Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

The Contribution of Partnerships to Sector Coordination and Aid Effectiveness

The Case of Agriculture and Rural Development Partnerships in Vietnam

Copyright
Global Donor Platform studies are joint analyses of its members designed to close identied information gaps and provide a global public good. Platform studies shall inform and guide policy makers and practitioners in the delivery of assistance in agriculture and rural development. As such, Platform publications are not copyright protected. The Platform encourages duplication of its materials for non-commercial purposes. Proper citation is requested at all times. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work is hereby granted without fee and without a formal request provided that copies are not made or distributed for prot or commercial advantages and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the rst page. Information not owned by the Platform must be honoured and permission pursued with the owner of the information.

NotE FroM thE AUthorS

As indicated in the box on the previous page, the approach taken in this study has evolved over time as we, the study team, gradually understood the issues that were important for understanding the evolution of the ve sub-sector and sector partnerships supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and its national and international partners. Notably, in addition to reviewing conditioning factors at the national and MARD level, we approached this study as a comparative analysis, rather than as an individual analysis of each partnership. We realised that a comparative approach would be more effective in helping us identify what works and what doesnt work across partnerships. Readers interested in a detailed analysis of the individual partnerships are, therefore, referred to the (many) annual or other reviews of each these partnerships. Furthermore, the core objective of this study is to generate learning that is useful for decision-makers in Vietnam when assessing whether the MARD partnerships have effectively contributed to enhanced aid effectiveness and sector coordination. It will also be useful when exploring options for using partnership structures as the means for aid management and sector coordination in the context of the upcoming Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam. The primary audience of this report is, therefore, these national decision-makers. However, being jointly implemented by MARD and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (Platform), the study also serves a global Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) audience interested in learning about the Vietnamese experience. Needless to say, the context knowledge of these two audiences is radically different, as is their interest in whether the content of this report provides a detailed analysis of what works and what doesnt work as opposed to a grand overview of the big picture. When drafting this report, we have tried to nd a middle way, striking a balance between the interests of these two audiences. We have also included a fairly extensive executive summary for those who want the big picture quickly! This study is an independent study. This report therefore represents the views and observations of the consultant team and does not necessarily reflect the ofcial viewpoints of MARD, the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development or agencies interviewed as part of the study. Finally, the study team consulted extensively with a wide range of national and international stakeholders at the level of individual partnerships, MARD, other GoV agencies and international agencies and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) operating in Vietnam. The team wishes to thank all the parties they met with for their willingness to engage enthusiastically and open-mindedly in the exploration of issues and opportunities of relevance to the study. A special note of appreciation goes to Dr. Le Van Minh, Director-General, ICD/ MARD, Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong Nga, ISG Manager and Mr. Ngo Gia Trung, ISG Communications and Information Ofcer for their never-ending support to the team. Jens Rydder Dao Thanh Huyen Lotta Hglund Hanoi, January 2008

tAblE oF CoNtENtS
1. INTRODUCTION AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 1.1. Background and study objectives 1.2. Analytical approach 12 13

2. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND AID EFFECTIVENESS IN VIETNAM. . . . . . . . . . . . .16 2.1. Overall socio-economic trends 2.2. Agriculture and rural development 2.3. Public administrative reform and decentralisation 2.4. Main international partners in ARD development 2.5. Global aid effectiveness initiatives in Vietnam 16 16 17 18 19

3. THE MARD INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY CONTEXT CONDITIONING PARTNERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 3.1. Overview of aid effectiveness, sector policy development and coordination initiatives in MARD 3.2. Presenting the MARD partnerships: A summary 3.2.1. International Support Group (ISG) 3.2.2. Forest Sector Support Partnership (FSSP) and Trust fund for Forests (TFF) 3.2.3. Natural Disaster Mitigation Partnership (NDMP) 3.2.4. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Partnership (RWSSP) 3.2.5. Partnership for Avian and Human influenza (PAHI) 3.3. Presenting cross-cutting aid effectiveness, sector policy development and coordination initiatives 3.3.1. Sector policy development 3.3.2. Good governance, decentralisation and administrative reform initiatives 3.3.3. Initiatives to strengthen sector and aid management capacities and tools 3.4. MARD level policy and institutional issues affecting partnership efciency 3.4.1. Division of ODA management responsibilities between MARD departments 3.4.2. Proliferation of partnership initiatives: Challenges to the division of work between partnerships at the sector and sub-sector levels 3.4.3. Challenges to creating linkages between partnerships and national/cross-sector aid effectiveness and coordination initiatives 3.4.4. Obstacles to the integration of sector strategies in the mainstream planning framework 3.4.5. Challenges to lateral coordination between ministries, departments and cross-sector policy initiatives 3.4.6. Aid effectiveness agenda still hampered by reluctance by stakeholders within MARD and international partners 3.4.7. Administrative authority, resources, nancial and managerial regulations, and culture 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 29

4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARTNERSHIP EFFICIENCY: WHAT WORKS WHERE, WHAT DOES NOT?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 4.1. The initiation of partnerships 4.1.1. Collective analysis 4.1.2. Presence of lead-agents with a mandate and desire to look beyond narrow institutional interests 4.1.3. Careful denition of the sectoral scope of partnerships 4.1.4. Using prior experience 4.2. The machinery of partnerships 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. Basic rationale, objective and programme framework Legal basis and membership Management, steering and coordination Organisational linkages and engagement of stakeholders in partnership activities 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 33 33 36 38 39 40 40 41 42 43 44

4.2.5. Financing of partnership structures and activities 4.2.6 Coordination between partnerships: The special role of ISG 4.3. Partnership outcomes 4.3.1. Policy coordination and planning 4.3.2. Aid management, harmonisation and alignment 4.3.3. Ownership, leadership and institutional capacity in the context of decentralisation 4.3.4. Public expenditure management and service delivery 4.3.5. Interface between public and non-state actors

5. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1. Value added and lessons learned 5.1.1. Contributions and shortcomings of MARD partnerships 5.1.2. Lessons learned 5.2. Strategic evolution of the MARD partnerships: A range of partnership models reflecting the changing environment in ARD 5.2.1. Future orientation of the partnerships in different sectors depends on sector development and investment trends, and the institutional evolution of MARD 5.2.2. Differentiating between aid effectiveness, aid coordination and sector coordination functions of partnerships 5.2.3. A framework for alternative partnership models 5.2.4. The use of partnership structures for consultation and coordination in the context of the new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam 5.3. Strengthening the institutional environment in which the partnerships operate 5.3.1. Establishment of a MARD team for partnership facilitation and support 5.3.2. Institutionalising partnerships as integral parts of the MARD structure 45 45 46 50

50 51 52 54 55 55 58

ANNEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 MARD Organisational Structure 60

ACroNyMS
5MHRP ADB AHI AMG AMT ARD AusAID CARE CPRGS DAC DANIDA DDMSFC DWR EC FAO FD FDI FSSP FSSP&P FYP GDP GoV GTZ HCS HIF ICD/MARD ICN INGO INGO-RC ISG IWG JBIC JICA KfW LMDG M&E MARD MESMARD MoA MoC MoF MoH MoHA MoNRE MoPI Five Million Hectare Reforestation Programme Asian Development Bank Avian and Human Influenza Aid Monitoring Working Group Aligned Management Tool Agriculture and Rural Development Australian Agency for International Development Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy Development Assistance Committee (of OECD) Danish International Development Agency Department for Dyke Management and Storm and Flood Control Department of Water Resources European Community Food and Agriculture Organisation Forestry Department Foreign Direct Investment Forest Sector Support Partnership Forest Sector Support Programme and Partnerships Five year plan Gross domestic product Government of Vietnam Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German technical cooperation) Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonisation and Alignment Harmonisation of Implementation Frameworks International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development International Cooperation Network International Non-Governmental Organisation International Non-Governmental Organisation Resource Centre International Support Group Inter-agency Working Group Japan Bank for International Cooperation Japan International Cooperation Agency Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank) Like-Minded Donor Group Monitoring and evaluation Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Vietnam Monitoring and Evaluation in Support of Management in the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector (SDC supported project) Memorandum of Agreement Ministry of Construction Ministry of Finance Ministry of Health Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Ministry of Planning and Investment

MSCP NDMP NSCAI ODA ODI OECD/DAC OPI Oxfam PAB PAG PAHI PAR PBA PFM PGAE Platform PRG PRS PRSC RD Strategy RNE RWSS NTP RWSS RWSSP SC SDC SEDP Sida SNV SRV SWAp TA TAG TBSP TEC TFF ToR UNDP UNICEF VFDS VND WB WTO WWF

MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme Natural Disaster Mitigation Partnership National Steering Committee for Avian and Human Influenza Ofcial development assistance Overseas Development Institute Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Assistance Committee Integrated National Operational Programme for Avian and Human Influenza Oxford Committee for Famine Relief Policy Advisory Briengs Policy Advisory Group Partnership for Avian and Human Influenza Public Administrative Reform Programme-Based Approaches Public Finance Management Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness Global Donor Platform for Rural Development Provincial Reference Group Poverty Reduction Strategies Poverty Reduction Support Credit Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam The Royal Netherlands Embassy National Target Programme for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Partnership Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Partnership Steering Committee Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Socio-economic Development Plan Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (Netherlands Development Organisation) Socialist Republic of Vietnam Sector Wide Approach Technical assistance Thematic Ad-hoc Group Targeted Budget Support Programme Technical/Executive Committee Trust Fund for Forests Terms of reference United Nations Development Programme United Nations Childrens Fund Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy Vietnam Dong World Bank World Trade Organisation World Wildlife Fund

THE ESSENCE OF TANGO

Conducting this study has been something of a roller-coaster ride for us, the study team; an extended learning curve. We started out applying the working title It Takes Two to Tango. We felt strongly about the need for both international and national partners to take ownership of the partnerships as platforms for collective action, given the often-implied notion among international agencies that the problems in this regard are mainly on the government side. But then we realised that there is much more to it than that. Vietnam is moving ahead so fast that the conceptual approach that made sense yesterday no longer applies today, let alone tomorrow. We realised that now at least in some sectors and sub-sectors it actually takes ve to tango. Vietnam decentralises, donors are considering a gradual pull-out given Vietnams rapidly approaching middle-income country status and the role of the state is changing with the advance of private enterprise. These three factors suggest that partnerships in their current form as mechanisms for coordination and dialogue mainly between donors and central level government probably make less and less sense. In these settings not only the central government and donors, but also business sector agents, provinces and socio-economic organisations (civil society) need to join the dance. So the question is, then, whether the partnerships in their current form are really geared to take on this challenge? The answer is probably maybe, maybe not(!) At least, the answer depends to a large extent on the sub-sector context in which each partnership operates and the extent to which it succeeds in building upward and downward linkages to actors and processes at the national and local levels. But this in turn implies that we need to re-consider the meaning of tango. What is tango about if it is no longer a dance for two? Can tango be transformed into a dance for ve without everybody treading on each others toes? And if not, what kind of dance should replace it? A square dance? How must the partnerships evolve in order to stay relevant in this new context? Or should they be replaced by something else? Helping to answer these questions is what this study is about.

EXECUtiVE SUMMAry
The introduction of sector-wide coordination mechanisms in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) in Vietnam is at an early stage. Experience has been gained from ve ministry-wide and sub-sector level partnership initiatives and the piloting of multi-donor budget support to a core Government of Vietnam (GoV) sub-sector programme. In addition, new initiatives are being contemplated, including the preparation of a comprehensive Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy). This study, jointly implemented by MARD and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (Platform), supports consolidation of these initiatives through analysis of the experiences gained to date, compilation of key lessons learned and a synthesis of policy implications. The following ve MARD partnerships constitute the core focus of the study: 1) The ministry-wide International Support Group (ISG); 2) the Forest Sector Support Partnership (FSSP) and the Trust Fund for Forests (TFF); 3) the Natural Disaster Mitigation Partnership (NDMP); 4) the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Partnership (RWSSP); and 5) the Partnership for Avian and Human Influenza (PAHI). The basic analytical question for the study is: What are the (institutional) factors determining the extent to which individual partnerships effectively contribute to enhanced aid effectiveness and the application of sector approaches in their respective sub-sectors? The study reviews this basic question through analysis at three levels: a) Introduction to the overall socio-economic development in Vietnam and the macro-level framework for sector coordination and aid effectiveness; b) review of the opportunities and barriers for partnership effectiveness resulting from the immediate institutional context in which the partnerships operate (MARD level analysis); and c) analysis of issues of importance for: i) partnership design, ii) effectiveness of the partnership institutions and procedures, and iii) analysis of the extent to which partnership outcomes have met critical sector-level change dimensions (Partnership level analysis). The main emphasis of the study is to undertake a comparative analysis of the partnerships, rather than an individual analysis of each partnership, as such a comparison will enable learning about what works and what does not work across partnerships. The following policy and institutional factors at the MARD level affect the programmatic and operational efciency of the partnerships: 1. Overlap in the distribution between MARD departments of institutional mandates, sector coordination and aid management responsibilities; 2. Risks associated with the proliferation of partnership initiatives (programmatic overlap, limitations on the amount of resources that stakeholders can allocate towards each partnership); 3. Challenges to creating linkages between the partnerships and national/cross-sector aid effectiveness and coordination initiatives; 4. Obstacles to integration of the mainstream GoV ve-year plan and sector-based strategies and action plans; 5. Challenges to lateral coordination among MARD departments and between MARD and other ministries; 6. Reluctance of GoV and international stakeholders to effectively pursue an effectiveness agenda at the sector level; 7. Barriers resulting from existing administrative mandates, regulations and culture, and resource constraints faced by national and international stakeholders. Overall, the study nds that the MARD partnerships have emerged as relevant instruments for Ofcial Development Assistance (ODA) coordination, enhancement of aid effectiveness and

wider sector and sub-sector coordination. Critical partnership features contributing positively in this regard include: The partnerships have contributed to cross-sector coordination. The partnerships have contributed to policy coordination and development. The partnerships have enhanced sector-level information management. The partnerships have demonstrated an ability to evolve incrementally in response to changing sector conditions. The partnerships have increased ownership of ODA management processes by the ministry and MARD departments. The MARD partnerships are results oriented. However, the study also reveals that a range of programmatic, operational and institutional issues needs to be addressed to enhance partnership performance and efciency, ownership of partnership constituencies and, hence, partnership viability. Critical issues to be addressed by the partnerships include the following: The partnerships have not yet contributed signicantly to the mainstreaming of national level aid effectiveness, administrative reform and decentralisation efforts in the sector context and at local levels. The partnerships have, to a limited extent only, succeeded in engaging critical provincial and non-state constituencies. Operationally, the partnerships still remain parallel structures to a great extent. Based on these ndings, the study identies the following issues as critical for maximising programmatic and operational efciency of the partnerships (lessons learned): The programmatic focus and operational scope of each partnership should be based on a jointly dened and negotiated sector vision/strategy and analysis. A sensible balance between process and action should be maintained. Ownership by, and representation of, sector level constituencies is critical. The evolution of partnership rationale, focus and structure should be incremental, reflecting their sector context and the readiness of stakeholders to engage. Linking partnership action to the national aid effectiveness agenda and to sector-level application of wider, programme-based approaches is critical. Financial and human resources allocated to the partnerships should be sufcient and well planned. Partnership effectiveness should be monitored. Based on this analysis, the study proposes a conceptual framework for the future strategic evolution of the MARD partnerships with the objective of dening a range of alternative models for MARD partnerships reflecting: a) the specic socio-economic characteristics and the rapidly changing investment and stakeholder setting of individual rural sub-sectors; b) the relative importance of ODA investments to investments by other stakeholders in sub-sectors supported by partnerships; c) MARDs transformation towards an institutional focus on policy development and the establishment of overall regulatory frameworks for implementation and monitoring of sector activities by provinces and non-state actors; and d) the desired rationale for partnerships as mechanisms for aid coordination, aid effectiveness or sector coordination. On the basis of this analytical framework, the following specific partnership models are suggested:

10

 Partnership model 1: Forums for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, planning and coordination. Partnership model 2: Operational partnerships for efcient service delivery in subsectors focused on public service delivery. Partnership model 3: ODA coordination partnerships. Partnership model 4: Thematic partnerships addressing cross-cutting, recurrent or emerging priorities. Partnership model 5: ISG. It is the view of this study that the use of partnership structures as platforms for the collaborative engagement of national and international stakeholders in the preparation, roll-out and implementation of the new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy) would contribute to a wider buy-in to the strategy among relevant constituencies as well as better coordination of the roll-out and actual implementation of the strategy at subsequent stages. The report details a number of specic recommendations in this regard. It follows from the reports analysis that there is signicant scope for enhancing the programmatic and operational efciency of the MARD partnerships as well as the partnership steering capacity of the departments hosting the partnerships. This in turn would contribute to reducing the transaction costs associated with engagement in, and operation of, the partnerships. These objectives need to be achieved without losing the relative institutional autonomy of the partnerships, i.e. the freedom of the partners and stakeholders in individual partnerships to determine the programmatic focus and key institutional and operational characteristics of each partnership - this autonomy is critical for ensuring the level of ownership and buy-in needed for securing partnership relevance and sustainability. In order to facilitate the efciency and strategic evolution of the partnerships, the study recommends the establishment of a MARD partnership support and facilitation team. This partnership service centre should maintain a facilitating function and could be located in an innovated ISG structure. The report provides specic recommendations in this regard. Furthermore, the study recommends that MARD and its partners take concrete steps to institutionalise the partnerships as integral parts of the MARD organisational structure by a) establishing a time-bound strategy for full integration of partnership structures into MARD and/ or other national structures (including non-state structures), and b) systematically reviewing and deciding on options as to where to locate current (and future) partnerships. The report provides a number of specic recommendations in this regard.

