is essential in order to create a legal channel for their establishment, and a regulatory framework for management and O&M, and which can be applied to specific local conditions in a flexible manner.

Training for the IMBs and WUAs, on technical and management skills, is extremely important to ensure sustainable management. Sufficient budgets should be allocated for training on O&M for the IMBs and WUAs as part of sub-project costs.

The training should be practical and based on required skills. It should also be closely linked to training in related issues such as agriculture extension training and IPM linked to irrigation schemes, and training on sanitation issues linked to water supply schemes.


In recent years, a considerable amount of investment has been put into the construction of small- scale social and economic infrastructure in communes and villages throughout the country. This investment has been made through both Government and donor-assisted projects and programs. After the construction phase is completed, these small-scale schemes are handed over to the local

communities, and to the Commune Peoples Committees which are formally responsible for all aspects of infrastructure management and O&M.

A number of recent studies, however, have suggested that O&M of these small-scale commune and village infrastructure schemes is lacking in a number of important respects. In general, O&M has not yet been put into a systematic procedure under many projects, or integrated with the regular commune budgeting and management system. Although a legislative framework is in place that allocates management responsibilities to the Commune Peoples Committees and local communities, there is little practical guidance on how to support them to fulfill their infrastructure O&M responsibilities. From a financing perspective, State budget allocations to communes are generally sufficient only to cover basic salaries and administrative costs of the Commune Peoples Committees, and limited recurrent funding is available for O&M. Infrastructure O&M is therefore dependent on the contributions and user-fees mobilized from local communities, but these are often only sufficient to cover the most basic and routine O&M activities.

Concern over infrastructure O&M was highlighted in the recent Public Expenditure Review (PER) from 20051, which suggests that O&M short-falls appear in two main ways: (i) through a frequent failure to maintain completed projects so that they fail to function as planned, assets deteriorateand costly rehabilitation becomes necessary; and (ii) general shortages of O&M funds in recurrent budgets of the local authorities. The PER report suggests that these issues are particularly pressing for O&M of irrigation schemes (PER Chapter 13 / page 93).

While many previous studies have highlighted the short-falls and difficulties associated with the O&M of commune and village infrastructure, the two papers presented here are valuable because they take a more forward looking perspective. They show that good models for O&M already exist under some projects and programs in some localities, and they put forward specific suggestions for how to improve O&M management and implementation practices.

Paper 2.1 on Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Models for Commune Level Infrastructure is based on a study that was undertaken for the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs. In the Socio-Economic Development Program for Communes with Extreme Difficulties in Ethnic Minority and Mountainous Areas for the period 2006 to 2010 (Program 135 / Phase II) it is intended that more attention should be given to O&M of commune and village infrastructure in order to help ensure the sustainability of these investments. The purpose of this study was to develop a strategy for improving O&M management, and to propose the design of pilot models for sustainable O&M systems that could be implemented within the new program, taking into account the special characteristics and needs of poor and remote communes.

This study is informative because it puts forward an approach for quantifying the total O&M requirements for all types of commune infrastructure. Using several commune examples, the study attempt to calculate the maintenance gap and the funding gap between available funding resources and actual O&M needs (although it is noted that the data required to make this assessment is often lacking). The available funding resources include those from the commune budgets as well as from user-fees and community contributions. The study concludes that most rural communes cannot cover the total maintenance needs and costs, and that O&M planning is based on what can be mobilized rather than what work is actually required.

1 SRV. 2005. Vietnam managing public expenditure for poverty reduction and growth: public expenditure review and integrated fiduciary risk assessment. Joint report of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the World Bank, prepared with support of the Like Minded Donor Group. Financial Publishing House, Ha Noi.

The study also suggests that the level of community contributions and cost recovery fees in rural communes is disproportionately high. Data on typical household contributions and user fees and incomes was collected from three communes in Ha Tinh Province and compared against averages in Ha Noi and Da Nang City (see Table 1). This indicates that rural communes are giving around 12% of their income to support the running of their community, whilst city dwellers are only giving 3%. This means that the relative contribution of rural households is over 4 times that of city dwellers who often benefit from better quality and wider choice of facilities and services.

