70 likes | 198 Views
Viet Nam Case Study. Seminar on Capacity Development Bratislava, 21-23 Nov. 2005 Nguyen Tien Phong – ARR, UNDP Viet Nam. Overview of UNDP Viet Nam’s Capacity Development initiatives. National Capacity Strengthening is main approach of UNDP VN program. Some key programs:
E N D
Viet Nam Case Study Seminar on Capacity Development Bratislava, 21-23 Nov. 2005 Nguyen Tien Phong – ARR, UNDP Viet Nam
Overview of UNDP Viet Nam’s Capacity Development initiatives • National Capacity Strengthening is main approach of UNDP VN program. • Some key programs: • Support the development and implementation of the National PAR Master Plan; • Legal Reform; • Support strengthening capacity for people-elected bodies and local governments; • Support the national target programs for poverty reduction. • Support the CD in Socio-economic development M&E, etc.
Case study – Support the National Targeted Poverty Reduction ProgramsContext • NTPs were seen by the GOVN as a key measure to address pockets of persistent poverty and increasing inequality. • However, NTPs were seen by donors as ‘contradictory’ to the PRSP approach. • UNDP sees NTPs as unique opportunity to strengthen national capacity and institutionalise the best practices.
The “CDF” • US$7 million, funded by UNDP TRAC, DFID and Finland through C/S Agreement, managed under NEX modality. • The outputs of the TA are the outputs of the NTP: improved M&E systems, participatory and targeting mechanisms, financial management system and implementation capacity at local levels. • Time frame: 2001- 2005 – 2010.
The CDF – cont. • Independent evaluation of the NTPs – areas for improvements identified. • Support the design of NTPs for 2006-2010 • Support the implementation of NTPs. • TA and Capacity Strengthening inputs provided directly to central and local agencies based on their mandates/ responsibilities in and needs for better performance in NTPs.
The CDF – Cont. • Outcomes M&E of the CDF = M&E of the NTPs. • UNDP comparative advantages: we are not a donor – neutral and objective, our role in TA/capacity strengthening and MDG M&E, NEX, trustful relationship with the GOVN, rich past experience. • Exist strategy: should we need to have one or we will be providing as much as the government requests us?
Questions • Should we put our funding to “budget support”? What implications does Paris Declaration would mean to us? • NEX as a parallel system or as a part of the government own system? • Can we provide mechanisms for “absorbing fiduciary risks”? • What roles should we be playing in the financing tools such as PRSC?