11

1. iNtroDUCtioN AND ANAlytiCAl ApproACh

1.1. background and study objectives
The introduction of sector-wide coordination mechanisms and approaches in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) in Vietnam is at an early stage. Experience has been gained from a range of initial ministry-wide and sub-sector level partnership initiatives and the piloting of multi-donor budget support to a core Government of Vietnam (GoV) subsector programme. In addition, ministry level aid management support structures have recently been established and various new partnership, networking and consultation initiatives are being contemplated. Following the request by the GoV, MARD is also at an initial stage of dening a framework for formulation of a comprehensive Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy). In the context of these developments a range of issues are emerging at the ministry level and at the sub-sector/partnership level with regard to the coordination and steering of these efforts. Some of these issues relate to the capacity of the MARD leadership to steer the various processes and the level of awareness and incentive among MARD department staff to pursue and internalise new aid modalities and sector approaches. Others arise from local representatives of international MARD partners not always being fully informed or appreciative of the effort and resources required to effectively pursue sector approaches at the operational level even though they may collectively embrace the agreed principles of coordination, harmonisation and alignment (e.g. as expressed in the Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, the key document agreed to by the GoV and its international partners seeking to translate the Paris Declaration into the national context of Vietnam). Various initiatives are being pursued to address these emerging issues, including the MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme (MSCP), which seeks to build capacity within MARD to facilitate the introduction of programme approaches to enhance effective management of public investments in Agricultural and Rural Development (ARD) in Vietnam. This study, jointly implemented by MARD and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (Platform) seeks to support consolidation of these sector initiatives in MARD through documentation and analysis of experiences gained to date, compilation of key lessons learned from the past and ongoing initiatives, and synthesis of related policy and operational implications. This, in turn, will contribute to the exploration of options for the application of effective Ofcial Development Assistance (ODA) management, sector coordination mechanisms and sector-wide approaches in the context of the upcoming RD Strategy. This exercise will thus assist MARD and its partners in their efforts to implement the Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonisation and Alignment in the context of the ARD sector. Furthermore, engagement by the Platform in this exercise will contribute to the dissemination of the Vietnam experience to a global audience. On this basis, the overall objective of the study is to support enhanced effectiveness of ODA and national investments in ARD in Vietnam through the generation of knowledge among MARD leaders and their key national and international partners of institutional and other factors influencing the possible application of sector-wide approaches within the ministry. The specific objectives are to a) analyse the extent to which the various sector and sub-sector partnerships and other cross-cutting sector initiatives in MARD have effectively contributed to enhanced sector and sub-sector coordination and possible application of sector-wide approaches, and b) to facilitate a collaborative denition of lessons learned and a synthesis of key policy implications. The study and the subsequent policy implication consultation process were conducted during the period May 2007 to January 2008 by a study team comprising Mr. Jens Rydder and Ms.

12

Dao Thanh Huyen. The team operated under the coordination and management of the MARD International Support Group (ISG) and was supported by Ms. Lotta Hglund, whose services were provided in the context of the MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme. Mr. Ngo Gia Trung, ISG Communications and Information Ofcer, acted as the direct counterpart to the team.

1.2. Analytical approach

The partnerships established by MARD and its international partners are institutional mechanisms for the collective pursuit of sector coordination, capacity building, policy dialogue and harmonisation/alignment. This study assesses and explains the extent to which these sector and sub-sector partnerships have effectively contributed to the objectives of enhancing aid effectiveness and the extent to which they have succeeded in facilitating the adoption of sectorwide approaches (SWAp), or similar approaches, in their sectors and sub-sectors. The basic analytical question, therefore, is: What are the (institutional) factors determining the extent to which individual partnerships effectively contributed to enhanced aid effectiveness and the application of sector-wide approaches in their respective sub-sectors1? The study reviews this basic question through analysis at three levels: a) National level: This includes an introduction to the overall socio-economic development of Vietnam. A brief analysis of the macro-level framework for sector coordination and aid effectiveness that sets the conditions under which the efforts of MARD and other sector-level line ministries are implemented (Section 2) is provided. It also includes a review of the national efforts to enhance aid effectiveness, regulate ODA management and enhance sectorlevel coordination and planning by the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MoPI), other GoV agencies and international partners of the GoV. b) MArD level: This analysis (Section 3) reviews the opportunities and barriers for partnership effectiveness resulting from the immediate institutional and regulatory environment in which the partnerships operate. This includes analysis of various cross-cutting efforts initiated by MARD and its international partners to enhance internal capacity for adoption of new aid modalities and sector-approaches. c) partnership level: This includes analysis of issues of importance for the successful design of partnership structures (Section 4.1), the effectiveness of the institutional structure and operational modality applied by individual partnerships (Are these structures designed to effectively support the application of sector approaches?) (Section 4.2), as well as analysis of the extent to which the outcomes or results of individual partnerships have met critical sector-level change dimensions (Section 4.3). This analysis determines which institutional and other factors at the partnership level have influenced the degree of efciency achieved by the partnerships. The structure of the report follows these three levels of analysis. The emphasis of the study, in addition to reviewing conditioning factors at the national and MARD level, is to undertake a comparative analysis of the partnerships, rather than an individual analysis of each partnership. Such a comparison will enable learning about what works and what doesnt work across partnerships. Individual partnership analysis has been undertaken in the context of the many reviews several of the partnerships have experienced to date. In the concluding Section 5, the study analyses the key lessons learned and outlines the
1 It follows from this that the starting point for the analysis is the extent to which the partnerships have contributed to enhanced aid effectiveness in general, not whether a move towards the application of SWAp by MARD and its partners is desirable. The reference to SWAp is, therefore, primarily used as a measuring stick assessing the degree to which the partnerships are effective mechanisms for achieving objectives related to improved effectiveness, sector level coordination, etc.

13

broad potential policy implications of this learning. This is intended to form the basis for a consultative process for facilitating a common denition of the policy implications resulting from this study for various relevant forums. These would include individual partnerships, MARD, the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness (PGAE), the Like-Minded Donor Group (LMDG) and the Aid Monitoring Working Group (AMG) of the International Non-Governmental Organisation Resource Centre (INGO-RC). As mentioned above, the partnership analysis includes an analysis of the effectiveness of the institutional structure and operational modality applied by individual partnerships (the machinery of partnerships) as well as an analysis of the partnership outcomes. The analysis of partnership structure and operational modalities covers the following core partnership building blocks: Issues of importance for the design and initiation of partnerships. Partnership rationale, objectives and programme framework. Legal basis and membership. Management, steering and coordination. Engagement of stakeholders and organisational linkages. Financing of partnership structures and activities. The analysis of partnership outcomes intends to explore the extent to which the partnerships have moved from process (e.g. the way in which they support denition of sector priorities, the way stakeholders are consulted and the modalities for ODA delivery) to performance (i.e. are they delivering results on the ground, and for whom?). Maintaining a sound balance between process and performance (or results) is critical for partnership efciency. To analyse these questions, the study applies the ve outcome areas dening the SWAp model of change applied by the global study on the application of SWAp in agriculture and rural development (ARD) conducted by the Overseas Development Institutes (ODI) on behalf of the Platform2. Consequently the following ve partnership outcome areas are analysed: policy co-ordination and planning. To what extent have the partnerships contributed to the strengthening of policy content and enhanced policy coherence and coordination? Have they facilitated innovation of sector-level co-ordination and planning? To what extent have they supported national level planning and management instruments, such as Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS)? Aid management, harmonisation and alignment. Have the partnerships identied sound mechanisms for increasing harmonisation and alignment? How effectively are the partnerships focusing attention on ARD issues in the context of overall GoV policy and planning? Have the partnerships mobilised additional resources for ARD? ownership, leadership and institutional capacity in the context of decentralisation. To what extent have MARD/GoV assumed effective leadership in the partnership processes? How have the partnerships addressed the roles and responsibilities of central and local institutions? How have the partnerships tackled the challenge of decentralisation? public expenditure management and service delivery. Have the partnerships balanced improved service delivery in the ARD sectors with the necessary conditions for long term growth? Have the partnerships helped to facilitate innovative practices in public nancial management and service delivery, including engagement of non-stakeholder actors in service delivery?
2 Alison Evans, ODI: Formulating and Implementing Sector-wide Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development, commissioned by the Platform and prepared by ODI. Like the MARD Partnership Study, this study is commissioned by the Platform, and includes a brief desk review of the Vietnam forest sectors efforts to develop elements of a sector-wide approach. The use of the ODI SWAp change model areas is intended to enhance the complementarities of the two studies.

14

 interface between public and non-state actors. Have the partnerships succeeded in creating efcient mechanisms for interaction with the business sector3 and civil society and in building synergies with the resources and efforts of these constituencies?

3 The term business sector, rather than private sector, is applied by this study in recognition of the important role that state-owned enterprises continue to play in Vietnam

15

2. AgriCUltUrE AND rUrAl DEVElopMENt iN thE CoNtEXt oF SoCio-ECoNoMiC DEVElopMENt AND AiD EFFECtiVENESS iN ViEtNAM
2.1. overall socio-economic trends
Vietnam has experienced rapid socio-economic growth since the process of economic liberalisation (Doi Moi) began in 1986. GDP growth rates remain high and are increasing steadily, from 6.9% during the period 1996 to 2000 to 7.5% in the period 2001 to 2005 (MoPI, 2006)4. Poverty levels have been reduced at a dramatic rate, from 37% in 1998 to 24% in 2004 (SRV, 2005)5. With GDP per capita estimated at USD 640 in 2005, Vietnam is among the high performers in the group of low-income countries (MoPI, 2006)6. The recent accession into the WTO conrmed Vietnams achievements in transforming the country from a centrally planned economy to a market economy. Along with development growth, the GoV maintains social and political stability, promotes competitiveness and implements reform in all sectors. However, the Socio-Economic Development Plan for 2006 2010 (SEDP) also identied critical challenges to the socio-economic development process. The quality of development is still low and the efciency and competitiveness of the economy is only slowly improving. Growth is achieved mainly from capital and labour, while technology accounts for only small part of it. Environmental pollution has become a major problem with no effective solutions in sight, and regional and social inequities have rapidly increased as economic development has advanced. In addition, macro level imbalances still prevail, with state budget revenues still largely being dependent on externalities and state development investment expenditures still being partly dependent on foreign loans (MoPI, 2006). The SEDP for the period 2006 to 2010 outlines an overall framework for economic growth and social development to guide Vietnam into the group of middle-income countries by 2010. It seeks to achieve sustainable development by focusing on the three development axes of the economy, society and the environment through enhanced industrialisation and modernisation. The plan identies an improved business environment, enhanced social inclusion, strengthened natural resource and environmental management and improved governance as the key development challenges for Vietnam. The SEDP targets an average annual GDP growth rate of 8%, GDP per capita at about USD 1,050 1,100 by 2010 and a reduction of poor households from 24% in 2004 to 10 11% by 2010. The vision for 2010 with regard to economic structure focuses on industry and construction (to account for 43 44% of GDP) and services (40 41%), while agriculture, forestry and shery are expected to contribute 15 16% of GDP (MoPI, 2006).

2.2. Agriculture and rural development

The SEDP for the period 2006 to 2010 emphasises development of a modern agricultural and rural development sector, with a focus on production, infrastructure and poverty reduction. It sets the overall growth target for the ARD sector at 4.5% - up from the 3 to 4% achieved during the previous planning period. This compares with the growth target of 8% for the economy as a whole. The SEDP establishes close linkages between the development of agricultural and forestry
4 MoPI, The ve-year Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006 2010, March 2006.

5 Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Vietnam Managing Public Expenditure for Poverty Reduction and Growth, Public Expenditure Review and Integrated Fiduciary Assessment, Volume 2: Sectoral Issues, Financial Publishing House, April 2005. 6 MoPI, The ve-year Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006 - 2010, March 2006.

16

production and improvement in living conditions and poverty reduction. It emphasises the need for developing a strong rural economy to meet both domestic and export demands. It is noted that even though the contribution of agriculture, forestry and shery to GDP growth is quite low, these sectors provide employment for a major part (57%) of the labour force, while industry accounted for 18%, and services to approximately 25% (MoPI, 2006)7. The ARD sector directly affects the livelihoods of 90% of the rural poor and accounts for 70% of the income of rural workers (13.9 million farming, aquaculture and forestry households). Given the policy emphasis on the ARD sectors role in poverty reduction, the sectors 6% share of the state budget is relatively low 8. Furthermore, foreign direct investment (FDI) in agriculture accounted for less than 3% of the total FDI investments for the period 1999 to 2002 9. Recently MARD initiated the development of a Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy), which calls for a multi-sector effort (health, education and business sectors and civil society) to address rural poverty and rural development. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) established in 1995 through the merger of the previous ministries of agriculture and food industry, forestry, and water resources, maintains the core state management responsibility for the ARD sector in Vietnam. MARDs role is not only to enhance rural production, but also to ensure generic socioeconomic and environmentally sustainable development for rural populations. It is responsible for the delivery of public services and the management of state owned enterprises and numerous research and service institutions in agriculture and rural development. It provides policy, regulatory and technical guidance to MARD structures and other ARD agents at the provincial and district levels throughout the country. MARD comprises 6 departments and 11 professional bureaus (technical departments). The MARD ofce acts as the ministerial secretariat and inspectorate. A wide range of subordinate agencies are responsible for service delivery. The MARD institutional structure is included in Annex A. With its focus on broad based ARD rural development, service delivery and infrastructure, and its wide network of institutions and agencies at the central, provincial and local levels, MARD is a strong sector-line ministry, both in terms of the scope of its mandate and its budget. The recent addition of the former Ministry of Fishery to MARD is testimony to the ministrys political position. However, while MARD is responsible for dening the overall strategic orientation, regulatory framework and planning for rural development, it does not have the authority for the allocation of resources for the implementation of these strategies and plans. Plans from the ministrys provincial and local entities are consolidated and submitted to the GoV and the National Assembly for consideration and approval, and funding is then channelled directly back to these entities through the Ministry of Finance (MoF).

2.3. public administrative reform and decentralisation

Based on a resolution of the IXth Congress of the Communist Party, in 2001 the Prime Minister, through Decision No. 136/2001 (9/2003) and the establishment of the Comprehensive Public Administrative Reform (PAR) Programme for 2001 2010, laid the foundation for the efforts by the GoV to reform the role, function and structure of the government given the move towards a market based economy. The PAR process focuses on the four main areas of institutional, administrative, personnel and public nance reform. The reform process reflects the commitment of the GoV towards international economic integration, decentralisation and socialisation, and democratic and
7 MoPI, The ve-year Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006 - 2010, March 2006. 8 Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Vietnam Managing Public Expenditure for Poverty Reduction and Growth, Public Expenditure Review and Integrated Fiduciary Assessment, Volume 2: Sectoral issues, Financing Publishing House, April 2005 9 Ibid.

17

transparent governance, and seeks to facilitate sustainable economic growth and development. Under the leadership of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), the programme provides guidance to line ministries, central sector agencies and local authorities who are responsible for the actual implementation of PAR initiatives. PAR initiatives pursued by MARD are discussed in Section 3.3.2. Decentralisation is an on-going process in Vietnam, and this is reflected in the increasing share of government spending at lower administrative levels. The new State Budget Law issued in 2004 provides additional nancial autonomy to provincial authorities to decide on the allocation of resources to different sectors. The law also gives more flexibility to provinces to allocate funding among districts and communes, so poor communes and districts can be allocated more resources. In the agriculture sector, the share of sector expenditure managed at the local level almost doubled in the period 1997 to 2002, from 43% to 79%, and further budget delegation and autonomy to the provincial and commune levels is expected following the new law10. Within certain limits, Provincial Peoples Committees can now decide on their provincial socio-development strategies and negotiate directly with donors for grants and projects. Budget allocation efciency will, therefore, partly depend on the capacity of local authorities to decide on their priorities. The decentralisation process has revealed difculties in matching the decentralisation of nancial and implementation responsibilities to provinces and lower levels with the need to strengthen sector regulation, and planning and monitoring functions on the part of the central line ministries.