Table 1: Comparison of relative contributions of rural and urban households

HH annual contributions/ incomesAverage in CityAverage in Rural CommuneRural / City ratio

Total contributions / fees380,000530,0001.39

Average Income13,200,0004,130,0000.31

Contribution as % of income3%12%4.5

(Annual incomes and contributions in VND per average household)

This study also reviews the models for commune infrastructure management that have been introduced under several projects and programs (including infrastructure management boards, water user associations, user-groups, commune supervision boards etc). It is noted that while many existing projects do not specifically support post construction O&M, they do include extensive training, community participation and management of the infrastructure construction which provides a sound foundation for the future. These models can improve the quality and supervision of construction, and create better ownership and a sense of responsibility for improved management and O&M of infrastructure.

The following paper on The Organization and Strengthening Capacity of Water User Associations (WUAs) (Paper 2.2) presents the experience of the Ha Tinh Rural Development Project (HRDP) over six years in linking project investments in small-scale irrigation with community development activities. To help ensure the efficiency and sustainability of the irrigation schemes supported by the project, Water User Associations (WUAs) have been established to involve farmers in the process of self-help O&M, and the project has arranged many training courses and other types of support for the WUAs.

As a result, the project has gained some notable achievements. WUAs have been established for 43 irrigation schemes, the total irrigated area under these schemes is 3,780 hectares, and the total number of benefiting households is around 16,879 (23.4% being poor households). The paper notes that many WUAs are well organized with competent Management Boards, detailed operational regulations, and a clear-cut division of responsibilities and duties as well as entitlements for the stakeholders. Local capacity has also been enhanced, and the users voluntarily comply with the WUA rules, paying adequate fees and participating in O&M activities. In these cases, user-fees are used for the correct purpose of scheme management and O&M.

However, the paper notes that some WUAs have been working less effectively than others, and it makes a useful analysis the reasons for these differences in performance. Local Party Committees and the commune administrations play a particularly important role. If local leaders give good direction and support then the WUAs can operate satisfactorily, but in communes where they do not provide adequate support the WUAs are generally less effective, and O&M activities will be weaker and schemes will deteriorate quickly. At the same time, in a number of communes the local

authorities intervene too deeply into WUA management affairs, by using the water user-fees for the wrong purposes and thus making the WUA Management Boards loose their initiative.

It is also noted that those WUAs that are integrated with existing cooperatives are often not operating effectively. This is because they lack a clear-cut division of work and responsibilities for the members of the management boards. A number of cadres have not fully recognized the role and functions of WUAs and therefore they are not supporting their operations. In this respect, the study suggests that in order to effectively support establishment of the WUAs, it is necessary to have a team of competent facilitators who have good community development skills.

The paper also emphasizes the critical importance of formulating and popularizing regulations for O&M and for WUA management, in order to create a regulatory and institutional framework for WUAs which can be applied to specific local conditions in a flexible manner. The HRDP has prepared a handbook on management of local irrigation schemes2, and the project has alsocoordinated closely with province departments to formulate Operational Regulations for WUAs that were approved and issued by the Province Peoples Committee in early 20053. It is notable that these regulations are applicable not only for HRDP, but also for other donor-supported irrigation schemes in Ha Tinh Province, which is a successful example of scaling-up and integration ofproject lessons and experience.

2 HRDP. 2005. Handbook on Management of Local Irrigation Schemes. Ha Tinh Rural Development Project. June 1stPublishing House, Ha Tinh Province.3 Decision No.4/QD-UBND (dated 8 June, 2005) of the Province Peoples Committee on Regulations for the management and Operations of Water User Associations in Ha Tinh Province.

