1 DOING A PARTICIPATORY PER THE VIETNAM EXPERIENCE David Shand PEAM Seminar 24 May, 2001

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

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

4 Some Other Issues  GOV will not be pushed around  Apparently good results from public expenditures - “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”  Government itself doesn’t know what is going on - and therefore isn’t in full control  Shining light into dark corners - but focus on a few key issues - sowing some ideas  Comparisons with other countries in the region interest GOV  Other topics can be covered in later PER

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

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

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

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

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

10 Chronology of the Participatory Approach  January: Main mission (two weeks) H team of 12 H some work with local consultants H visits to Quang Binh province H workshop in HCMC  End February/early March H draft chapters provided to GOV

11 Chronology of the Participatory Approach  March 24 - April 4: Follow-up mission H discussions with MOF, MPI and sectoral ministries on draft chapters H sectoral workshops (some involving Vice Ministers) and plenary workshops H first draft of report provided to GOV

12 Chronology of the Participatory Approach  Late April H final draft report provided to GOV  Mid May H formal comments from MOF H WB Hanoi line by line discussion with MOF

13 Chronology of the Participatory Approach  June: Final mission to discuss PER report H Agreement with MOF and submission to leadership  June 23-23: C-G meeting in Vietnam H GOV presents PER report to C-G  September: discussions on PER implementation and follow-up

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

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

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

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