2.4. Main international partners in ArD development

ODA accounted for 46% of the budget for agriculture in 2001, a decline from 89% in 1997, even though the amount was stable at about VND 3,300 billion per year11. A signicant proportion of the ODA investments in ARD are capital investments in rural infrastructure and micro nance. ARD, including forestry, has received substantial support from a wide range of international donor agencies and INGOs. These include: Bilateral donors with large scale and sustained involvement, including Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Australia, and Germany. Key multilateral and international nancial institutional partners, such as the World Bank, JICA, KfW, ADB, UNDP, FAO, EC and UNICEF. Many INGOs support ARD programmes in Vietnam, but mostly at the provincial and lower administrative levels. A limited number of these also engage in policy dialogue at the national level, including, notably, SNV, but also Plan International, CARE, WWF, Oxfam UK Vietnams move towards middle income status and the rapidly increasing levels of FDI and national business sector investments in ARD are likely to affect ODA levels in both absolute and relative terms. However, clear trends are yet to be identied. It is likely that ODA trends, at least in the short to medium term, will differ signicantly between different ARD sub-sectors, depending on differences in donor interest and levels of GoV, FDI and national business sector investments.
10 Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Vietnam Managing Public Expenditure for Poverty Reduction and Growth, Public Expenditure Review and Integrated Fiduciary Assessment, Volume 2: Sectoral issues, Financing Publishing House, April 2005 11 Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Vietnam Managing Public Expenditure for Poverty Reduction and Growth, Public Expenditure Review and Integrated Fiduciary Assessment, Volume 2: Sectoral issues, Financing Publishing House, April 2005

18

2.5. global aid effectiveness initiatives in Vietnam

Generally, Vietnam is seen by its international partners as a success story with regard to the national application of global aid effectiveness initiatives. The aid effectiveness agenda in Vietnam is strongly driven by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, as illustrated by the signing of the Paris Declaration by the GoV and the signing of the Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonisation and Alignment (HCS)12 in 2003. The HCS denes aid management principles, indicators, activities and responsibilities derived from the Paris Declaration in the Vietnamese context. The implementation of the HCS is monitored by the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness (PGAE), which was established in 2004 by the GoV and core donor agencies, and is chaired by the Ministry of Planning and Investment. Progress in moving towards the results set out in the HCS includes the promulgation of the Prime Ministers Decision No. 209/206/QD-TTg of 29 December 2006 dening a new framework for streamlining ODA investments with the SEDP 2006 - 2010, and the promulgation of Decree 131 and the supporting Circular 04, which endorse budget support mechanisms as instruments that sectors and ministries may pursue to improve aid effectiveness. The Decree and Circular recognise the concepts of Programme-Based Approaches (PBA), Sector Wide Approaches (SWAp), budget support and basket funding mechanisms, and institutionalise the more decentralised management of aid resources. They also support the ongoing decentralisation trends by enabling line agencies and provinces to decide on their programmes and aid modality selection for grant-nanced activities in consultation with donors. However, while the Paris declaration and the HCS have received high-level political endorsement, a recent review of the implementation of the HCS found that results at the sector, lower administrative levels and at the programme level were mixed, and that reform of country systems were underway, but slowly implemented. While the national leadership and donor alignment at the national level is strong, many GoV agencies and donors still tend to prioritise implementation efciency over sustainability and development impact, and donors face limited pressure to change approaches. The review nds that the strengthening of partnership structures, including, specically, at the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness, is a pre-requisite for overcoming these challenges13. In addition to the commitment to the Paris Declaration process, Vietnam has supported the adoption of the following aid effectiveness initiatives: With the approval of the Vietnam Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS) in 2002, Vietnam became one of the rst countries to adopt the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) framework The poverty reduction and growth planning function of the CPRGS has subsequently been mainstreamed into the SEDP, which, therefore, now constitutes the single most important planning framework for poverty reduction and growth in Vietnam. The 6th Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit (PRSC) for Vietnam, which was signed in September 2007, includes 17 priority intervention areas, including 6 of relevance for MARD. Vietnam is the rst country actively pursuing piloting of the One UN Initiative. The drive toward increasing efciency and effectiveness of ODA and the reduction of transaction costs has led to a formulation of a number of partnerships in different sectors, including ARD, education, health, transport and poverty reduction. Institutionally, the Partnership Group on Aid Effectiveness (PGAE) and the Like-Minded Donor
12 Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonisation, Alignment, March 2005

13 Moving towards 2010 Vietnam Partnership Report, an informal report prepared for the Consultative Group Meeting for Vietnam, Ha Noi, 1-2 December 2004 and concluding presentation of the Joint HCS Monitoring Mission, Hanoi, September 2007.

19

Group14 are critical drivers supporting the GoV to pursue the aid effectiveness agenda. INGOs active in Vietnam also recently established an Aid Effectiveness Monitoring Group in the context of the INGO Resource Center in Hanoi. Aid effectiveness is, nally, an underlying theme of the semi-annual Consultative Group meetings in Vietnam. The GoV and its international partners have adopted various partnership models in different sectors, or related to cross-cutting issues, including ARD, transport, education, health, and poverty reduction, and more than 25 partnership structures have been established across sectors. The rationale, scope and focus of these partnership structures differ greatly from sector to sector, with the health partnership simply being a loose mechanism for policy dialogue (a number of largish meetings annually to discuss ad hoc policy issues), to more operational partnerships focusing on implementation of multi-donor budget support to national programmes (e.g. the Primary Education for All Programme and Programme 135 on Hunger Elimination and Poverty Reduction).

14 Members of the Like-Minded Donor Group include Canada, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia, Ireland and Switzerland.

20

3. thE MArD iNStitUtioNAl AND poliCy CoNtEXt CoNDitioNiNg pArtNErShip EFFECtiVENESS

This section provides an overview of cross-sector efforts by MARD and its international partners to enhance sector coordination and the adoption of sector-approaches. It includes a brief analysis of the opportunities and barriers for partnership effectiveness resulting from the immediate institutional and regulatory environment within MARD in which the partnerships operate. This serves to inform the main analysis of partnership efciency in Section 4 and the conclusions of the study presented in Section 5.

3.1. overview of aid effectiveness, sector policy development and coordination initiatives in MArD
MARD is supporting an impressive number of sub-sector and cross-sector initiatives supporting aid effectiveness and sector and sub-sector coordination15. This includes the following types of initiatives: Sector policy development. This includes the recent preparation for the establishment of a new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam as well as various thematic and sub-sector strategies and action plans. partnership structures. This includes the ministry-wide International Support Group and the four sub-sector or thematic partnerships. good governance, decentralisation and administrative reform initiatives. This includes the participation in the Public Administrative Reform programme. initiatives to strengthen sector and aid management capacities and tools This includes: a) the MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme (MSCP), b) development of enhanced systems for monitoring ODA inflows and implementation of MARDs Five-year SocioEconomic Development Plan, and c) several internal practitioners networks (such as the International Cooperation Network and the M&E Network). in addition, the first budget support programme, supporting one of the national programmes implemented under the leadership of MARD, was recently initiated in the context of the National Target Programme for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation.

3.2. presenting the MArD partnerships: A summary

Following the establishment of the MARD International Support Group in 1997, MARD has supported the establishment of 4 sub-sector or thematic partnerships. Broadly speaking, the MARD partnerships are coordination frameworks enhancing sector or sub-sector level information sharing, policy development, capacity building and resource coordination. This support is either specically related to ODA investments (regardless of the modalities applied) or more broadly related to sector investments as such. At the same time, they typically include collaborative implementation of agreed sector level activities (such as support towards development of sub-sector policy or monitoring frameworks) without requiring commitment to joint, legally binding programming. These characteristics make the MARD partnerships quite unique in the Vietnamese context, as partnerships in other sectors, as
15 Given the wide-ranging mandate of MARD, the Ministrys sector domain, i.e. ARD, is generally referred to as a sector, while department level domains, such as forestry, rural water supply and sanitation, crop production, etc., are often referred to as sub-sectors. While this nomenclature is not universally applied (e.g. the Forest Sector Support Partnership or the Vietnam Forest Sector Development strategy), this study will apply this language.

21

mentioned in Section 2.5, are either loose platforms for broad-based policy dialogue or operationally focused mechanisms for joint budget support to GoV programmes. Consequently, while most of the MARD partnerships explicitly seek to move towards higher levels of ODA coordination and aid efciency, they are not characterised as sector-wide approaches (SWAp) as understood by OECD/DAC, though some of them increasingly include SWAp-like features16.

3.2.1. international Support group (iSg)

The ISG was established in 1997 as an advisory structure to promote the effective use of ODA resources. Initially, the focus of ISG was on forestry. However, a review undertaken in 1999 recommended widening the scope of the ISG to include additional sectors and activities. The ISGs current functions include strengthening MARD ownership and capacity in ODA management, facilitating partnership building and acting as a forum for policy dialogue, donor coordination and information dissemination under the principles embodied in the Hanoi Core Statement. In accordance with its current work plan (for the period 2006 to 2010), the ISG also assists MARD to attract and coordinate foreign direct investment. The ISGs scope of work has increased over time as a result of developments in the ARD sector institutionally within MARD, the general investment climate in Vietnam and the overall ODA agenda. The ISG has supported the formulation of MARDs Socio-economic Development Plan/Five-Year Plan, facilitated ministry-wide policy dialogue and the work of cross-sector Thematic Ad-hoc Groups (TAGs), and the recently established an International Cooperation Network (ICN). The ISG is governed by a Steering Board composed of national and international partners, and is supported nancially by ve core donors through the ISG Trust Fund. The ISG has also actively supported the development of sub-sector partnerships for forestry, rural water supply and sanitation, and avian and human flu.

3.2.2. Forest Sector Support partnership (FSSp) and trust fund for Forests (tFF)
The Forest Sector Support Programme and Partnership (FSSP&P) was established in 2001 through a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) signed by the GoV and 19 international partners (now 25 international signatories). The partnership was formed to meet the need for broader consultation on, and support to, the sector strategy on forestry. The FSSP&P MoA included 15 major principles of cooperation, as well as an FSSP framework, with nine key results areas, highlighting key areas for sector intervention. The partnership has evolved to respond to the changing need of collaborative support to the sector. To date, this partnership has evolved through three distinct phases: (1) the 5 Million-Hectare Reforestation Programme (5MHRP) Partnership, 1999 2001; (2) the Forest Sector Support Programme and Partnership (FSSP&P), 2001 2006; and (3) an updating revising and renaming the partnership as the Forest Sector Support Partnership (FSSP, or the Forestry Partnership), 2006 2010. The partnership has promoted better harmonisation, enhanced the effectiveness of collaboration and contributed to the rationalisation of the sector through the development of the Vietnam Strategy on Forestry Development.
16 Critical features of SWAps include (OECD/DAC Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. Vol. 2. Budget Support, Sector-Wide Approaches and Capacity Development in Public Financial Management. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, 2005): A single comprehensive, country-led sector strategy and expenditure framework. All signicant funding, domestic and external supports the single sector strategy and expenditure framework. Centrality of government ownership and leadership of the strategy and its implementation. Common approaches for development partners across the sector and in line with the sector strategy. Increasing reliance by partners on national procedures to disburse and account for funds and monitor results, while also strengthening national systems.

22

In 2004, the four bilateral donors established a multi-donor Trust Fund for Forests (TTF) to support FSSP framework priorities, the implementation of the National Forestry Development Strategy (2001 2010), and the national target programme for forests (the 661 Programme). The TFF is managed by the FSSP Coordination Ofce. The TFF seeks to align ODA support with agreed FSSP framework priorities; improving the poverty targeting of ODA support; harmonising ODA delivery by reducing transaction costs with the GoV; and supporting a transition towards a sector wide approach in forestry. Formed for pooling donor contributions and ensuring effective use of these contributions to address agreed sector priorities, the TFF is intended to be a transitional step towards direct sector budget support.

3.2.3. Natural Disaster Mitigation partnership (NDMp)

Established in December 1999, the NDMP originally sought to address the need for coordinated intervention for effective disaster reduction and to overcome the consequences of the frequent disasters affecting human and economic activity in the central parts of Vietnam. The main focus of the NDMP is support for information sharing, policy dialogue, capacity building and effective utilisation of resources. The rst phase of the partnership was executed by MARD under a project managed by UNDP from 2001 through 2003. During the preparation phase, the partnership structure was set up, with a Steering Committee and a Secretariat. This phase focused on information sharing and increased cooperation and coordination among agencies actively working in disaster mitigation in Vietnam. It also identied pilot projects and priorities for disaster mitigation for implementation under the partnership framework of priority interventions and resource mobilisation. During its second phase, the NDMP has enhanced its focus on institutional capacity building for disaster mitigation and policy and strategic sector development. The NDMP recently adopted the draft Second National Strategy and Action Plan for Disaster Mitigation and Management in Vietnam as its programmatic framework. It has established an Inter-agency Working Group which facilitates the engagement of partner agencies in the planning and implementation of NDMP sector activities. The current phase is a jointly nanced project initiative supported by ve bilateral agencies, executed by the Department of Dyke Management and Storm and Flood Control, and managed by the UNDP.

3.2.4. rural Water Supply and Sanitation partnership (rWSSp)

The RWSSP was established in late 2005 as a framework for donor coordination to support the implementation of the National RWSS Strategy. The goal of the partnership is to contribute to reduction of rural poverty and protection of the environment through more effective implementation of the National RWSS Strategy, the CPRGS (Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy) and other relevant GoV policies and strategies. The partnership intends to enhance the effectiveness of resource use in the RWSS sector through the establishment of a collaborative mechanism for coordination and harmonisation of support for GoV policies, the RWSS NTP and other programmes in the sector17. The RWSSP is in a rather unique position compared to the other MARD sub-sector partnerships in that it is linked to the nation-wide National Target Programme for RWSS, which received budget support from three bilateral members of the partnership (AusAID, DANIDA and The Netherlands). This enables the RWSSP to act as an umbrella mechanism linking wider sector policy development, information sharing, capacity building and investments from other donors to the efforts of the GoV and the three donors in the context of the NTP. The RWSSP coordination unit is organised as an independent unit associated with the International Cooperation Department.
17 Annex A of the RWSSP MoU

23

3.2.5. partnership for Avian and human influenza (pAhi)

The National Preparedness Plan in Response to the Avian Flu Epidemic H5N1 and the Human Influenza Pandemic, also called the Red Book, was prepared and approved by the GoV in September 2005. This plan was developed to 1) prevent the emergence of a flu pandemic throughout the country, 2) limit flu incidence and mortality rates, 3) prevent the emergence of a flu pandemic on the global scale, and 4) be efciently prepared for and to respond effectively to a flu pandemic18. Based on the plan the Integrated National Operational Programme for Avian and Human Influenza (OPI) 2006 - 2010, also referred to as the Green Book, was established, The OPI, which is a USD 250 million programme, was developed to provide an opportunity for the GoV and donors to work together on the basis of one single programme, and was based on GoV structures. The OPI proposed to strengthen overall coordination of government, donors and other stakeholders in support of implementation of the national plan though the establishment of a partnership under the leadership of the National Steering Committee for Avian Influenza. On this basis, the Partnership for Avian and Human Pandemic Influenza (PAHI) was established in November 2006 to improve ODA efciency and mutual accountability. The overall objective of PAHI is to support the implementation of the OPI by facilitating information sharing and exchange between partners, discussion of ODA priorities and allocations, and development of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework. MARD and the Ministry of Health (MoH) jointly maintain the leading roles in the management structure, supported by the PAHI Secretariat.

3.3. presenting cross-cutting aid effectiveness, sector policy development and coordination initiatives

3.3.1. Sector policy development

Recently MARD, at the request of the Prime Minister, has initiated the development of the Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy). The RD Strategy is intended as a comprehensive multi-sector framework (including health, education and the business sectors and civil society) for people-centred, equitable, sustainable, rural poverty and economic development. It has been established in response to Vietnams economic liberalisation and accession to the WTO. A national Steering Committee and a task force, comprising representatives from MARD, other ministries, research and business sector representatives, have been formed to lead the policy formulation process. MARD expects to issue a draft version of the strategy for consultations during the second quarter of 2008 and to submit a nal draft strategy to the Prime Minister for approval in 2009. At the sub-sector level, MARD has supported the development of a range of strategies, such as the Rural Water and Sanitation Strategy from 2000, the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy (the VFDS, 2006 - 2020), and the recently approved Natural Disaster Mitigation Strategy.

18 The National Preparedness Plan in Response to Avian Flu Epidemic H5N1 and Human Influenza Pandemic, September 2005, Vietnam.

24

3.3.2. good governance, decentralisation and administrative reform initiatives

MARD has supported public administrative reform (PAR) for more than ve years, and in late 2006 the Minster of MARD approved a new PAR plan for the period 2006 to 2010. The third phase of the MARD PAR support programme, funded by The Netherlands and UNDP, was approved in September 2007 with the objective of pursuing institutional, administrative, personnel and public nance reform initiatives within the ministry. The goals for the MARD PAR for the period 2006 to 2010 emphasise the strengthening of the governance functions of MARD. These are required to meet the needs of sector stakeholders to dene their contributions to sustainable sector development in the context of market liberalisation. Reform will be pursued through more vigorous decentralisation, clearer denition of the functions and tasks of MARD and a restructuring of the ministry and its institutions at provincial and local levels. The PAR process has the potential to strongly influence institutional structures, mandates and processes within MARD, which in turn will have an effect on the operation of the MARD partnerships.

3.3.3. initiatives to strengthen sector and aid management capacities and tools
a) MArD Sida Cooperation programme (MSCp) The MARD Sida Cooperation Programme (MSCP) implemented during the period July 2005 to December 2008, is designed to improve the capacity of MARD to apply programmatic approaches to investment in the ARD sector. The MSCP is an umbrella programme for provision of nancial and programmatic inputs provided by Sida to the MARD partnerships (ISG, FSSP/ TFF, NDMP, RWSSP) and technical assistance (TA). These inputs are to be used for capacity building in the areas of aid management and the application of programme approaches. It also seeks to strengthen policy and strategy development capacities within MARD through provision of independent macro-level policy advice to the MARD leadership on reform and modernisation of the ministry, its strategies and operations in the new national development context (through a newly established Policy Advisory Group (PAG)). b) Monitoring of oDA inflows and the M&E framework Numerous efforts have been made to strengthen M&E systems at the project and sub-sector levels, including efforts of the FSSP and RWSSP to establish sub-sector performance monitoring systems in their sub-sectors. However, these efforts have been pursued in the absence of a comprehensive M&E framework for the ministry, resulting in fragmentation and confusion as different departments maintain their own databases and systems. Initial efforts to address this situation by the MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme have now been taken over by the SDC-supported MESMARD project, which will develop a framework for sector level monitoring of the implementation of the MARD ve-year Socio-economic Development Plan. These efforts are complemented by the piloting of the Aligned Management Tool (AMT) for ODA management in MARD as part of a national initiative supported by the Ministry of Planning and Investment and several international agencies. c) internal practitioners networks The ISG has recently supported the establishment of an internal international cooperation practitioners network comprising staff of departments and institutions throughout MARD who are involved in ODA nanced activities. The core objective of this network is to enhance the international cooperation capacity of departmental staff in response to the gradual transfer of ODA management responsibilities to technical departments and lower administrative

25

levels. This delegation of responsibility is taking place as a consequence of the new Decision 131 on ODA management and the general aid effectiveness and decentralisation efforts of the GoV and its international partners. Likewise, a MARD M&E Network, comprising practitioners from most MARD departments, has recently been established as part of the efforts by the MESMARD project to establish the MARD M&E Framework. It is anticipated that the establishment of such practitioners networks will contribute signicantly to strengthening lateral information management and coordination within MARD.