Theme 3: Mobilization and Integration of Resources


The Government and donors attach high importance to the harmonization of procedures and integration of resources in order to make Official Development Assistance (ODA) more effective and efficient. This is particularly important at the local levels of project and program implementation (district and commune) due to the potential for scattered and ineffective investments that may be brought about by the decentralization process.

So far, however, the integration of resources and alignment of management structures and systems for project and program implementation has not been fully followed or achieved at the local levels. A more specific regulatory framework is needed for this in line with the principles of the Ha Noi Core Statement, especially with respect to local planning and budgeting systems, procurement methods and thresholds, financial management systems, and monitoring and evaluation.

Some good models exist from several projects and in several localities with the preparation of Integrated Commune Development Plans that link funding sources and activities supported by different projects and programs. However, more attention should be given to aligning the objectives of donor / NGO supported projects to the longer-term Socio-economic Development Plans of the localities.

Better coordination in local planning systems, and the integration of different funding sources, is most important for those types of small-scale sub-projects and activities that may be supported by several agencies in a particular locality (for example, small-scale commune infrastructure and extension activities are often supported by several projects and programs in one commune). The model for Commune Development Budgets that are directly managed by the Commune Peoples Committees may be a good way of ensuring this coordination in the future.

In commune planning and budgeting systems, attention should also be given to the private sector through an improvement in the investment environment, and mobilization of resources from enterprises and businesses for commune and village development.

Initiatives are being taken by some provinces to establish more unified Program Management Board structures at district and commune level, particularly for the management of Government programs. At the same time, capacity building should focus on building networks of cadres linking district and commune levels, inter-agency coordination to support commune development activities, and improving the supervision capacity of local communities.

Transparency and the provision of clear and sufficient information are pre-conditions for successful integration. Information flow to the commune authorities and local people should be strengthened, especially on the amount, sources and utilization of commune budgets. The information should be more specific and appropriate to the interests and literacy level of local people.


The Government of Viet Nam and donors attach high importance to the ownership, harmonization and alignment of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in order to make aid more effective and to help achieve the Vietnam Development Goals (VDGs) by 2010 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. These objectives are embodied in the Hanoi Core Statement that was adopted by donors at the Mid-term Consultative Group Meeting in June 2005.

Some of the agreed principles and indicators of the Hanoi Core Statement that relate, in particular, to the design, management and implementation of poverty reduction and rural development programs at the grassroots levels are listed in Box 2.

Box 2. Hanoi Core Statement principles that relate to design and implementation of rural development and poverty reduction programs

Donors base their support on the Government of Viet Nams Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP) and related national, regional and provincial, and sector plans.

Donors use country systems and procedures to the maximum extent possible. Where use of country systems is not feasible, donors establish additional safeguards and measures in ways that strengthen country systems and procedures.

Donors avoid creating parallel management structures (PMUs) for day-to-day management and implementation of aid-financed projects and programs.

The Government of Viet Nam integrates capacity building objectives in the SEDP and related national, regional and provincial, and sector plans and leads a comprehensive capacity building program with co-ordinated donor support.

Donors progressively rely on the Government of Viet Nam's procurement system once mutually agreed standards have been attained.

Donors progressively rely on the Government of Viet Nams public financial management system once mutually agreed standards have been attained.

Donors rationalise their systems and procedures by implementing common arrangements for planning, design, implementation, M&E and reporting to Government of Viet Nam on donor activities and aid flows.

The Government of Viet Nam and donors increasingly use program approaches.

The papers under this theme examine various aspects of the mobilization and integration of resources at the local levels of program implementation. Paper 3.1 on Integration of Different Projects at Commune Level: Experience from rural development projects was commissioned by Project VIE/01/023, and provides an overview of the current situation based on a survey undertaken in three provinces (Lao Cai, Ha Tinh and Ben Tre). The specific objectives of this study were to: (i) assess the experience of both successful and unsuccessful approaches to project and program integration at commune level; and (ii) to make recommendations to enhance local efficiency in regulating and managing different funding sources, in order to build-up and implement poverty reduction and rural development programs in the period 2006 to 2010.

