1

DOING A PARTICIPATORY PER

THE 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 ain’t broke don’t fix it”

Government itself doesn’t know what is going on - and therefore isn’t 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 MOFMPI provided draft chapter on PIP Improved consistency and overall qualityBut 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