3.4. MArD level policy and institutional issues affecting partnership efficiency

3.4.1. Division of oDA management responsibilities between MArD departments

The division of mandates, authority and responsibilities within MARD is dened on the basis of state management responsibilities assigned to individual departments. The International Cooperation Department (ICD) maintains the overall responsibility for international cooperation, while technical departments maintain state management responsibilities for planning, regulation and service delivery in individual sub-sectors. Internationally supported projects are often implemented through sub-sector project management ofces responsible for the implementation of several projects, with each project being managed by a project management unit. In addition, most technical departments include a small international cooperation section responsible for the overall coordination of departmental relations with international agencies. The formal division of responsibilities for international cooperation in MARD is, therefore, shared between ICD and individual technical departments, leaving the door open for uncertainty about the exact division of responsibility. Furthermore, with internally supported programmes increasingly being aligned with national planning frameworks and executed nationally, the involvement of technical departments in ODA management is changing. The functional division of responsibilities between MARD departments has implications for the decision about where to embed the partnerships institutionally within MARD. The partnerships, as part of their rationale, include elements of international cooperation, policy development and a focus on technical sub-sector issues as well as efciency of sector resource use and planning. Decisions in this regard are critical determining factors for the internal ownership of partnership operations and, consequently, for their evolution, viability and success as institutions. These issues are discussed further in Section 4.2.3.

3.4.2. proliferation of partnership initiatives: Challenges to the division of work between partnerships at the sector and sub-sector levels
The proliferation of partnership initiatives within and outside MARD has resulted in an increasing risk of overlap between the programmatic and operational functions and the responsibilities of partnerships. These overlaps have occurred at different levels within MARD; between partnerships at the sub-sector level within MARD, and between MARD partnerships and partnerships embedded in other ministries. It is critical to maintain a reasonable level of discipline when deciding on the establishment of new partnership initiatives and when dening the exact programmatic and operational division of work between existing partnerships. This helps to avoid partnership fatigue and stress on the scarce operational resources of the national and

26

international partners involved. A recent example of potential overlap between partnership initiatives is the proposal to establish one for sustainable forestland management. Such a partnership would overlap programmatically with the FSSP. The ongoing preparation of a national sanitation strategy covering urban as well as rural sanitation across sectors of water, industry, animal husbandry, etc., similarly points to the need to ensure strong coordination between partnership initiatives at different levels. More specically, in the context of MARD, it is generally acknowledged that the presence of collaborative coordination mechanisms at both the ministerial level (ISG) and the sub-sector level is warranted. However, this dual-layer partnership structure also poses a risk for overlapping responsibilities as discussed above. This issue is discussed further in Section 4.2.6.

3.4.3. Challenges to creating linkages between partnerships and national/cross-sector aid effectiveness and coordination initiatives
The partnerships are collaborative mechanisms for enhanced sector and sub-sector coordination and performance management. They are well positioned to function as platforms for translating national and ministry level aid effectiveness, sector coordination and public administrative reform initiatives into practice at the sector and provincial levels. This would require creation of synergies between such national or ministry level initiatives and priority setting at the partnership/sub-sector level on the one hand, and establishment of effective linkages between the partnerships and provincial stakeholders on the other hand. However, the study reveals that very limited linkages exist between partnership priority setting and the PRSC process19, the work of the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness20, the MARD Public Administrative Reform process and the efforts to create a MARD level sector and ODA M&E framework. The relatively weak linkages between the partnerships and the provincial level are further discussed in Section 4.3.3. As the same MARD and donor agencies are often represented in higher-level cross-cutting initiatives and in various partnerships, the above discussion points to the need to improve the internal coordination within these agencies in various aid effectiveness initiatives and partnerships. Likewise, at the partnership level, individual partnerships could more proactively seek to adopt sub-sector level follow-on action to national and ministerial initiatives as part of their internal priority setting and work planning.

19 The latest PRSC review pointed to weak linkages between the PRSC process and the sector line ministries. This serves to illustrate the obvious advantages to the GoV of establishing stronger linkages between national level aid effectiveness processes and sector partnerships. The MARD partnerships would be well positioned as platforms for dening policy issues to be considered by the PRSC process, and to facilitate coordination of PRSC indicator implementation at the MARD level (given that partnerships, like the PRSC triggers, often relate to issues that are broader than the typical mandate of a technical department). 20 The leadership of the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness (PGAE) has emphasised the need to rationalise the relationship between sector partnerships and the PGAE, pointing to the difculties of engaging effectively with the many and, often very different, sector partnerships. In an effort to enhance the engagement of the partnerships in the aid effectiveness agenda, this would include establishment of a sensible division of work between the PGAE and the partnerships. The PGAE would focus on alignment of macro-level cross-cutting initiatives (such as alignment of systems for procurement and resettlement), while the sector partnerships would focus on the application of such systems at the sector level. Furthermore, in late 2007 the PGAE selected MARD as a model for HCS implementation, and requested preparation of a ministry level Framework for HCS Implementation outlining a detailed roadmap for HCS implementation. MARD was selected in recognition of the aid effectiveness achievements of the ministry. The preparation and implementation of the MARD HCS Framework may, if done in consultation with the partnerships and MARD stakeholders in general, serve to enhance the linkages between aid effectiveness action at the national level, the ARD sector and the sub-sector partnerships.

27

3.4.4. obstacles to the integration of sector strategies in the mainstream planning framework
Several partnerships have supported the establishment of sub-sector strategies and action plans (FSSP, NDMP), and all four sub-sector partnerships have adopted such strategies as their overall programme framework or programmatic reference point. There are, however, signicant barriers to integration between sector strategies and the mainstream GoV Socioeconomic Development Plan/Five-Year Plan (SEDP/FYP) framework, as demonstrated during the 2005 consultation process for the 2006 to 2010 SEDP. Operationally, these challenges to integration with the mainstream planning system reduce the efciency by which action plans derived from sub-sector strategies can be implemented. This in turn affects the level of ownership of strategy activities by national agencies, as these are considered core work responsibilities of the agencies concerned 21.

3.4.5. Challenges to lateral coordination between ministries, departments and cross-sector policy initiatives
Following the system for assignment of state management responsibilities, individual ministries or departments are assigned lead responsibility for the management of individual sectors. They are also assigned the leadership for implementation of cross-sector or generic issues that require coordination and collaboration between government institutions across sectors. In addition, several departments or ministries may maintain state management responsibilities for different aspects of management within a sector. The fact that several agencies maintain ownership of various aspects of the management processes influences the efciency of cross-cutting sector management. This system of multiple sector management responsibility also has implications for the efciency of partnership operations. Leadership of a partnership by one lead agency tends to affect the sense of ownership of the partnership processes of the agencies that maintain responsibilities within the sector covered by the partnership, but who are not assigned the leadership role in the partnership. However, these challenges to sector coordination also create opportunities for the partnerships, as the MARD leadership, in several cases, has looked towards these as the only existing mechanisms that can secure a reasonable degree of interagency coordination22. That cross-sector, emerging and/or thematic issues, such as climate change or gender equity, often have multiple or unclear institutional homes also affects the ability of the partnerships to deal effectively with such issues.

3.4.6. Aid effectiveness agenda still hampered by reluctance by stakeholders within MArD and international partners
As noted in Section 2.5, the recent review of the implementation of the Hanoi Core Statement (HCS) pointed to the need to further strengthen the implementation of the HSC. In the context of MARD, while pursuit of the partnerships and the many cross-sector, aid effectivenessrelated initiatives is, in itself, an indication of the commitment of MARD and its international partners towards aid effectiveness in general, and the HCS in particular, there are several
21 As an illustration of this issue, it required signicant effort on the part of the FSSP to align the forest sector SEDP and the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy (VFDS), which were under preparation at the same time. 22 The potential function of the RWSSP as a mechanism for coordination between MARD and the Ministry of Health in the eld of rural sanitation was, for instance, an explicitly stated incentive for the MARD leadership to establish this partnership.

28

examples of both sides not fully walking the talk when it comes to reflecting these intentions in practice. Within MARD, various stakeholders have varying degrees of commitment towards sector coordination, application of SWAp, or similar approaches, and new collective aid modalities. While there is a tentative commitment in this regard at the level of the MARD leadership and ICD, many functional departments and implementing centres maintain an entrenched and vested interest in sticking with the project modality. Furthermore, MARD has deliberately refrained from recommending new aid modalities in view of the resistance from several donors, including, mainly, multilateral nancial institutions.

3.4.7. Administrative authority, resources, financial and managerial regulations, and culture
Among national and international partners alike, there is limited appreciation that coordination and collaborative action requires time, effort and resources. A careful balance needs to be maintained between process, efciency and content of the coordination effort in order for it to be meaningful to its stakeholders. Also it must be recognised that both national and international agencies face limitations with regard to the amount and quality of human resources that can be allocated towards joint aid effectiveness and coordination efforts. On the international side, the general trend towards decentralisation of authority to local representations in many ways provides incentives for entering collaborative arrangements. However, it also limits the time available for staff to engage in what is often considered noncore business. The increased local authority is rarely matched by the allocation of the human resources required to full this added authority. Similarly, the ability of international partners to engage in technical or policy sector dialogues is often hampered by the fact that representatives authorised to engage in policy conversations are embassy generalists with limited sector or country-specic expertise, rather than technical or project level expertise. Quite uniquely, INGOs generally have full access to participate in the MARD partnerships, which, therefore, offer access to policy forums that may not be available to INGOs in other sectors in Vietnam or in other countries. However, in practice, engagement by many INGOs is restricted by their dependence on project-based funding, which does not allow them to spend the amount of time required to fully exploit this opportunity. This constitutes a major loss of opportunity because indigenous civil society organisations are at a very rudimentary stage of development in Vietnam. Similarly, on MARDs side, it must be recognised that limitations in human resource availability and administrative budgets affect the ability of leaders and ofcers to engage in partnership activities. The situation is similar for international partners. Engaging in partnership operations is often considered non-core work, though increasingly MARD leaders perceive pursuit of aid effectiveness and coordination efforts as an integral part of their responsibility. The fact that partnership activities are rarely reflected in departmental work plans further compounds this issue. Furthermore, it is an often heard observation from international partners that MARD ought to take a stronger leadership in aid management and coordination in general and more specically in the context of the partnerships. However, it may be questioned if mid-level MARD leaders have the institutional authority required to effectively pursue donor coordination not only at the formal level, but also at the (very important) informal level. Due to perceived operational and administrative limitations when following national systems, MARD and international partners alike have, until now, maintained a preference for creating the partnerships as independent units or projects rather than fully-fledged internal units in the respective hosting departments.

29

4. CoMpArAtiVE ANAlySiS oF pArtNErShip EFFiCiENCy: WhAt WorKS WhErE, WhAt DoES Not?
4.1. the initiation of partnerships
Based on experience from the establishment of the current MARD partnerships, the issues discussed in the following were identied as critical to ensure that stakeholders feel a strong sense of ownership of partnership structures.

4.1.1. Collective analysis

A commonly agreed analysis of sector development needs among sector stakeholders was of major importance in establishment of the FSSP (then the 5 Million-Hectare Reforestation Programme Partnership), RWSSP and PAHI. For the FSSP, the design of this partnership was preceded by an elaborate two-year analysis of forest-sector development needs, supported by three task forces comprised of experts from interested GoV and international agencies. The establishment of the RWSSP was preceded by a Joint GoV/Donor RWSS Sector Review, supported by the GoV and ve donors active in RWSS.

4.1.2. presence of lead-agents with a mandate and desire to look beyond narrow institutional interests
Interested international agencies had critical facilitating roles in the establishment of all ve partnerships. Sida was a vital driving force in establishment of the ISG, with similar roles of the Royal Netherlands Embassy for the FSSP, Danida for the RWSSP, the UNDP for the NDMP, and the UNDP and the World Bank for PAHI. An important lesson in this regard is that this driving role must emphasise collective ownership of the sector analysis and partnership design processes, rather than emphasising individual ownership by the concerned driving agent. This lesson is clearly demonstrated in the NDMP, which suffers from the entrenched reputation that this partnership is a UNDP project, since the rst phase was established as a UNDP project, and despite the second phase being jointly nanced by ve core donors. Comparatively, the leadership demonstrated by the Royal Netherlands Embassy during the preparation for the establishment of the FSSP is a good example of approach to these collective processes. Over time, MARD has taken an increasingly pro-active and leading role in the conceptualisation and design of the partnerships, as demonstrated in the RWSSP and PAHI. This evolution reflects an increasing appreciation by MARD of the useful roles and functions played by the partnerships.

4.1.3. Careful definition of the sectoral scope of partnerships

Given the wide mandate of MARD and the broad scope of the agriculture and rural development sector, the denition of sectors and themes frequently overlap. Thus, it is essential to carefully dene the sectoral or thematic scope of each partnership to make the programmatic focus of each partnership meaningful to its constituency and to avoid overlap. Ensuring that the programmatic focus of a partnership is relevant to constituencies is critical for fostering the sense of ownership needed to ensure the partnerships viability. To do so,

30

not only the programmatic or thematic interest, but also the sectoral institutional reality of Vietnam must be considered. Such institutional considerations were among the primary reasons for narrowing of the programmatic focus of the RWSSP to rural water supply and sanitation as opposed to water supply and sanitation or water23. Narrowing the programmatic focus of partnerships has enabled partnership efciency; however, all MARD partnerships are to some extent cross-sectoral and must engage institutions across sectoral lines. For instance, a key to the rationale for establishing the RWSSP and PAHI was facilitating critical institutional coordination between MARD and the Ministry of Health in rural water supply, sanitation and avian flu.

4.1.4. Using prior experience

Over the 12 years since the ISG was established as the rst partnership in MARD, an enormous body of experience in what works, what doesnt has accumulated. It is critical to utilise this learning when establishing new partnerships; for instance, the RWSSP design was clearly informed by the design, experiences and evolution of the FSSP.

4.2. the machinery of partnerships

4.2.1. basic rationale, objective and programme framework

a) Scope and depth of partnership cooperation All sub-sectoral partnerships are now largely intended as collaborative mechanisms for coordination of national and international investments in support of government strategies and programmes. The partnerships share the following common characteristics: They are frameworks for voluntary engagement by interested agencies rather than legally binding frameworks for joint programming. They are structures for coordination of sector interventions regardless of the implementation modalities applied by stakeholders. None includes a roadmap or blueprint for evolution towards SWAp or SWAp-like structures. Instead, they are based on a notion that incremental evolution towards more binding collaborations is desirable. While being voluntary, all partnerships have established frameworks for denition of jointly agreed sector-support activities, and established small and jointly-funded institutional structures to implement these activities or coordinate implementation by partner agencies. Thus they go beyond merely being platforms for policy dialogue and coordination, without getting into legally binding joint-programming. All partnerships are fully inclusive, i.e. in principle all interested government agencies and international partners (donors and INGOs) can join. The FSSP has recently revised its structure to open up its activities to all interested sector stakeholders, including domestic non-governmental groups, and domestic and foreign business sector representatives. b) Frameworks for sector coordination or for coordination of international support? The degree to which the partnerships were originally intended as frameworks for sector coordination or as frameworks for coordination of international support for sector development has influenced the evolution of their respective programme frameworks and linkages to na23 Rural water and sanitation is the domain of MARD while urban water and sanitation is the domain of the Ministry of Construction (MoC). The more generic water resource management sector is caught in institutional rivalry among the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, MARD, MOC and others.