The paper begins by noting that many good initiatives towards integration are already taking place. Several examples are given, including: (i) linking Government program support to more comprehensive socio-economic development planning at commune level (in Ben Tre Province); (ii) establishing more unified Program Management Boards for different projects and programs at

commune level (in Lao Cai Province); (iii) good integration of some NGO projects with local socio- economic development plans at the project preparation stage (e.g. ActionAid in Ha Tinh province); and (iv) the coordination of different funding sources from projects working in poor communes included in Program 135 in several provinces.

However, the steps that have been taken so far towards increasing integration are primarily with respect to Government program funding sources. The integration of donor-assisted projects at the local level is more problematic for a number of reasons. The paper identifies several common constraints that need to be addressed, including: (i) the need for donor / NGO supported projects to align their objectives to the long-term development strategy and plans of the localities; (ii) Government and donor projects and programs operate through separate PMU structures, with different planning and financial management procedures, which makes it difficult for localities to integrate funds from different sources; and (iii) the need for more specific guidelines on integration of resources, and for the harmonization of local implementation procedures.

The paper also presents an interesting discussion on different viewpoints on the question of overlap. This is often considered in a negative sense for instance, in the stated need to avoid duplication in investment activities, which results in a situation whereby resources are often divided up between different agencies and PMUs. The study proposes that overlap should be viewed in a more positive sense by promoting greater complementarities between programs and coordinating resources to have fully completed and sustainable sub-projects.

The following paper (Paper 3.2) on Resources Integration in Planning at the Village and Commune Level describes the local planning and management model and process that is being introduced through the Sida-supported Chia S Program in Yen Bai, Ha Giang and Quang Tri provinces. The Chia S Program is one of several donor-assisted programs that are now more actively promoting resource integration in local planning processes, and cooperation and coordination with other poverty reduction programs in the communes and districts.

The paper notes that in many of the communes and villages in which the Chia S Program is working there are several Government, donor and NGO supported projects and programs operating side-by-side. In this situation, there is an urgent need for more coordinated planning and integration of funding resources. The example is given of one village in Van Chan District (in Yen Bai province) that currently has multiple sources of support, including: Government investment programs including Program 135 and Program 661 on reforestation and forest protection; several healthcare programs; a rural electrification program; production support through the District Agriculture Extension Station and Veterinary Station; credit supply from the Bank for Social Policies and the Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development; and two donor-assisted projects including the Chia S Program and the Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project (NMPRP).

The approach taken by the Chia S Program is to assist the communes and villages to conduct and prepare Iintegrated Commune Development Plans that are not limited to activities funded by the Chia S Program. In these planning exercises, the focus is on the making an overall commune and village situation analysis, and setting long-term visions and multi-year objectives that reach beyond the duration of the Chia S Program. It also involve the identification of all available resources from different sources (including funds, human resources, knowledge etc.) in the Integrated Commune Development Plans.

The Quang Ngai Rural Development Program (RUDEP) is promoting a similar approach. Paper 3.2 on Integrated Commune Development Planning in Quang Ngai describes this approach whereby annual Commune Development Plans are used to identify and allocate funds from different

Government and donor funding sources to support priority community needs. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the existing government annual planning system, and shows how the system can be strengthened by applying Grassroots democracy approaches to increase transparency and local participation.

The RUDEP is also addressing the issue of scaling-up in the province, by 2006 it is proposed that Integrated Commune Development Plans will be conducted in all communes in 6 upland districts, and by 2007 in all communes in the province. This paper highlights the importance of developing district and commune capacity to conduct Integrated Commune Development Planning on a large scale, which is initially being supported through the establishment of District Working Groups.

