1 / 7

Viet Nam Case Study

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:

kimama
Download Presentation

Viet Nam Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Viet Nam Case Study Seminar on Capacity Development Bratislava, 21-23 Nov. 2005 Nguyen Tien Phong – ARR, UNDP Viet Nam

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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?

More Related