31

tional strategic frameworks. The evolution of the programmatic basis for each of the partnerships may be summarised as follows: The original rationale of the FSSP was very ambitious. The FSSP Programme Framework was seen (by international partners at least!) as the main coordination framework for the forest sector. In 2003, the FSSP decided to support the preparation of the current Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy (VFDS, 2006 2020) and in early 2007 adopted the VFDS as its programmatic basis, abandoning its original Programme Framework. On the other hand, from the onset PAHI had a more narrow rationale to effectively serve as the international cooperation arm of the National Steering Committee for Avian and Human Influenza (NSCAI), to facilitate policy dialogue and support monitoring of international assistance towards avian and human flu in the context of the Green Book. The Green Book, adopted by the NSCAI as the core programme basis for the GoVs efforts to combat avian flu, is therefore the programmatic basis for PAHI as well. From the onset, RWSSP partners established the GoV National Rural Water and Sanitation Strategy (NRWSS) as the overall programmatic basis for the partnership. The RWSSP Programme Framework was then established to dene a limited set of priority intervention areas where all partners agreed to support the NRWSS. The NDMP was originally a component of a UNDP project and then later re-established as a joint project between MARD and ve donors (UNDP, AusAID, RNE, Luxembourg and Sida). In both phases the programmatic basis for the NDMP was a logframe contained in the UNDP project document that formed the legal basis for this partnership. In July 2007, the NDMP Steering Committee nally adopted the draft GoV NDM Strategy as the basic programme framework for the partnership, and decided to support development by the GoV of an action plan to implement the strategy, which will form the basis for establishment of collective action priorities for the NDMP. c) partnerships as frameworks for support to national programmes? Another factor influencing the overall orientation of the partnerships has been the extent to which they were intended as frameworks for support to national programmes in their respective sub-sectors: In 1999, 15 international agencies in the forest sector agreed with MARD to establish a 5MHRP Partnership to support the National Target Programme for the forest sector (the 5 Million-Hectare Reforestation Programme, or 5MHRP). As part of its design, it was subsequently decided to broaden the partnership to support the entire forest sector. This was partly due to the perceived lack of incentives for the 5MHRP to open up to international nancial support (and accountability procedures), and concerns among international partners about the rationale and operational integrity of the 5MHRP. As regards PAHI, early exploration of the opportunities for establishing a joint avian influenzy programme based on the existing UN Joint Programme for Avian and Human Influenza (AHI), the new World Bank AHI programme and project initiatives supported by other donors did not materialise. Instead, the Green Book was established as an overall framework for implementation of individual projects and programmes. PAHI is therefore focused on coordination and monitoring of clusters of international programme inputs dened in the context of the Green Book, rather than focusing on implementation of a joint programme. Overlapping time-wise with the design of the RWSSP, the GoV embarked on the formulation of the second phase of the National Target Programme for RWSS (NTP II, a GoV programme as the main mechanism for nation-wide government RWSS service delivery), and the formulation of a targeted budget support programme (TPBS) for

32

the NTP II supported by three of the key bilateral donors involved in RWSS in Vietnam (Denmark, Australia and the Netherlands). The existence of a GoV programme covering the RWSS sub-sector, and the decision by the three donors to provide budget support directly to it, provided the opportunity to establish the RWSSP as an umbrella mechanism for sector-wide information management, policy development and alignment/ harmonisation initiatives. This included not only the NTP II and the three donors but also other national and international stakeholders. This logical linkage between the NTP II/budget support programme and the RWSSP as a wider sector framework is a key rationale of the RWSSP.

4.2.2. legal basis and membership

The legal basis for the partnerships can be legally binding Memoranda of Understanding or Agreement (MoU/MoA) combined with nancial agreements between MARD and funding partners (NDMP and ISG). They can be non-binding MoUs/MoAs between MARD and all international partners interested in joining at the point of partnership establishment (FSSP, RWSSP and PAHI). International agencies that wish to join at a later stage mostly do so through exchange of letters with the partnership leadership. The ofcial signing-on through signing of MoUs/MoAs has proved important for enhancing the level of ownership among partners. When some partners do not have an opportunity to ofcially sign on to the partnerships, this has had negative implications for ownership. Such is the case for the NDMP, where no listing of partner agencies is maintained and several agencies engaged in the partnership indicate confusion about the expectations of them and their expectations of the partnership. Similarly, MARD formally represents the GoV in all partnerships and therefore signs the MoU/MoAs on behalf of the Government. Individual departments within MARD and ministries and other institutions outside MARD are therefore not formally parties to the MoU/MoAs. Instead these agencies are instructed by MARD to engage in partnership decision-making structures (e.g. Steering Committees) through ofcial decisions issued by the Minister of MARD, or they are simply invited to join meetings on an ad hoc basis. This lack of formal engagement has affected the level of ownership of national agencies to partnership operations. While the partnerships generally have provided opportunities for representation of INGOs, this has generally not been the case for provinces (with FSSP a partial exception), business sector agents and civil society actors. This issue is discussed further in sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.5.

4.2.3. Management, steering and coordination

The partnerships typically include steering committees responsible for overall governance of partnership affairs, technical committees responsible for more in-depth technical discussion with stakeholders on the content and direction of partnership activities, and ad hoc institutional arrangements for implementation of specic activities, such as informal working groups or lead member arrangements. These structures are supported by partnership coordination units or secretariats embedded in various departments of MARD. a) Steering and management Partnership steering committees (SC), comprising representatives from national and international partner agencies, govern each of the four sub-sector partnerships. The ability of SCs to effectively govern partnership affairs has varied due to their composition, scale and unclear mandates. The FSSP SC originally comprised all FSSP partners, and was intended to outline broad

33

sector policy directions and to attend to more specic partnership management tasks, including approval of work plans and budgets. Given the large membership, its broad responsibility, limited engagement of national representatives and infrequent meetings, the ability of the FSSP SC to steer the partnership was limited. As part of an institutional overhaul of the FSSP in 2006, core steering functions were therefore handed over to the leaner Technical/Executive Committee24. To broaden the partnerships activities to engage all interested stakeholders, the FSSP established a broader FSSP Forum, aimed as a more inclusive platform for forest sector policy dialogue. Learning from the FSSP experience, the SC of the RWSSP was established as a smaller body and more narrowly focused on core partnership steering responsibilities. Apart from representation of central government agencies, membership in the SC is representational, with various partner categories (donors, INGOs, provinces, etc.) represented by one or two representatives selected on a rotational basis. Partners have generally been satised with this arrangement. Enhancing partnership governance between partnership SC meetings by establishing leadership groups have been considered by several partnerships but have not materialised, except for PAHI. This partnership has sought to overcome its governance vacuum by creating an inter-agency partnership Management Group comprising the Director-General of ICD/ MARD (Director of PAHI), the Deputy Director of the International Cooperation Department of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the secretariat manager and advisor. In the short term this arrangement required additional coordination support from the PAHI secretariat, in the longer term it is likely to enhance buy-in and ownership of the MoH and so improve governance and efciency. b) Secretariat functions: Focus, ownership and financial viability As mentioned above, each partnership maintains a secretariat or coordination ofce/unit responsible for general liaison and information management, partnership administration, undertaking secretariat functions for the SCs and other partnership bodies, and planning and coordination of partnership activities. With ten contracted or seconded staff members, the scale of the FSSP/TFF Coordination Ofce is quite signicant, due to its management responsibilities for the TFF. The scale of the secretariats of the other partnerships is relatively modest, typically 5 6 staff. Full or part-time international advisors are attached to the NDMP (part-time), FSSP/TFF, and PAHI. The secretariats are mainly funded through contributions from international partners, with in-kind and limited cash contributions from MARD. The desirability of maintaining these partnership secretariats has been much debated, and opinions about their scope, function and nancing varies greatly between various stakeholders. Critical issues include: (i) Where/how should these secretariats be embedded institutionally? (ii) How should the secretariats evolving into parallel structures that substitute functions more suited to MARD/the GoV be avoided? (iii) How should ownership and capacity building by the hosting departments be ensured? (iv) How will nancial viability of partnership operations be ensured (discussed in section 4.2.5)? Where to locate partnership secretariats? This point is critical for issues related to ownership, effectiveness and overall direction of the partnerships. Currently, the ISG, the RWSSP and PAHI are associated with the ICD as independent units, while FSSP is associated with the Forestry Department (FD) as an independent ofce. NDMP is organised as a UNDP project executed by the Department for Dyke Management and Storm and Flood Control (DDMSFC). The overall management function of the partnerships is typically performed by the DirectorGeneral or a Deputy Director-General of the afliated department, though the partnership secretariats are not formally part of their institutional structure.
24 The PSC still exists, but will have limited roles in the future.

34

Choices concerning institutional location of the partnerships rst and foremost depend on the rationale for establishing the partnerships to what extent are they about coordination of international cooperation, sub-sector coordination or enhancing overall approaches to sector planning? In the case of ISG, the choice was relatively clear, as this partnership was always intended as the core platform for overall coordination of Ministry-wide international cooperation. For the sub-sector/thematic partnerships the picture is less clear, as their rationale typically includes all the issues mentioned above. It is the overall view of the authors of this report that the key guiding principle in this regard should be the principle of proximity, i.e. that sub-sectoral policy dialogue and coordination is best performed by the respective subsectoral constituencies, and so ideally the sub-sectoral partnerships should be embedded in the relevant technical departments of MARD. However, this study reveals a number of critical shortcomings of this solution that must be considered when making nal choices. The following factors are relevant: Where the partnership mandate is wider than the mandate of the department with which it is afliated, the narrower departmental focus limits the ability of the partnership to address all sectoral aspects within its mandate. This is evident in the NDMP, where the operational focus of the hosting DDMSFC on flood infrastructure and emergency response has hampered the NDMP taking on broader integrated approaches to disaster risk management, climate change issues, etc. Lack of process capacity in technical departments can be a disincentive for the engagement of partners (particularly internationally) and hence partnership efciency and viability. This is evident in the NDMP but not the FSSP. Institutional uncertainties in the RWSS sector and the explicitly stated lack of interest and capacity of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to take responsibility for the RWSSP were the main reason for initial afliation of this partnership with the ICD. The nal decision on whether to move the partnership to the DWR will depend on the recommendations of the RWSSP inception review to be conducted towards the end of the two-year inception phase. Uncertainties about division of institutional mandates and competition between agencies responsible for international cooperation and the technical aspects of partnership operations may hamper partnership efciency. When embedded within the ICD, partnerships benet from the departmental process and international cooperation experience. However, as evident in the RWSSP, this location can hamper the sense of ownership of sub-sector level stakeholders to the partnership activities, and consequently reduce the partnerships ability to engage these stakeholders. The close linkages of the FSSP Coordination Ofce to the FD suggest that affiliating the partnerships in the relevant technical departments can be successful if the required capacities and conditions are in place. For instance, the strong leadership displayed by the FD in the FSSP, and that the FD has the mandate for overall forest-sector coordination has clearly contributed to the successful support by the FSSP to the preparation and launch of the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy, and the active engagement of Vietnamese agencies in FSSP steering and operations. Comparatively, there is a better match between the mandates of the FSSP and FD than between the NDMP and the DDMSFC, resulting in the higher efciencies in the FSSP. On the basis of this analysis, it remains the view of this report that the principle of proximity should guide decisions about the institutional location of the partnerships, unless the capacity of the concerned technical department is too weak or if there is no obvious institutional host due to the specic mandate of the concerned partnership (probably the case for PAHI). However, with the increasing importance of non-state stakeholders in many agriculture and

35

rural development sub-sectors, and the trends towards enhanced alignment of ODA with overall GoV sector planning and implementation frameworks, other options than locating partnerships in technical departments or the International Cooperation Department may be relevant. This could include embedding the functions of the partnerships in policy-focused sub-sector secretariats reporting directly to the relevant MARD Vice-Minister or locating partnerships in the MARD Planning Department or generic ministries such as the Ministry of Planning and Investment or Ministry of Finance. These options may have undesired constituency ownership implications; however, they would probably strengthen the partnerships ability to focus on policy innovation and cross-sectoral coordination and planning, rather than coordination of sub-sector investments. how to avoid parallel structures and ensure ownership by capacity building of host departments? International partners have repeatedly expressed concern that the establishment of the partnerships as independent units, mainly funded by contributions by donor agencies, would effectively undermine the harmonisation, alignment and ownership principles of the Hanoi Core Statement. Donors have therefore generally advocated for time-restricted funding of partnership operations (assuming gradually increasing nancing by MARD), limiting the size of partnership secretariats, and for integrating secretariat functions into MARD structures. It is the view of this study that while the expectations of donors in this regard may be unrealistic in the short term, it is important to address the negative implications of the current set-up of the partnerships as being partly external to MARD. Thus the following dilemmas must be considered: The partnerships in several instances perform functions that should be performed by MARD departments; however, these departments do not perform these functions effectively. Seconding staff of the hosting departments to the partnerships contributes to building the capacity of the staff and ownership of the hosting department to partnership operations. However, this does not constitute a longer-term solution. Establishment of the partnership secretariats as independent units has been preferred by MARD and donors alike as it: (a) enables application of donor frameworks for fund management (the harmonised UN/EU Cost Norms for Vietnam are generally applied), and recruitment of contracted staff; and (b) reduces the burden on MARD operational budgets and staff resources. However, again, while this may be good in the short- to medium-term, it is incompatible with Hanoi Core Statement principles. To address these dilemmas, the very real barriers to full programmatic and nancial leadership to partnership operations faced by MARD must be acknowledged. There is a more detailed discussion of possible solutions in section 5.

4.2.4. organisational linkages and engagement of stakeholders in partnership activities

It is evident from the previous analysis that the partnerships maintain complex institutional relationships with a wide range of institutional stakeholders. The following examples from the FSSP and RWSSP illustrate this complexity: FSSp: MARD maintains overall leadership for forest development and conservation while, for instance, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) maintains responsibilities for forest/land management, and Ministry of Education and Training has responsibilities for aspects of forest-related training and research. Within MARD, the FD is the overall leading agency while the Department of Forest Protection maintains

36

important responsibilities for forest protection, special-use forest management and biodiversity conservation. The Ofce of Government, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Planning and Investment have very actively participated in both the partnership SC and Technical/Executive Committee. rWSSp: MARD maintains the leadership for this sector while Ministry of Health (MoH) maintains key responsibilities for sanitation aspects and both MoH and MoNRE maintain responsibilities related to water quality. Within MARD, while the Department of Water Resources formally maintains the core state management responsibility and the Center for RWSS maintains key implementation responsibilities, in effect the Department has shown little interest in RWSS (mainly being focused on irrigation). Inter-institutional competition has resulted in signicant inefciencies in the implementation of the National Target Programme for RWSS. The intensive focus of the MARD partnerships on concrete collaborative identication, prioritisation and implementation of sector-level policy support, information management, capacity building and sector coordination activities is a unique feature of the MARD partnerships. The general principle behind this effort is that many sector-level initiatives are better supported collectively than by bilateral arrangements between individual GoV agencies and donors. The collective approach diffuses the level of process ownership by individual donors and consequently enhances government ownership. It is a prerequisite for successfully applying such approaches that national and international partners actively engage in identifying and planning jointly agreed activities. Leadership by national agencies in implementing activities, supported as required by international partners, is important to enhance ownership and viability of activities and to avoid parallel implementation roles of partnership secretariats. However, in practice it has proven difcult to obtain the desired level of partner engagement in activity implementation. Across the partnerships, a wide range of factors have contributed to this situation, including the following: The anticipated level of engagement requires time and resources for partnership activities from national and international partners. Given the resource constraints on both sides (see section 3.4.7), and an element of partnership fatigue due to past experiences with ineffective partnership management, this level of engagement is not always forthcoming. The division of roles and responsibilities of national partners, international partners and partnership secretariats has not always been clear, resulting in over-reliance on the partnership secretariats to lead in activity denition and implementation. This reliance on the secretariats has been compounded by a tendency toward overly ambitious partnership work plans. It must be realised that collaborative action requires time and resources. As discussed in section 3.4.4, there have been problems with aligning action-planning related to sector strategy implementation with mainstream GoV planning. This and similar problems aligning partnership planning time-frames with the planning cycles of national and international partners, have affected the inclination of partners to implement partnership activity. Initial lack of appropriate structures for partnership activity implementation has created barriers for effective partner-led implementation. For the FSSP, an effective institutional mechanism for identication, planning and oversight of activity implementation has existed since its inception (the Technical/Executive Committee, TEC). The establishment of formal and informal ad hoc working groups for activity implementation by interested partners, designation of lead-partner responsibilities and contract-based outsourcing of activity implementation to national partners have facilitated activity implementation in the FSSP, RWSSP, and recently in NDMP.

37

 Attempts by several partnerships to establish partner agreements with other Ministries have failed. Likewise, efforts by NDMP to request the MARD Minister to issue a decision regulating the involvement and responsibilities of departments in MARD and other ministries in the NDMP Inter-agency Working Group (IWG, the key instrument for engaging partners in NDMP operations) are yet to succeed. Relative to MARD agencies, the quality of engagement of other government agencies in activity implementation has probably been lower. However, since the recent establishment of the NDMP IWG, this partnership has had quite some success in engaging non-MARD agencies in activity planning and implementation. As further discussed in section 4.3.5, the engagement of non-state actors in partnership activity implementation, aside from INGOs, has been very limited.