The final paper under this theme on Agriculture Development Planning and Extension System Development A challenge for local Government and projects towards integration (Paper 3.4) examines these issues of resource integration and inter-agency coordination within the specific agriculture development and extension sector. This is based on the experience of the Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Program (Phase II) which is supported by the Government of Finland. A number of similar recommendations emerge from this case-study, including:

The need to bring different projects and programs under more unified board structures (e.g.Province Agriculture Extension Boards) to coordinate resources and implementation.

The need to develop more consistent formats for Agriculture Development Plans and associated training manuals for province, district and common level.

The need for more sharing of experience, manuals and technology packages with other government agencies and projects (both within and outside the province).

Resource integration and coordination between agencies to support the development of sustainable farming systems rather than implementation of isolated extension activities.

Support for the improvement of output and impact oriented planning and monitoring and evaluation systems of the local government authorities, to monitor progress and assess impacts based on a common set of indicators.

Theme 4: Monitoring and Evaluation


The need to enhance capacity in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is a cross-cutting theme that is highlighted by many of the papers and presentations in the workshop. Improved M&E is seen to be an essential component to ensure success of the decentralization process, and of successful integration and harmonization so that different projects and programs are working towards achieving the development goals and objectives set out in the Socio-Economic Development Plans.

Much useful practical experience is already available on the design of M&E systems for these types of decentralized rural development and poverty reduction projects and programs. However, this is an aspect in which many new projects and programs appear to re-invent the wheel. So far only limited exchange of experience has taken place in order to more widely apply successful models. One of the main recommendations made by theworkshop participants is that M&E is a topic for further studies and workshops to exchange experience between Government and donor projects and programs.

The design of M&E systems in donor-assisted projects is still geared primarily to donor information needs and reporting requirements, rather than to those of the local government authorities. This is one of the most important areas for greater integration in the future. More attention should be given to introducing improved methods and systems of M&E within the local administrative systems. And province and district departments should be directly involved in the development of M&E systems as early as possible to ensure relevance and usefulness of these systems.

More attention should also be given to finding ways to use M&E data in regular meetings, to develop mechanisms for prompt feedback of information from management levels to implementation levels, and to monitor progress and assess impacts based on a common set of indicators that are linked to the local Socio-economic Development Plans.

The management of M&E systems commonly suffers from a number of constraints that influence the usefulness, relevance and sustainability of these systems. These constraints include a lack of budget for M&E activities and a lack of full-time M&E staff within the local government administrations. The design and management of M&E systems, and data collection and analysis, are specialized tasks that are not necessarily amongst the skills of regular government staff. The establishment of M&E Units and training for full-time staff is therefore is important. Resources should also be mobilized to involve research institutions in carrying out M&E studies on a more formal basis.

Good experience is available on supporting community supervision of investment activities (for example, through the establishment of Commune Supervision Boards). A legal framework for community supervision exists, but a budget for these activities is often lacking. Budget allocation depending on the specific requirements of each locality, and more intensive training on community supervision and related technical skills should be introduced.


The need to improve capacity in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of rural development and poverty reduction programs is a cross-cutting theme which is highlighted by many of the papers and presentations in the workshop (although only one paper is specifically devoted to this topic here). Improved M&E is seen to be an essential element of the overall decentralization process (under Theme 1), and of successful integration and harmonization so that different projects and programs are working towards achieving the development goals and objectives set out in the Socio-Economic Development Plans of different localities (under Theme 3).

Paper 1.1 (on decentralized management of infrastructure investments at commune level) recognizes that decentralization does not only mean the transfer of rights and responsibilities for investment management to communes without any follow-up. If decentralization is carried out without strict monitoring and supervision it may result in a risk of corruption, off-track performance and failure. Regular supervision and instruction by higher levels will help to consolidate the administrative roles and responsibilities of different government levels, as well as helping to increase the effectiveness of decentralization.

