DOING A PARTICIPATORY PER THE VIETNAM EXPERIENCE

1
DOING A PARTICIPATORY PERTHE VIETNAM EXPERIENCE

• David Shand
• PEAM Seminar
• 24 May, 2001

2
Why a Participatory PER?

• 1996 PER of good technical quality, not used by
  GOV - various reasons including inter-ministry
  rivalries
• Vietnam a CDF pilot country
• Idea of a participatory PER seemed logical - and
  strongly endorsed by World Bank Hanoi
• But perceived as the first step in a lengthy
  process - build ownership and capacity to do
  their own PERs in future
• Impact through dialogue, not just a report

3
Obtaining Ownership by Government

• Agreement on scope and timing on PER
• Set out a continuous consultation process
• Everything to be translated into Vietnamese
• And stress the advantages to GOV
• And little to fear - no surprises
• Flexible, non-preaching approach by WB
• High standing of WB with GOV
• But WB and GOV agree to disagree if necessary

4
Some Other Issues

• GOV will not be pushed around
• Apparently good results from public expenditures
  - if it aint broke dont fix it
• Government itself doesnt know what is going on -
  and therefore isnt in full control
• Shining light into dark corners - but focus on a
  few key issues - sowing some ideas
• Comparisons with other countries in the region
  interest GOV
• Other topics can be covered in later PER

5
Involvement of Donor Community

• Key stakeholders in the PER - PER was A C-G
  requirement
• Key donors involved, UK, Netherlands, Denmark
• Provision of funding (242k of total PER spending
  of 522K)
• Interest in particular issues (Netherlands
  gender, UK programmatic lending)

6
Involvement of Donor Community

• Regular consultation with key donors (but some
  difficulty - one donor felt it was not consulted
  closely enough)
• General briefing meetings of all donors and NGOs
  at the end of each mission
• UNDP funding of capacity building
• Cooperation with IMF - Fiscal sustainability and
  transparency chapter

7
The Mechanisms and Theory of Consultation

• GOV a full partner to sign a joint report with
  WB/International donor community
• GOV counterpart committee of officials (MOF, MPI
  and sectoral ministries) to work with PER team
• Agreement on TOR and timing and provision of
  information
• WB consultants work with local consultants - to
  improve quality and increase local capacity
• Critical role of WB Hanoi Office in maintaining
  the liaison

8
The Mechanisms and Theory of Consultation

• GOV comment on draft chapters as they emerge
• WB held the pen
• Key role of WB Hanoi Office in maintaining
  the liaison
• But in reality there were some problems
• Some local counterparts not appropriate - only
  from accounting/finance branch of the ministries
• In some areas local consultants did not add value
  or were not used - GOV decision
• Initially some lack of cooperation by other
  ministries - PER perceived as only a MOF exercise

9
Chronology of the Participatory Approach

• October/November 1999 Preliminary mission
• Meeting with Vice-Minister of Finance
• Meetings with MOF, MPI and Sectoral Ministries
• Workshop on PER for senior officials
• Discussion of draft concept paper with GOV
• agreement on scope
• timetable and meeting information requirements -
  consultants to provide these in advance to GOV

10
Chronology of the Participatory Approach

• January Main mission (two weeks)
• team of 12
• some work with local consultants
• visits to Quang Binh province
• workshop in HCMC
• End February/early March
• draft chapters provided to GOV

11
Chronology of the Participatory Approach

• March 24 - April 4 Follow-up mission
• discussions with MOF, MPI and sectoral ministries
  on draft chapters
• sectoral workshops (some involving Vice
  Ministers) and plenary workshops
• first draft of report provided to GOV

12
Chronology of the Participatory Approach

• Late April
• final draft report provided to GOV
• Mid May
• formal comments from MOF
• WB Hanoi line by line discussion with MOF

13
Chronology of the Participatory Approach

• June Final mission to discuss PER report
• Agreement with MOF and submission to leadership
• June 23-23 C-G meeting in Vietnam
• GOV presents PER report to C-G
• September discussions on PER implementation and
  follow-up

14
Impact of a Participatory Approach

• On issues to be covered
• Agreement on
• Cross-cutting issues
• fiscal sustainability and transparency
• public expenditure management and public
  investment processes
• fiscal decentralization gender (Netherlands
  interest, fees and contributions)
• Sectoral issues agriculture, education, health,
  transport, social safety nets (added later)
• Issues not to be covered Civil Service Reform,
  Corruption, Defense expenditure

15
Impact of a Participatory Approach

• On timing and costs
• Lengthy consultations with GOV and number of
  missions
• As much emphasis on dialogue as on report
  writing
• Value added by GOV?
• Detailed study of all draft material, correction
  of errors and elaboration of information, mainly
  by MOF
• MPI provided draft chapter on PIP
• Improved consistency and overall quality
• But not major changes or disagreements
• On tone of recommendations - not preaching
• An agenda of reform options,
• GOV should consider,
• were we tough enough?

16
Follow-up

• Recommendations which are well specified
• Areas needing further work or study
• Areas not yet covered
• Consideration of T.A. needs
• Action Plan to guide follow up/implementation

17
Follow-up

• MAIN MESSAGES IN THE REPORT
• Fiscal sustainability problems
• Overall reasonably good expenditure management
• but improvements needed in expenditure
  prioritization capital/recurrent imbalance,
  improve pro-poorness
• and need to improve information flows, both
  external and internal