4.2.5. Financing of partnership structures and activities

Joint trust fund and co-funding arrangements have been applied for the ISG, FSSP, NDMP and PAHI, governed by funding framework agreements and commonly agreed guidelines for fund management. In the FSSP, partnership activities and secretariat operating costs are funded through a FSSP Coordination Ofce Trust Fund; with core funding provided by Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden and earmarked contributions for specic activities provided by other partners. The separate Trust Fund for Forests (TFF) has nancing from the above-mentioned bilateral donors, with German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) providing technical assistance. In the NDMP and RWSSP, less elaborate co-funding arrangements have been established. Government co-funding, both in-kind and cash, is relatively limited for all partnerships. The level of funding allocated towards the partnerships varies greatly. The FSSP and also the ISG and NDMP are signicantly better resourced than, for instance, the RWSSP. The duration of funding agreements also differs signicantly, with the FSSP and ISG having beneted from longer-term nancial framework agreements. However, the FSSP, RWSSP and NDMP face signicant nancial uncertainty as the current nancial agreements expire within a relatively short period, without clarity about whether funding will be extended. Of particular importance in this regard is the demand by funding partners for a roadmap of phase-out or reduction in international nancial support towards the operational costs of the partnerships, in line with principles of national ownership and leadership. For the FSSP, several years of discussions about such a phase-out of international nancial support and transfer of functions from the FSSP Coordination Ofce to GoV agencies have not provided a clear roadmap for this process. For the RWSSP, a modest operational budget for the two-year inception phase was required. However, key international partners, with reference to the desirability of MARD ownership, decided against providing the funding. While the same international partners embraced the establishment of the partnership, it was only launched due to signicant contributions by MARD and Sida (Sida contributed 50% of the budget as part of its generic support through the MSCP, as Sida is not active in the RWSS sector). International partners did, however, express willingness to nance partnership activities on a case-by-case basis. This tight nancial situation for the RWSSP still limits its operational efciency. The evolution of the TFF illustrates the potential difculties of managing different intentions between national and international stakeholders, and within the donor group itself, in the pace of progress towards aligned and legally binding initiatives. Initially promoted by the donors, their original ambition was for the TFF to become a vehicle for introduction of budget support modalities in forestry. However, there were different views on approaching this issue among the donors and a preference by MARD for the project modality. So, when the TFF was nally

38

initiated, it became largely a basket-funding mechanism for nancing of individual projects, with cumbersome procedures for project screening and approval according to international regulations. As a result, TFF management was a signicant burden for the TFF management unit (embedded in the FSSP Coordination Ofce), the TEC and also the FSSP Steering Committee, which approved TFF projects. Thus, in 2006 it was agreed to separate the TFF from FSSP decision-making bodies. An independent GoV-dominated TFF Board of Directors became responsible for TFF steering and approval of grants. Operational procedures have been revised (largely), following GoV regulations. Due to these changes, MARD has taken an increasing interest in and ownership of the TFF. However, the 2006 review also concluded that there is limited scope for application of sector-wide approaches and budget support modalities in the forest sector; given the rapidly declining importance of ODA in the sector and the anticipated withdrawal of several donor programmes. This, and that the TFF never attracted support from the major ODA sources, i.e. the development banks, suggests that the prospects of the TFF becoming a major sector-nancing mechanism for forestry development in Vietnam are now unrealistic.

4.2.6. Coordination between partnerships: the special role of iSg

The initiation of MARD partnerships typically originates in discussions between national and international agents at the sub-sector level; in most cases the donor agencies are the driving forces behind proposals for establishing new partnerships. As discussed in section 3, this poses a risk of uncontrolled proliferation of overlapping partnership structures. Current ideas for new partnerships include partnerships for sanitation, forestland management, food safety, shery, and the Rural Development Strategy, among others! Thus, mechanisms ensuring a reasonable level of inter-partnership coordination are desirable. Ideally, coordination and discipline should be by the relevant GoV Ministries, including MARD, to ensure that the network of partnership structures within each ministrys domain or across the GoV serves the coordination needs of the government. With its mandate to support MARD-wide coordination with international donors, including initiation of sub-sector/thematic working groups and partnerships, the ISG has functions quite different from the sub-sectoral and thematic partnerships. The ISG has been valuable in establishing the current sub-sector partnerships. The ISGsponsored Technical Ad-hoc Groups (TAG) in some cases served as a launching pad for more permanent partnership structures, and the ISG served as an operational mechanism in design of new partnership initiatives. However, ISGs ambition to act in a coordinating and capacity building function vis--vis existing sub-sectoral partnerships has not been fully acknowledged by these partnerships. This is partly due to the belief within these partnerships that the relevant partners/constituencies should dene and agree on partnership priorities, operations, tools and institutional mechanisms. Stafng and other resource constraints have prevented the ISG performing this function effectively, resulting in the MARD Sida Cooperation Programme (MSCP) recently providing support to implement the coordinating functions. There is a critical need, therefore, to clearly divide roles and responsibilities between ISG and the other partnerships. Also, if decided, the ISG Secretariat should be provided the necessary human resources and tools to pursue this role. These issues are further discussed in section 5.3.1.

39

4.3. partnership outcomes

4.3.1. policy coordination and planning

Overall, the MARD partnerships have signicant achievements in policy coordination and strengthening of policy contents in their respective sub-sectoral domains, and all demonstrate signicant potential for further influencing or informing policy. The most explicit and successful example of partnership influencing of policy is the support provided by the FSSP in preparing the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy (VFDS, 2006 2020). The VFDS was seen as an updating, and merging, of the previous FSSP Programme Framework and MARDs Forestry Development Strategy, 2001 2010. Following the 2003 Annual FSSP Review and the decision by the GoV to prepare a new forest sector strategy, the partnership supported the identication of a GoV-led process according to which a GoV strategy preparation task force was established. Collectively nanced by the partnership, national and international consultants in turn supported this task force. International FSSP partners were deliberately kept on the margin of this process, with occasional consultations on draft documents. After a prolonged preparation and approval process, the Prime Minister approved the VFDS in February 2007. The FSSP has agreed to support implementation of the VFDS. The FSSP also supported the 2004 revision of the Forest Protection and Development Law, and a number of related legal documents and regulations, among other things paving the way for legal recognition of community-based forest management. In late 2006 and 2007, the NDMP supported consultations with international partners on draft versions of the National Disaster Management Strategy. International partners embraced the strategy (recently approved by the Prime Minister) and it was recently adopted as the formal policy framework of the partnership. However, there is widespread discontent with the degree that international concerns are reflected in the strategy and with overall quality of the strategy. Being established recently, the RWSSP and PAHI are yet to demonstrate engagement in policy coordination. It is anticipated that the RWSSP will play a role in the planned revision of the current National RWSS Strategy, which was approved in 2000. As for PAHI, it was established as part of the institutional follow-up to the approval of the Green Book, the comprehensive GoV framework guiding the efforts of the GoV and international partners to contain and adapt to a potential avian flu pandemic. The process leading to the Green Book preparation was based on existing GoV policies and largely led by the MARD on behalf of the GoV. This process and the subsequent establishment of PAHI are generally considered a successful example of policy coordination and alignment. Being the only Ministry-wide partnership, the nature of ISGs policy engagement differs signicantly from that of the sub-sectoral or thematic partnerships. The ISGs positive and useful contributions to overall Ministry-level policy dialogue and development, information management and coordination are widely acknowledged. The conduct of the annual ISG Plenary Meeting, notably, is considered a key annual policy event; it is the only regular large-scale, fully inclusive and high-level MARD-donor meeting. The single most widely acknowledged ISG achievement is probably the consultation process for international partners on the draft MARD Socio-economic Development Plan (SEDP)/Five-Year Plan (FYP) 2006 10, which led to the preparation of the rst ever logical framework for a line-ministerial FYP in Vietnam. This achievement was explicitly referred to by the Ministry of Planning and Investment as one reason why MARD was appointed as a model for the HCS implementation process and requested to prepare a MARD HCS Implementation Framework. However, the experience of other ISG instruments for policy dialogue and coordination has

40

been mixed. The ISG Policy Advisory Briengs (PAB) rarely lead to policy action and the Technical Ad-hoc Groups (TAG) only in some cases are seen by participants as leading to satisfactory results, such as the TAG on water resources management and the TAG on international agro-economic integration and policy. Ironically, as discussed earlier, the relative success of the partnerships in the eld of policy development has also revealed limitations in transforming sector strategy into planning action, given barriers to integrating of sector strategy action into mainstream ve-year planning and conflicting donor/GoV timetables for investment decisions. Therefore, rather than helping to facilitate innovative ways around problems of coordination and planning, the partnerships have highlighted this issue; an example being the current difculties in integrating the MARD SEDP/FYP logframe into department-level planning. Generally, as discussed in previous sections, the partnerships have not succeeded in bringing macro-level policy and reform initiatives to the sub-sectoral level, e.g. reform initiatives related to the PRSC process, public expenditure management and public administrative reform. Similarly, the partnerships have only had marginal success in fostering policy and planning innovation at the provincial and lower levels; the FSSP support to facilitate province-level forest sector planning and formation of Regional Forestry Networks is the only signicant example of partnership engagement at this level. Sector performance monitoring is an important policy and planning support instrument, and several of the partnerships have made or are planning to seriously pursue the establishing of sub-sector level performance monitoring systems. This includes the FSSP, which from the onset prioritised this issue (e.g. the FSSP CTA was originally elded in an M&E function) and the Forest Sector Monitoring and Information Systems (FOMIS) has identied and subsequently revised a set of sector-level indicators (a comprehensive analytical report on the sector status, using 2005 baseline data, was issued in January 2008). Development of a similar system for RWSS is the main programmatic activity of the RWSSP, and PAHI is in the process of establishing an ODA monitoring system. However, also in the case of sector monitoring, there are very limited linkages between initiatives at the partnership/sub-sectoral level and those at Ministerial level, partly because several of the partnership-level initiatives were initiated prior to those at MARD level.

4.3.2. Aid management, harmonisation and alignment

Overall, the MARD partnerships have had varying success in establishing mechanisms for increasing harmonisation and alignment. The statements of partnership purpose, objective and programmatic principles of the FSSP, ISG and the RWSSP make specic reference to ownership, harmonisation and alignment. For the FSSP, these principles were agreed in the FSSP&P Memorandum of Agreement from 2001, thus preceding the international concern of the Paris Declaration and the subsequent Hanoi Core Statement. As for the RWSSP, there was specic reference to the HCS in the partnership MoU. Overall, as partly discussed in section 4.3.1, there has been signicant success in policy alignment, with all sub-sector/thematic partnerships adopting the respective sub-sectoral/ thematic GoV policy frameworks as the basis for their work and the work of individual international partners. As occurred for ISG, the MARD SEDP/FYP consultation process clearly contributed to general buy-in from donors to this plan as the core planning framework for guiding donor investments in ARD. For avian flu, the harmonisation and alignment process was initiated prior to the PAHIs formation, but forms the basis for its work. With regard to alignment of programme implementation frameworks, the initiation of the three-donor Targeted Programme Budget Support to the RWSSP NTP II is the rst example of agreement by donors to operate in context of a GoV programme in ARD. Additional donors may

41

ultimately join this initiative, even potentially the World Bank; however, differences between donors in their readiness to trial the budget support modality have resulted in a signicant donor-led denition of programme priorities. Aside from the efforts to establish joint sub-sector performance monitoring systems discussed in section 4.3.1, the FSSP is the only partnership that has systematically pursued harmonisation of implementation procedures. The FSSP Harmonisation of Implementation Frameworks (HIF) study was a major effort, comparing the procedures for the Governments reforestation programme (the 5MHRP) with those of major donors, i.e. ADB, WB, KfW, JBIC, and EU. The HIF exercise, however, was terminated at the point of provincial piloting of the harmonised operational procedures that it proposed.

4.3.3. ownership, leadership and institutional capacity in the context of decentralisation

The extent that MARD/GoV has assumed effective leadership in partnership processes was discussed extensively in preceding sections. Increasingly, the MARD leadership and departments acknowledge the advantages of collective approaches to sector coordination and the useful contributions of the partnerships to this. The FSSP and PAHI are probably the partnerships where MARD has had the most dominant leading role and, in the case of the FSSP, is actively considering options for full integration of partnership functions into the relevant MARD institutions. Several international agencies take the view that the leadership demonstrated by MARD is signicant, compared to sectors such as health and education25. With regard to policy leadership, MARD has initiated the development of several sub-sectoral and sectoral strategy initiatives. However, as experience from the preparation of the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy and the Natural Disaster Management Strategy showed, there is a institutional pressure within MARD to base sector strategy preparation on review of current departmental programmes and mandates, rather than on denition of preferred scenarios for sector development. Application of scenario-based analytical approaches as intended in the upcoming Rural Development Strategy would enhance the value of these strategies as tools for efcient resource allocation, and strategic use of national and international investment. All partnerships, except for PAHI, as part of their objectives and programme frameworks express intentions to address the roles and responsibilities of central and provincial institutions in the context of ongoing decentralisation. The degree to which these intentions are acted on is limited. As discussed in previous sections, the partnerships have faced barriers in identifying suitable systems of representation of province-level agents in partnership structures as well as in dening the rationale for provincial engagement in partnerships. As a result, the partnerships are largely focused on coordination between donors and central GoV agencies, and have not identied relevant institutional arrangements to represent provinces. Consequently, as further discussed in section 4.3.4, the partnerships may have effectively diverted attention away from provincial-level coordination. FSSP is the only partnership that has systematically sought to dene systems for provincial representation within the partnership, and to dene the subject matter of provincial engagement. The initial FSSP Provincial Reference Group (PRG), comprising one provincial representative from each of Vietnams eight agro-ecological zones, was abandoned partly due to the absence of a clear institutional mandate for the provinces on the PRG to take on the representative role assigned to them. In addition, this set-up was largely supply-driven, i.e. based on the interest of the partnership and central level agents to keep provinces informed about
25 Interview with UNICEF, among others.

42

FSSP activities, rather than on analysis of provincial incentives to engage. The PRG was therefore replaced by a more sensible effort to support the establishment of six Regional Forestry Networks for the 42 forestry provinces to promote provincial forest-sector coordination and information exchange. In addition, international FSSP partners supported piloting of provincial forest-sector planning systems. ISG has made various attempts to engage provinces in consultations on ARD-sector aid coordination. It is the view of this study that the ISG should abandon this effort, as this engagement is a large drain on scarce ISG human and nancial resources. The provinces are more effectively engaged through the more operationally focused sub-sectoral and thematic partnerships. National and provincial level institutional capacity building is included among the core objectives or action priorities of most of the partnerships, but only for the RWSSP is there specic reference to decentralisation. The Joint GoV/Donor RWSS sector review extensively discussed institutional challenges from decentralisation and the role and responsibilities of agencies at the national and decentralised/local levels. As a result, facilitation of institutional coordination and capacity building at the national level and building of provincial capacity in the context of decentralisation was included in the RWSSP programme framework as two of ve action priorities. However, corresponding activities included in the initial RWSSP work plan are yet to be initiated. The MARD leadership explicitly looked to the RWSSP as a means to reduce entrenched institutional competition and challenges in the sector. These challenges have effectively prevented the partnership in playing a signicant role in this regard.

4.3.4. public expenditure management and service delivery

Overall, there is mixed performance of the partnerships in regard to public expenditure management and service delivery. These issues are dened as action priorities by several partnerships, but limited action has been taken. As regards public expenditure management, MARD is generally apprehensive about dictating modalities or funding priorities for donors. This partly acknowledges that donors do not maintain uniform positions toward application of new modalities. More specically, the NDMP and the RWSSP have specic references to efcient sectorlevel resource use in their objective statements. The FSSP, PAHI and NDMP began formulating programmatic and nancial support matrixes to map out sector investments of various stakeholders in relation to dened sector priorities, to create a basis for collective identication of funding gaps and sector funding priorities. The FSSP matrix was originally based on mapping nancial support against the nine result areas of the FSSP Programme Framework, but a new version under preparation aims to list support for the action plans under the new forestry strategy. This process has been slowed by problems of aligning strategic sector planning with mainstream SEDP planning, reluctance of MARD to prescribe to donors where they should direct their funding26, and problems related to varying timetables for GoV and donor investment planning. The recently initiated process of dening the NDMP matrix was hampered by the absence of clear programme prioritisation and action planning in the context of the National NDM Strategy. Establishment of a similar matrix for the RWSS sector is in the RWSSP work plan but not yet initiated. None of the partnerships are effectively linked to the national or MARD-level efforts to strengthen national or sector-level public expenditure management. This is a missed opportunity for the partnerships to pursue effective sector-level resource use in the context of the
26 The MARD leadership is reluctant to rank order priorities for donor support, given that MARD senior management have differing ideas on the priorities. So a consensus approach is adopted.

43

broader Public Expenditure Management Framework rather than home grown efforts with starting points in individual sub-sectors. With the exception of the FSSP, there has been limited attention by partnerships to issues of improving service delivery and achieving appropriate balances between a focus on direct service delivery and creating conditions for longer-term growth. The FSSP has supported the following initiatives in this regard: strengthening of the legal framework for community engagement in forest plantation and protection; support to strengthening of synergies between forestry research, education, training and extension; support to strengthening of provincial forest planning and networking; reform of state forest enterprises; and engaging the business sector in consultations on business investments in forestry (the Forestry Investment Forum). The RWSSP functions as a broad policy framework for enhancing innovative approaches to service delivery through the RWSS National Target Programme. The RWSSP programme framework also includes support to province-level capacity building for participatory planning and implementation, and creation of conditions for business sector engagement as two of their ve action priorities. However, concrete action is yet to be taken. A critical question raised by several stakeholders interviewed for this study is whether the partnerships are counter-productive to national efforts to decentralise and strengthen local service delivery, given that they mainly engage central-level stakeholders in policy dialogue and other activities, and given that they continue to focus on coordination of project interventions of individual partners rather than on joint programming. In other words, are the transaction costs of nurturing central-level coordination among national and international agents withdrawing resources and attention from the ongoing decentralisation process, and more hands-on programming aimed at improving service delivery and private enterprise at local levels?