Paper 1.3 (on decentralizing procurement) also notes that the shift towards locally managed investment activities brings with it important issues with respect to how to build in effective mechanisms to ensure transparency, fiduciary control and accountability. This paper suggests that an appropriate and realistic balance needs to be achieved between upward, horizontal and downward reporting and accountability mechanisms, as follows:

Upward accountability mechanisms include: Screening and approval of annual / activity plans by higher levels; Sub-project approval, disbursement release and final liquidation procedures; Regular accounting and financial reporting requirements and procedures; Technical supervision by higher levels; External / independent audits (physical and financial).

Horizontal accountability mechanisms include: Screening and approval of commune plans by the Peoples Councils; Introducing elements of competitiveness into commune procurement; Community supervision (e.g. through Commune Supervision Boards); Cross-learning and joint review activities (between communes).

Downward accountability mechanisms include: Annual village planning and review meetings; Regular information provision on plans, budgets and expenditures; Local peoples representation on Commune Supervision Boards; Public opinion surveys (carried out on a periodic basis).

Upward reporting requirements tend to be heavy under most existing projects and programs. For example, it is frequently stated by commune officials that final liquidation and financial reporting requirements are often too heavy and complicated for the types of small-scale activities and sub- projects managed by the communes (especially given the travel distance and time involved in moving regularly between the remote communes and district centres).

Experience has shown that if information provision to local people on plans, budgets and expenditures is strictly and effectively applied, then local people can and will exercise a degree of

financial oversight that can help balance and reduce the upward reporting requirements. Similarly, if close attention is given to the formation and training of the Commune Supervision Boards, these boards can help ensure transparent management and the quality of works and activities.

The paper included here on The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation in Rural Development in Quang Ngai (Paper 4.1) presents the M&E system that has been introduced by RUDEP in Quang Ngai Province. This system includes three main sub-components:

Management Information System (MIS) that is used primarily by the Program Management Unit to collect, store and analyze data to support the management and reporting of program activities

Evaluation Studies which are undertaken to determine the effectiveness of program interventions and to provide feedback to the PMU to continually improve project activities;

Monitoring and Evaluation System that is designed for the Commune Peoples Committees (CPC) and District Peoples Committees (DPC) to manage and report on project activities within their commune or district.

The paper puts forward some useful recommendations based on this RUDEP experience, as follows: (i) it is important to differentiate between M&E activities that are required by donors and those that can and should be sustained to improve management and implementation of all activities in a commune or district; (ii) it is preferable for local staff (provincial and especially district and commune) to be involved in the development of the M&E system as early as possible, so that the system will be of most use to them; (iii) the indicators used to monitor program progress and effectiveness must be clear, simple and relatively easy to collect; (iv) more attention should be given to capacity building activities, such as study tours for local officers to other projects to exchange experiences in M&E; and (v) more attention should be given to finding ways to use M&E data in regular meetings, to analyze and learn about implementation progress and to determine solutions for the improvement of future activities.

Theme 5: Capacity Building at Grassroots Level


Mobilization and allocation of resources: Resources should be focused on strengthening the Provincial Training Schools to be able to effectively implement training programs for commune and village cadres on the large scale required, and there is a need for a more integrated approach to grassroots capacity building with support of relevant ministries, and projects and programs. At provincial level, the Province Peoples Committees should take initiative to mobilize resources for capacity building programs conducted by the province training schools, with budget allocations prioritized for mountainous and remote areas.Managerial mechanisms: The Province Peoples Committees should facilitate relations between national universities and academies and the province training schools to help improve training capacities and for the development of curricula and course materials. Local governments should conform strictly to the regulations about standardization of the cadres at grassroots level. At province level, line departments need to perform properly their role in monitoring and providing specialist inputs to training programs of the province training schools. The District level should be active in preparation of plans for capacity building, and should be enabled to undertake these activities since the district level is closer to the practical situation of commune cadres.Training delivery: The training programs for elected commune officials need to be carried out immediately after voting, and should have a cycle of 4 years with continuous implementation throughout the country. Training Needs Assessments (TNA) for capacity building of grassroots level needs to be conducted regularly. There is an urgent need for more intensive training for the Village Heads in community development skills in order to facilitate villager participation. Higher levels of funding are required to support commune and village cadres to participate in training programs, especially for staff from ethnic minority groups, remote areas and low income families.Training capacity, methods and content: There is a need to strengthen the contingent of professional trainers, to improve the competency of trainers in the three aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and to improve the infrastructure, facilities and resources of the province training schools. Learner-centered teaching methods need to be more widely introduced to ensure a combination of theory and practice, especially practice on site. There is a need to up-date curricula and course materials that are practical and appropriate for decentralized rural development for grassroots level training programs. The content of decentralized rural development and knowledge and skills of community development need to be integrated in the training programs of the province training schools.