4.3.5. interface between public and non-state actors

Generally, the partnerships have had limited success in building synergy with the resources and efforts of business sector and civil society actors and institutions. As discussed earlier, this is partly due to barriers to establishing systems for representation of these constituencies (except for INGOs), initial institutional reluctance of MARD actors to enable such representation, as well as difculties in dening meaningful content of their engagement. FSSP and ISG have recently responded to the rapidly emerging business sector dynamics in the more production-oriented ARD sectors, such as crop production, livestock, agro-industry and forestry. The RWSSP has not identied interventions in this regard. The efforts by the FSSP were discussed in section 4.3.4. The MARD leadership recently assigned the overall coordinating responsibility for increasing levels of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) to ARD sectors to the International Cooperation Department. In consequence, the 2006 Annual ISG Plenary Meeting was organised as a broad forum for dialogue between MARD, donors and business sector actors on ways to enhance FDI and national business sector investments in ARD. As mentioned earlier, the efforts by the ISG Thematic Ad-hoc Group on global integration in preparation for Vietnams accession to the WTO is considered one of the more successful ISG achievements. Efforts have been made for the partnerships to engage business sector agents. The same cannot be said with regard to national civil society, as it has been left to INGOs to represent civil society interests in the partnerships. This situation is largely a reflection of the generally restrictive civil society setting in Vietnam, including the rudimentary stage of civil society organisations.

44

5. oVErAll CoNClUSioNS, lESSoNS lEArNED AND FUtUrE StrAtEgiC DirECtioNS

The analysis in this section is organised according to the following critical questions: 1. Value added and lessons learned: What is the value added by the MARD partnerships, why do we need them, what are their strengths and weaknesses, what are the lessons learned? 2. Strategic evolution of the MArD partnerships: How should the partnerships evolve strategically given MARDs evolution towards a modern line ministry that meets the requirements of a market based economy (where many different stakeholders play important roles in service delivery and sector investment)? Are partnership structures the best way forward, or could other structures perform more efciently? 3. Changing the institutional environment in which the partnerships operate: Depending on the future strategic directions of the partnerships, what changes in the institutional environment in which the partnerships operate would be required to enhance partnership efciency? 4. Future institutional and operational set-up of the MArD partnerships: Depending on the future strategic direction of the partnerships, which changes would be desirable in the institutional and operational set-up of the partnerships?

5.1. Value added and lessons learned

5.1.1. Contributions and shortcomings of MArD partnerships

Overall, the MARD partnerships have emerged as relevant instruments for ODA coordination, enhancement of aid effectiveness in the context of the Hanoi Core Statement and wider sector and sub-sector coordination. Critical partnership features contributing positively in this regard include the following: the partnerships have contributed to cross-sector coordination. In the context of the barriers faced by the GoV to inter-ministerial coordination, the partnerships have facilitated coordination between different ministries and stakeholders. The contributions of the FSSP and PAHI, along with the ISGs support for the 2006 -2010 SEDP offer the clearest examples of successful cross-sector coordination. Importantly, MARD nds out for itself that this is an important value-added by the partnerships. the partnerships have contributed to policy coordination and development. Partnership interventions in this area have been most efcient in cases where the process applied has allowed the GoV to take maximum ownership of the process, e.g. the preparation of the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy. The MARD leadership acknowledges the contributions and potential of the partnerships in this regard. There is a tradition for top-down policy making and limited inclusion of stakeholder constituencies in it, particularly with regard to local levels of government and non-state actors. Given this, the partnerships are well positioned to act as channels for stakeholder inclusion in policymaking and for bringing issues identied by sector constituencies into the policy arena. the partnerships have enhanced sector-level information management. Given the lack of systematic sector information exchange networks, the partnerships become important forums for information dissemination, which, in particular, has guided the design of new programmes. While the partnerships contributions towards the strengthening of

45

sector performance monitoring are still emerging, valuable efforts in this area are being pursued by three of the ve partnerships. the partnerships have demonstrated an ability to evolve incrementally in response to changing sector conditions. This ability to learn by doing is recognised by the MARD leadership and is critical if the partnerships are to stay relevant in the context of the rapid socio-economic development in Vietnam. the partnerships have enabled increased ownership of oDA management processes by the ministry and MArD departments. As noted by MARD, the partnerships have helped MARD departments to learn to deal with donors, and helped donors to appreciate national leadership in ODA management. MARD departments have found it easier to present policy issues to and receive feedback from donors collectively rather than individually, and have gradually become comfortable with the partnerships as mechanisms for consultation and coordination. This has contributed to enhancing ownership of ODA management by MARD departments. With increasing MARD ownership, the partnerships are emerging as platforms for two-way communication. From being primarily platforms for donors seeking to influence GoV policy, the partnerships are increasingly becoming platforms used by the GoV to seek inputs and advice from sector stakeholders. the MArD partnerships are results-oriented. The fact that MARD partnerships are not only platforms for broad policy dialogue, but also support collective identication and coordination of agreed sector interventions, increases the relevance and value added of the MARD partnerships. However, this study also reveals that a range of programmatic, operational and institutional issues needs to be addressed to enhance partnership performance and efficiency, ownership of partnership constituencies and hence partnership viability. Critical issues to be addressed by the partnerships include the following: the partnerships have not yet contributed significantly to the mainstreaming of national level aid effectiveness, administrative reform and decentralisation efforts in the sector context and at local levels. Aid effectiveness, improved governance and decentralisation are often included as partnership objective statements. In practice the partnerships have not established efcient linkages to national efforts in these elds, nor have they effectively supported the mainstreaming of such initiatives at the provincial and local levels of government. the partnerships have succeeded only to a limited extent in engaging critical provincial and non-state constituencies. The partnerships have not established structures for meaningful, demand driven engagement of provinces, the business sector and civil society actors in partnership policy support, sector coordination and other activities. The recent reorientation of the FSSP is an exception. operationally, the partnerships largely remain parallel structures. All partnership secretariats are incorporated as independent units that follow operational procedures external to MARD procedures. They rely mainly on contracted staff, and are largely dependent on international nancing, with limited counterpart funding provided by MARD/ GoV.

5.1.2. lessons learned

Based on the ndings of this study, addressing the following issues is critical for maximising the programmatic and operational efciency of the partnerships:

46

 building partnership structures (or programmes, if joint legally-binding programming is agreeable to partners) on jointly defined and negotiated sector vision/strategy and analysis. This would provide clarity when deciding on partnership rationale and programmatic scope, structure, membership, institutional roles and responsibilities and programmatic linkages. Maintaining a sensible balance between process and action. The GoV and its international partners have collectively committed to pursuing the principles laid out in the Hanoi Core Statement (HCS). In practice national and international partners alike face various institutional barriers that prevent the effective pursuit of collective action. A key purpose of the partnerships is, therefore, to nurture collaborative behaviour, i.e. to gradually change the deeply entrenched, bilateral mind-sets of the GoV and its international partners. Attention to process is, therefore, critical for partnership success. However, in contrast, while process is important, unless engagement in partnerships leads to concrete results, and partners feel that the partnerships add concrete value, they will soon lose interest. Thus, a sensible balance between process and effective action must be maintained. ownership by and representation of sector level constituencies. The analysis points to the key importance of ensuring a strong ownership of partnership coordination efforts and activities by institutional stakeholders related to the sub-sectors concerned. While agents at the ministerial or higher level must address the need for creating an enabling environment for partnership operation, the ownership by sub-sector actors in MARD is essential for consolidating efforts and actions. The signicant evolution and adaptive capacity displayed by the FSSP has only been possible due to a high level of ownership by its immediate stakeholder constituency. This does also not necessarily imply that the partnerships should be embedded in the technical departments responsible for the sub-sectors concerned. As the experiences of the RWSSP and NDMP suggest, while this solution may be the preferred option in principle, nal decisions in this regard should take into consideration the capacities and mandates of the hosting departments as well as the overall purpose of each partnership and the required level of access to the leadership of MARD and other ministries. Furthermore, attention must be given to a careful denition of sector level constituencies. Again, as the experience of the FSSP, in particular, suggests, the composition of these constituencies changes over time as the sectors undergo structural change given the rapid socio-economic development in Vietnam. Effectively including private sector and other non-state actors, therefore, becomes of critical importance, depending on the sector context. All relevant constituencies need to feel ownership of the partnerships to ensure their viability. incremental evolution of partnership rationale, focus and structure. Given the dynamic and rapid socio-economic evolution of MARD sub-sectors, the thematic issues the ministry is facing, and the barriers faced by many partners with regard to pursuing HCS principles in practice, it is thus critical that partnership programming, planning and structures are flexible enough to allow for incremental evolution of the partnerships. Such flexibility will allow them: a) to learn by doing; b) to more effectively reflect the changing conditions in their sector and operational environment; and c) to gradually move towards joint and, eventually, legally binding action to the extent this is relevant in the context of the individual partnership. The current approach by the MARD partnerships, whereby they effectively support any desired aid modality while at the same time exploring options for a gradual move towards new modalities, is sensible. Neither international partners nor MARD are ready to endorse any specic modality and the predictability of future funding is low. Unless partners are truly ready to adopt legally binding joint programming, there is

47

no point in establishing binding roadmaps. linking partnership action to the aid effectiveness agenda and to the application of wider programme-based approaches to planning and resource use in sectors where his is relevant. The efforts of the partnerships at this time should be focused on institutional and policy development, which will create a foundation for enhanced aid effectiveness and the selection of relevant modalities for joint support. This would require establishment of stronger linkages between the partnerships and national and ministry level aid effectiveness initiatives to support mainstreaming of these at the sector and lower administrative levels. resourcing coordination efforts. Medium to long-term nancial security for partnership operations is necessary in order for the partnerships to maintain a long-term horizon for their activities. Financial viability is required whether the partnerships are operating outside the government system or as an integral part of departmental structures and mandates. International nancial support is likely to be required in the short to medium term, even where partnerships are incorporated into MARD structures and nancial systems. Monitoring partnership effectiveness. It is important that systems for assessing partnership effectiveness and value added are put in place, as this will enable efcient review and adjustment of partnership structures, mandates and operations given the rapidly changing socio-economic development in Vietnam. Based on this analysis, the following set of generic partnership dos and donts are suggested:

PARTNERSHIP DOS AND DONTS Initiation and rationale

partnership initiation Joint sector issue analysis agreed to, including national trends, sector trends and stakeholder analysis, as a basis for denition of partnership rationale, priorities and structure. Realistically dene partnership scope and focus so that it reflects institutional realities and constituencies. Ensure clear demarcation vis--vis other partnerships. Initial leadership and investment by key agencies (with the government taking a lead role). Take a long-term strategic view. Partnerships should be dynamic, long-term and continually developing. partnership rationale, objective and programme focus Adopt GoV policy frameworks as the basis for partnership, or support the GoV in designing its sector policy/strategy. Opt for good ones, not perfect products! Avoid parallel partnership programme frameworks. Emphasise collaborative action and incrementally move towards new modalities/ programme-based approach/SWAp if all partners are not ready from the outset. If the partnership is not about SWAp, but coordination of individual programmes, do so within an agreed collaboratively dened strategic framework (agreed action plans, lead agencies, thematic groups).

48

Machinery and membership

legal basis and membership: To enhance clarity and ownership, all partners should formally sign up to the partnership constitution, whether by signing the founding Partnership Agreement or a subsequent exchange of letters. Address the need to identify structures for representation of provinces and nonstate actors from the outset, if treated as add ons they are unlikely to happen! Management, steering and coordination Avoid being too ambitious. Be pragmatic, incremental, patient, process-focused, flexible Establishing collaborative arrangements is tricky! Support GoV ownership and decisive leadership (vis--vis both GoV agencies and donors). Be realistic in terms of capacity to pursue commonly agreed sector activities. Separate partnership coordination and implementation functions (add value not another layer). Ground partnership planning, coordination and implementation in national agencies and national operational, nancial and planning frameworks (e.g. FYP) and build capacity. Engagement of partners Build institutional mechanisms that facilitate engagement and ownership of national partners in partnership activity implementation, and for provision of support by international partners as required. Engagement of provincial and non-state actors should be demand-driven. Financing of partnership structures and activities A timetable for nancing of partnership operations by national stakeholders should be established. It should be acknowledged that international nancing may be required in the short to medium term.

Programmatic and external linkages

Dene partnership priorities in the context of cross-cutting national governance and aid effectiveness initiatives (e.g. SEDP/FYP, PRSC, PAR/decentralisation, PFM, HCS). Include support for the sectors key GoV programme, if any, as an integral part of the partnerships programmatic priorities.

rECoMMENDAtioN 1:

These lessons learned and partnership dos and donts should be considered when deciding on the establishment of new partnerships and the evolution of existing partnerships.

49

5.2. Strategic evolution of the MArD partnerships: A range of partnership models reflecting the changing environment in ArD
Decisions concerning the future use of partnership structures and their strategic evolution should take into consideration the key socio-economic characteristics of the sectors which they support (Section 5.2.1) as well as the overall purpose dened for each partnership (Section 5.2.2). Reflecting variations along these dimensions a set of alternative partnership models is suggested (Section 5.2.3). Finally, the relevance of applying partnership structures in the context of the roll-out and mainstreaming of the new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam is discussed (Section 5.2.4).

5.2.1. Future orientation of the partnerships in different sectors depends on sector development and investment trends, and the institutional evolution of MArD
The analysis of individual sub-sector partnerships points to signicant variations in the subsector contexts in which they operate. These varying sub-sector conditions have influenced the design of the newly formed partnerships, such as the NDMP and the evolution of the more mature partnerships, in particular the FSSP. As discussed in Section 2, Vietnam is undergoing a rapid socio-economic transformation from a central planning to a market-oriented economy. At the same time, Vietnam is supporting decentralisation and related administrative reform, and experiencing a relative decline in the role of ODA. The roles of central government agencies, provincial and local authorities, international donors, and non-state agents, such as the business sector and national and international civil society organisations, are, therefore, being transformed. These sector changes play out differently in each of the sub-sectors covered by the MARD partnerships and, therefore, impact individual partnerships differently. An additional sector-specic factor affecting the evolution of individual partnerships is the presence (or absence) of core government service delivery programmes in the sub-sectors. It is a very positive sign that the designs and evolutions of the individual partnerships have responded to these varying sub-sector conditions. This is a testimony to the responsiveness of the constituencies of each partnership, and the importance of allowing these constituencies to determine the overall direction and focus of each partnership. It is unlikely that the partnerships would have been able to respond in a dynamic fashion to the developments in their respective sub-sectors if a more prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach had been applied by MARD with regard to the steering and coordination of the partnerships. This dynamic points to the importance of analysing partnership efficiency and success in relation to the socio-economic setting and the stakeholder set-up in each of the sectors that the partnerships support, and the goals, interests and aspirations of the individual partnerships and their constituencies. Whether each partnership can be said to be a success or effective depends on the quality of their own goals and ambitions in relation to the sub-sector context in which they operate, and how effectively they pursue these goals. Following this line of argument, when exploring the future directions of the MARD partnerships, the starting point should be that the current partnerships, in spite of many similarities, have evolved differently. They serve different purposes in the context of the different needs and stakeholder settings in their respective sub-sectors. This diversity is desirable as it reflects a dynamic engagement by partnership constituencies. The current partnerships are largely intended as collaborative platforms for consultation

50

between international ODA agents and government agencies. The future orientation of the partnerships will, to a significant degree, depend on the trends in the relative importance of ODA investments to investments by other stakeholders, such as the business sector and the GoV itself. However, as discussed in Section 2, exactly how ODA investments will evolve, given Vietnams move towards middle-income country status, is not yet clear, and will certainly differ from sector to sector27. Furthermore, the relevance and desired orientation of the sub-sector partnerships depends not only on the overall relative importance of ODA investments, but also on the composition of aid agencies in individual sectors. The future orientation and function of the partnerships finally depends on the pace and depth of the current institutional evolution of MARD. The ministry is evolving from an agency mainly focused on centralised planning and implementation to one mainly focused on policy development and the establishment of an overall regulatory framework for, and monitoring of, the implementation of sector activities by provinces and non-state actors.

5.2.2. Differentiating between aid effectiveness, aid coordination and sector coordination functions of partnerships
The programmatic focus, membership, institutional set-up and organisational linkages relevant for a partnership will depend on the extent to which its overall purpose or rationale is focused on a) strengthening ODA coordination in a given sector, b) enhancing aid effectiveness, c) strengthening GoV sector coordination as such (for instance through the introduction of programme-based approaches to planning and resource allocation), or d) combinations of the above purposes. Choices in this regard in turn depend on the socio-economic characteristics and the corresponding stakeholder set-up of the sectors concerned, as discussed in Section 5.2.1. partnership rationale 1: Coordination of oDA inflows: To the extent that a partnership is primarily intended to function as a platform for coordination of ODA inflows to a given sector it would probably be justied to maintain the partnership as a platform for coordination between international and GoV agencies supporting development and service delivery in the sector. This would be particularly the case if the expectation is that ODA investments to the sector are diminishing. A high degree of GoV ownership would be desirable, as would mainstreaming of the partnership into GoV structures, but these are not necessarily a pre-requisite for success. The basic rationale for the partnership would be that some ODA coordination is better than none, and it would be expected that the partnership would be dissolved as and when ODA inflows cease. partnership rationale 2: Enhancing aid effectiveness: In the scenario that the main partnership rationale is to enhance aid effectiveness, and more specically to align ODA inflows with GoV sector coordination, planning and resource allocation systems, the following qualitative improvements in the partnership membership, structures and organisational linkages would be required: The conceptual starting point for the partnership would have to be that it is about enhancing full country ownership to aid delivery processes, not donor processes.
27 For instance, if in a given sector ODA investments remain relatively high and a wide range of bilateral and INGO stakeholders make these investments, the relevance and orientation of a partnership for this sector will be different from a situation where ODA investments are mainly made by one or two multilateral nancing institutions. Similarly, it is likely that the relative importance of ODA investments will be lower in production sectors (such as forestry) than in sectors that are more oriented towards public social service delivery (such as rural water supply and sanitation). The purpose and membership of each partnership must therefore reflect the corresponding differences in the stakeholder set-up in their respective sectors.