The papers under this theme examine three inter-related aspects of strengthening the delivery and integration of capacity building and training programs at the grassroots level. This includes: (i) strengthening the capacity of the province training schools to deliver training for commune and village cadres; (ii) introducing competency-based training approaches and methods to improve the quality of these programs; and (iii) strengthening grassroots extension networks in order to help scale-up the training and integrate the introduced knowledge and skills at community level.

Paper 5.1 on Capacity Building at Grassroots Level: Potential Role of the Provincial Training Institutions provides a situation analysis of the training provided by the province training schools (such as the Political Training Schools, the Economic and Technical Training Schools, and the Agriculture and Forestry Schools), as well as training provided by sector departments and projects, based on a survey undertaken in Ha Bnh, Hung Yn and Qung Tr provinces. This includes the types of training courses that are being offered, an overall assessment of the existing capacity (annual intake, equipment and facilities etc), the quality of training and staff competencies. On this basis, the study makes recommendations for further actions and inputs that are required to make these institutions capable of meeting the capacity building needs at the grassroots level.

This study found that in all three province there is a diversity of different types of training being provided for commune cadres, including official training programs through the province training schools, and unofficial training provided by different projects and programs. However, there is often a lack of coordination between them, and in only a few cases are rural development projects working in partnership with the province training schools. There is also generally weak coordination in resource allocation for commune cadre training between responsible Ministries at national level and the Province Peoples Committees.

The study found a number of common constraints and weaknesses in the training programs provided by the province training institutions. The training content often focuses too heavily on theory, but less on practice. Training methods are not regularly renovated, and do not meet the demand of daily practice of grassroots level staff. The capacity of most trainers and the content of training materials also does not meet the demand of decentralized rural development, public administration reform and the practice of community development. And the infrastructure, facilities and equipment of many province training schools is in many cases limited and needs up-grading.

At the same time, the paper notes that there are a number of advantages and potentials of the provincial training schools which have not yet been fully exploited. The staff have good experience of education and training activities in each province, there are available trainers and training infrastructure, and the especially important advantage that the provincial training institution can provide training services for communes on the large scale that is required.

A number of recommendations are made for actions and inputs to build the capacity of the province training schools to design and deliver training for commune cadres, including: (i) an overall need to strengthen institutional arrangements, at both national and province levels, to mobilize and coordinate resources for grassroots capacity building and training; (ii) the Province Peoples Committees should facilitate linkages between the schools and national education and training institutions to support and help improve the capacity building program; (iii) select and support appropriate focal province training schools to be active in taking the lead in developing training capacity and mobilizing training experts from other institutions; (iv) the District Peoples Committees should be empowered to select relevant training institution by a contract mechanisms; and (v) specific steps should be taken to improve the quality and content of the training provided.

The following paper on Competency Based Training in Quang Ngai (Paper 5.2) documents a systematic approach to commune and district cadre training that is being introduced by the Quang Ngai Rural Development Program. The paper defines competency based training as a system of instruction whereby the trainees achieve a pre-defined level of knowledge and skills. The main steps in this type of training program are as follows: (i) developing Capacity Profiles for each staff group to identify the skills and knowledge required to implement their duties more effectively; (ii) conducting Training Needs Assessment on an annual basis to identify who requires training and in what topics; (iii) training program and course development; (iv) training course delivery; and (v) an essential element to evaluate the training courses so that improvements can be made over time.

The paper reflects on a number of factors that influence the effectiveness and contribute to the success of this type of systematic training program. Short duration training (of between 2 and 4 days) is good because the courses can be broken into manageable units, interspersed with periods of practicing the acquired knowledge and skills. However, this is also a problem because not all the people who attended the first units can attend the next course. There needs to be commitment from the trainees and their superiors that the trainees will be permitted to complete a full series of course units to complete the training program. District and commune officials are also busy with their work, and can change at election time. Therefore, there needs to be a continuous training program implemented on a cyclical basis. Lastly, knowledge and skills gained in training courses can be lost over time if people are not given appropriate coaching in the workplace. Adequate follow-up support is therefore required to practice and apply these skills and to ensure sustainability.

The last paper in this theme on Supporting Rural Development through a Community-Based Extension Network (Paper 5.3) looks at the related issue of scaling-up access to training and advisory services at community level. This is based on the experience of the Improved Livelihoods for Mountainous Communities Project in Thanh Hoa Province.

The role of the Agriculture Extension Centre (AEC) is to provide farmers with training on new technologies. However, the paper notes that the outreach capacity of the AEC is limited in terms of the staff available to conduct training in all communes and villages. In this situation, the ILMC has been supporting the formation of Grassroots Extension Units (GEUs) to extend the outreach capacity of the AEC. This model is a cost-effective system which provides training on a larger-scale by way of: collaboration with commune-based extension agents; using Farmer Field Schools and group-based training methods; small demonstration models using a learning by doing approach; and involving lead farmers as part of commune training networks to spread demonstration results and provide advice to other farmers. The study recommends that to support these efforts, clear criteria and policies for recruitment to the GEUs are needed. Adequate funds should also be made available for capacity building in both agriculture techniques and participatory extension methods. For effective scaling-up, there needs to be better coordination, with the same extension agency being responsible for both human resource management and technical support activities similar to other line agencies.

Annex 1. List of publications by Project VIE/01/023

PublicationsAuthorsDate toissuePublished in

EnglishVietnamese

Central Level (MPI):

1. Best Practice in Integrated RuralDevelopment ProjectsRab Nawaz, STA, VIE/01/02311/2003YesYes

2. Community contribution in ruralinfrastructure workson Dim,PhD. Hu Thnh, Rab Nawaz5/2003YesYes

3. Evaluation of Applied agriculturedemonstrationsinruraldevelopment programsPhD. Nguyn Tt Cnh,PhD. Nguyn Vn Tim,Trn Ton Thng2004YesYes

4. Guide on Project M&EIFAD (albridge version for Vietnam)1/2005NoYes

5. Off-farm income activities inintegrated rural development projects Opportunities and constraintsV Xun Nguyt Hng, Trn Ton Thng(Scoping Study);Nguyn Th Hin, L u c Khi, on Tin Ngh, Nguyn Th Huy (Main Study)4/2005YesYes

6. Capacity Building at Grass rootlevelPotentialroleof provincial training institutionsResearch Consultancy and Training forCommunity Development Ltd (RCTCD) Research team: Prof. Bi Th Vnh, PhD. Bi Th Tho, PhD. Nguyn ch Tn, Nguyn c Mnh, PhD. Ph Hi4/ 2005YesYes

7. GenderMainstreamingandWomenDevelopmentExperiencefromRural development projectsINVESTCONSULT - Research team:PhD. Nguyn Th Thun, H Ngc Lm,Nguyn Chu Thnh, Trnh Th Thanh Thu.5/2005Yes (notprinted)Yes (notprinted)

society national workshop on enhancing the effectiveness of managementsynthesis report

Documents

project offices

workshop organizers

workshop proceedings

effectiveness of management

investment mpi

investment ngo

quang tri

tuyen quang