51

 This in turn would require that partnership structures be fully integrated into MARD administrative and institutional structures. Maintaining partnership structures as independent units would not be justied, at least not in the medium to long-term. Such integration would not preclude international support in building the capacity of MARD agencies to manage the partnerships, or international co-funding of partnership operations, but the starting point would have to be full integration into MARD structures. An integral function of the partnerships in this scenario would be the strengthening of GoV strategies, structure and governance systems. Strong linkages would have to be established between the partnerships and national or ministry level efforts in this regard. This would include the efforts of the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness to implement the Hanoi Core Statement, the Public Administrative Reform process and the ongoing decentralisation process. To do so, the partnerships would have to create strong upward linkages to higher institutional levels and initiatives as well as downward linkages to implementation networks at the provincial and lower levels, and to non-stake stakeholders and investors. The partnerships must, therefore, support the roll-out of GoV decentralisation and PAR measures at provincial levels, emphasising demand driven development, to ultimately contribute to change at the local level. Consequently partnership structures for representing and engaging provinces and non-state actors must be established at the outset as an integral part of the partnership design rather than be considered as add-on activities. partnership rationale 3: programme-based and inclusive sector coordination: Finally, to the extent that the primary partnership rationale is to function as a platform for programmebased and inclusive sector coordination, they would have to include similar features for the aid effectiveness scenario described above. However, as in this scenario it is assumed that ODA investments would play a relatively small role. Then the following additional qualitative adjustment in partnership structures and linkages would be required: Institutional attachment of the partnership to the departments responsible for planning, policy and business sector investment (including foreign direct investments (FDI)), and a diminishing role for traditional international cooperation. Further emphasis on establishing the partnerships as platforms for consultations between the GoV and national stakeholder constituencies on sector development issues, including development of national sector strategies, policies, regulations, capacity building, resource allocation and planning, etc.

5.2.3. A framework for alternative partnership models

On the basis of the analyses in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, and this studys ndings on the evolution of the current MARD partnerships, the following framework for identication of alternative models for the MARD partnerships is emerging. This framework reflects a) the specic socioeconomic characteristics of various rural sub-sectors, and b) the orientation of partnerships as mechanisms for aid coordination, aid effectiveness or sector coordination: linkages between partnership Characteristics, Sector Characteristics and partnership purpose

52

partnership purpose Aid coordination

Sector characteristics production sectors Are the partnerships relevant assuming the reduced importance of ODA investments? Social service sectors Partnerships remain primarily platforms for GoV/donor aid coordination. They may continue to be independent units. Partnerships are nationally embedded platforms for sector dialogue between the GoV, international partners, local and non-state constituencies. And/or: Partnerships are frameworks for budget support to national programmes. thematic issues Partnerships remain primarily platforms for GoV/donor aid coordination. They may continue to be independent units. Partnerships are nationally embedded platforms for sector dialogue between the GoV, international partners, local and non-state constituencies. And/or: Partnerships are frameworks for budget support to national programmes Partnerships are mainly national platforms for sector dialogue, information sharing and coordination between the GoV and local and non-state sector constituencies

Aid effectiveness

Are the partnerships relevant assuming the reduced importance of ODA investments?

Sector coordination/ pbA application

Partnerships are mainly national platforms for sector dialogue, information sharing, and coordination between the GoV and local and nonstate sector constituencies.

Partnerships are mainly national platforms for sector dialogue, information sharing and coordination between the GoV and local and nonstate sector constituencies

On the basis of this analytical framework, the following specic partnership models emerge: partnership model 1: Forums for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, planning and coordination. This type of partnership establishes structures supporting the creation of horizontal linkages as well as upward and downward linkages between the many different state and non-state sector stakeholders with an interest in sector policy formulation and planning. To the extent that ODA still plays a role in the sub-sector, these partnerships may also be focused on enhancing aid effectiveness agendas. These partnerships are fully integrated into GoV structures and apply GoV regulations. This model is primarily relevant in production-oriented sub-sectors, but may also be applicable in social service sectors and thematic areas. The FSSP has initiated a re-orientation in this direction. partnership model 2: Operational partnerships for efficient service delivery in subsectors focused on public service delivery. These partnerships act as conduits for the efcient use of resources allocated for public service delivery. They are fully integrated into GoV structures and apply GoV regulations. If ODA investments are still high, they could take the form of operational partnerships for provision of budget support to national

53

(or provincial) public service delivery programmes. The RWSSP and, maybe, the NDMP could potentially move in this direction. partnership model 3: ODA coordination partnerships: This is basically the MARD partnerships in their current form. They may stay as independent units, but ideally they would be integrated into GoV structures. partnership model 4: Thematic partnerships addressing cross-cutting recurrent or emerging priorities. The form that these partnerships take will be dependent on the nature of the cross-cutting priority issue(s) in question. But common to all will be the need to establish effective structures for coordination between different ministries/sectors and effective systems for implementation at local levels. The exact institutional structure and linkages for these partnerships will depend, in part, on whether the cross-cutting issue in question is an emerging one (e.g. avian flu) or a recurrent one (e.g. natural disasters). partnership model 5: The ISG is a special case, as this partnership is specically focused on ministry-wide policy dialogue between MARD, as an institution, and the international partners collaborating with the ministry.
rECoMMENDAtioN 2:

This analytical framework for defining partnership models should be considered when deciding on the establishment of new partnerships and the evolution of existing partnerships.

5.2.4. the use of partnership structures for consultation and coordination in the context of the new rural Development Strategy for Vietnam
It is the view of this study that the use of partnership structures as platforms for collaborative engagement between national and international stakeholders in the preparation, roll-out and implementation of the new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy) would contribute to a wider buy-in to the strategy among relevant constituencies. Additionally, the use of partnership structures would result in better coordination of the roll-out and actual implementation of the strategy at subsequent stages.
rECoMMENDAtioN 3:

It is therefore recommended that options for applying partnership structures as part of the preparation and roll-out of the RD Strategy be explored.
In this context the following issues should be considered: The establishment of a temporary partnership structure for the preparation and rollout of the RD strategy could be considered. The main purpose of this effort would be to establish a platform for consultations with a broad range of rural development stakeholders at all levels on desired sector scenarios and corresponding policy, regulatory and institutional responses. This higher-level RD sector level partnership is suggested as a temporary measure. This suggestion is made given the experiences that such higher level partnerships are not viable in the long term. However, they are required given the need to anchor partnership structures at the sub-sector level to ensure the

54

degree of ownership from interested stakeholder constituencies required to sustain the partnerships. This RD Strategy partnership function could potentially be performed by the ISG or a Working Group under this partnership as further discussed in Section 5.3.1 below. If it is decided to systematically use partnership structures in the context of the RD Strategy implementation, then these should be established in the key sub-sector areas within MARDs mandate where partnership structures have not yet been established. Care has to be taken to avoid sector overlap between different sub-sector partnerships, and to ensure that the demarcation of the partnerships programmatic scope and focus match with the institutional realities within the RD sector. With this in mind, establishing partnerships for the crop production and animal husbandry sectors that follow the partnership model for the multi-stakeholder consultation, productive sub-sectors outlined in Section 5.2.3 could be considered.

5.3. Strengthening the institutional environment in which the partnerships operate

In order to facilitate the evolution of the MARD sub-sector partnerships discussed in this report, the institutional arrangements discussed in the two sections below are recommended in order to facilitate the desired programmatic and institutional evolution of the sub-sector partnerships.

5.3.1. Establishment of a MArD team for partnership facilitation and support

It follows from the analysis in the preceding sections that there is signicant scope for enhancing the efciency of most of the partnerships. These efciency enhancements can be achieved in the denition of programmatic purpose, membership, institutional set-up and linkages, arrangements for engagement of partners and stakeholders and operational procedures. Furthermore, there is a need to enhance the partnership steering capacity of the departments hosting partnerships. Finally, in consequence of the above points, there is scope for reducing the transaction costs associated with engagement in and operation of the partnerships. These objectives need to be achieved without losing the relative institutional autonomy of the partnerships, i.e. the freedom of the partners and stakeholders in individual partnerships to determine the programmatic focus and key institutional and operational characteristics of each partnership. This autonomy is, as discussed above, critical for ensuring the level of ownership and buy-in needed for ensuring partnership relevance and sustainability.
rECoMMENDAtioN 4:

On this basis, it is recommended that a MARD team for partnership facilitation and support be established. This is discussed in further detail below.
In order to ensure that sub-sector constituencies still own key decision-making concerning partnership programme orientation, set-up and activities, it is critical that this partnership service centre maintains a facilitating function rather than a prescriptive one. The team would perform the following specic functions: Enhance partnership efciency through the provision and pooling of technical assistance

55

and the maintenance of a common library of partnership administrative and operational tools and resources. Facilitate linkages between the sub-sector/thematic partnerships and national and MARD level aid effectiveness, governance, public administrative reform and decentralisation initiatives. This would enable the partnerships to more effectively support the mainstreaming of these initiatives at the sector and lower administrative levels. In practice, this would include a responsibility for ensuring that the partnerships are informed of cross-cutting national level and ministry level initiatives, and that partnership action is fed back to this higher level. Guide consultations between MARD and partnership constituencies regarding the most desirable arrangements for the location of partnerships. Guide the establishment of new partnerships (if any!).
rECoMMENDAtioN 5:

Options for the exact location of this team and other institutional arrangements should be defined in consultations between MARD and the various partnerships and partner constituencies. However, as further discussed below, it is recommended that the options for locating this team within an innovated ISG be explored.
As mentioned earlier, the role and function of the ISG is very different from other partnerships analysed by this study. It is the view of the study team that a ministry-wide consultation forum, such as the ISG, has critical potential as a change agent for the establishment of an enabling operational framework for partnership evolution in the context of MARD.
rECoMMENDAtioN 6:

However, given the rapid progress towards increased marketorientation in ARD, the consequent changes in the function of MARD and the relative importance of public and private stakeholder constituencies, for the ISG to take on this function would require a redefinition of the ISG focus, mandate, resources and institutional location, along the following lines:
iSg mandate: The ISG mandate would emphasise the following functions: Continuation of the iSgs core function as a platform for cross-ministerial, resultsoriented policy dialogue, coordination and information management. This would include functioning as a temporary consultation platform for the preparation and roll-out of the RD Strategy, consultations on the MARD Socio-economic Development Plan/Five-Year Plan, etc. Expanding iSgs role as the facilitator and capacity-builder for internal, crossministerial practitioners networks aimed at enhancing lateral coordination capacity and dialogue between MARD departments. partnership service centre as described above. Framework for policy dialogue and consultations in ArD sub-sectors not serviced by

56

partnership structures, including facilitating creation of such partnerships in response to demand from sub-sector constituencies. In pursuing the above, care should be taken to strictly adhere to the proximity principle. The ISG should not perform functions that could better be performed by the sub-sector partnerships, including engaging in downward linkages to province level, and non-stake actors, etc., in areas where partnerships are in operation. iSg governance, steering and institutional home: The ISG Steering Board should be reformed to gradually reduce the influence of the international partners and to strengthen the effective representation of provincial and non-state stakeholders. A management group, comprising the MARD Planning Department, the Cooperatives and Rural Development Department and the International Cooperation Department, should perform the ISG management function. The decision as to which department should take the lead management role would depend on the detailed denition of the future functions of the ISG, but any of the above departments could, in principle, take on this role. Whether to integrate the ISG secretariat into the Planning Department, given the expected reduction in the role of ODA investments in rural development sectors, should be considered. A decision on this matter would depend on the detailed denition of the future functions of the ISG. These functions should be determined in the context of the mandates of the departments that may potentially host the ISG, including their responsibilities for promoting the level of private sector investments in ARD and integrating private sector investments into ARD sector planning. The ISG could be renamed as the Vietnam Agriculture and Rural Development Forum or something similar. iSg institutional resources, tools and funding: Given the current scarcity of human resources within the ISG, this reorientation of the ISG would require a strengthening of its human resource base, including, potentially, a short to medium term allocation of international technical assistance. As this input would, in effect, also support a more efcient operation of the sub-sector partnerships (through the proposed ISG partnership service centre function), the total allocation of international technical assistance support to the MARD partnerships could be reduced in actual terms. A major effort to streamline and strengthen the tools available to the ISG for information management, policy support and partnership servicing would be required. This would include a review of the efciency of the existing ISG tools, such as the Policy Advisory Briengs and TAGs, and the development of additional tools for partnership facilitation. Given the scarcity of ISG resources, the range of current ISG activities should also be reviewed from a cost-efciency perspective, including, in particular, the engagement at the provincial level. International nancial support to ISG operations through the current ISG Trust Fund should be continued in the medium term, but a timetable for full nancing by MARD and other national constituencies should be agreed upon.

57

5.3.2. institutionalising partnerships as integral parts of the MArD structure

In order to support the proposed re-orientation of the MARD partnerships, the following specific initiatives are recommended:
rECoMMENDAtioN 7:

Establish a time-bound strategy for the full integration of partnership structures into MARD and/or other national structures, including non-state structures.
MARD acknowledges the usefulness of the partnerships and has indicated its readiness to take on a higher share of the investments required to maintain these as effective instruments for coordination. Rather than everybody waiting for national structures to acquire the necessary capacity to take on this responsibility, a time-bound roadmap for this transition towards nationalisation of the partnerships should be agreed upon. The learning by doing principle should be applied in this context. National structures should take on these responsibilities sooner rather than later, with international partners providing technical assistance and nancial support in the short to medium term. This support could be partly channelled through partnership facilitation and the team proposed above. This should take into consideration the need to explore new partnership modalities that enhances the engagement of non-stake stakeholders (e.g. public-private sector partnership arrangements).
rECoMMENDAtioN 8:

Systematically review and decide on options as to where to locate current (and future) partnerships. It is specifically recommended that the proposed review of specific options for each of the current partnerships be linked to the planned institutional review of the departmental functions and division of work between MARD departments supported by the MARDSida Cooperation Programme.
As briefly discussed in Section 4.2.3, there are several options that could be considered in this regard, including the following: Fully integrate the partnerships as administrative units in their current host departments. This option is currently being considered for the FSSP. However, in the case of the RWSSP, this should await the nal decision concerning the future location of this partnership, For the NDMP, a decision in this regard should depend on a review of the match between the objectives of this partnership and the mandate of the Department of Dyke Management and Storm and Flood Control. Embed in ministry-level sub-sector secretariats. This solution would embed the functions performed by the partnerships in policy and coordination focused sub-sector secretariats reporting directly to the relevant MARD vice-minister. This would enable full integration of the partnership functions into the institutional structure of MARD. Elevating partnership functions to a higher level in the MARD structure would also contribute to enhanced cross-departmental and inter-ministerial coordination, and help to avoid the

58

restrictions caused by limited and operationally focused departmental mandates. Affiliate with the MArD planning Department. As described in Section 5.5.5, partnership effectiveness is hampered by the inherent difculties of integrating sector-level strategy action into the mainstream FYP and departmental planning. Embedding the partnerships in the Planning Department, or enhancing the role of the Planning Department in partnership management, would facilitate such planning integration. Embed in Mopi or other generic ministries outside MArD. Elevating the partnerships to this level would strengthen effectiveness with regard to overall sector coordination and planning integration, but hamper ownership by sub-sector constituencies. Share hosting responsibility between MArD, other ministries and the private sector, research or civil society associations. This solution would reflect the growing importance of non-state stakeholders to the partnerships. A nal decision on this issue would depend on the exact denition of the future purpose and function of the partnerships, as discussed above.

59

ANNEX
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIETNAM

Minister Vice Ministers Governance

MARD Office Ministerial Inspection Agricultural Enterprise Renovation & Management 6 Departments International Cooperation Department Science & Technology Department Planning Department Legislation Department Finance Department Personnel & Organisation Department 10 Professional Bureaus Plant Protection Department Department of Husbandry Department of Cultivation Veterinary/Animal Health Department Agro-forestry Processing & Salt Industry Department Forestry Protection Department Forestry Department Dyke Management & Flood Control Department Works/Construction Department Water Resources Department Cooperatives & Rural Development Department

Service Delivery

Informatics & Statistics Center National Center for Agriculture Extension Center for Clean Water & Sanitation Vietnam Agriculture Newspaper Agriculture & Rural Development Magazine 39 Vocational & Training Universities 19 Research Institutes affiliated to the Ministry 3 Institutes for master planning 5 Research Institutes 6 Research Centers 7 National Parks 16 Corporations 32 Independent Businesses 64 Departments of Agriculture & Rural Development Sub-Branches

Science & Training

Production & Business Provinces

60

Prepared by Jens Rydder, Dao Thanh Huyen, Lotta Hglund Commissioned by The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam (MARD) and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development Facilitated by The International Support Group (ISG) of MARD The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam or of the member organisations of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development Published by Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, c/o Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Dahlmannstrae 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany June 2008 61

www.donorplatform.org

Contact: Secretariat of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, c/o Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Dahlmannstrae 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0) 228 24934 166 Fax: +49 (0) 228 24934 155 Email: secretariat@donorplatform.org Website: www.donorplatform.org Publication date: June 2008

62