00039111 - SLGP - EvalRep

DRAFT OUTLINE FOR END OF EVALUATION REPORT SLGP EOP Evaluation STRENGTHENING LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITIES FOR PLANNING, BUDGETING AND MANAGING PUBLIC RESOURCES END OF PROJECT EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 30[.]

STRENGTHENING LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DRAFT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A5 Evaluation Approach and Methodology

A6 Structure of the Report

B CONTEXT, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT PERFORMANCE

3 Effectiveness of management strategy and implementation arrangements

4 Efficiency and utilization of project resources

1 Salient Events in the Life of SLGP

2 Questionnaire with Pilot Units: Summary Notes

3 Outputs: Quick Survey on Degree of Coverage Across Pilot Units

4 Results Framework: Summary Assessment by EOPE Evaluators

5 Impacts: Quick Survey on Importance, Depth and Sustained Effects

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

1 This end-of-project evaluation (EOPE November 2010) addresses the issues of

achievements and results; relevance; effectiveness; efficiency; impacts; sustainability; and

provides lessons learned and recommendations EOPE has been facilitated by the

well-organised cooperation of staff and leaders of the 36 subnational pilot units and localorganisations, the four PPMUs, the CPMU, UNDP and staff of ten Donor agencies The finalprogress reports of CPMU and the four pilot Provinces (September 2010) have beenespecially helpful, and are strongly recommended as parallel reading to the EOPE

2 Evaluation of SLGP must be viewed in the macro context of People-State relationships, ascentral authorities learn how to organise the evolution of subnational political participation,financial management, resource and investment management, public services design anddelivery, and more localised accountability The agenda is usually written in terms ofsystems and processes; but the determining dynamics are issues of control, authority,legitimacy, transparency and accountability; and by human interests in ideology, life’s valuesand purposes, power, status, prestige, hierarchy, dependency, liberty, duty, conformity andindividuality EOPE can only be concerned with evidence of changes and constraints, andhas not the resources or mandate to appreciate the internal dynamics of policy decisions indecentralisation, people’s empowerment, distribution of services, wealth and opportunities

3 The rapid extension of market transactions, the growth of private entrepreneurs and thereduction of State enterprises and State employment bring changes to people’s lives and

interests, which displace some of the assumptions and strategies of community-based

state management and policy-making on which SLGP was designed and implemented

4 The Project was formulated in 2003-5, a time of great interest in decentralisation andpeople’s empowerment Commonly mentioned ‘shortcomings’ at that time were:

a) a rigid ‘mindset’ including (top-down direction; local dependency and subsidy; lack

of communities’ participation and responsibility, a focus on quantities and norms, lack ofcredible data, administrative targets rather than real needs and potentials;)

b) methodological issues (such as lack of strategic approach; lack of relevant legaldocuments, regulations, methods and tools; lack of understanding of how to fit nationalstrategies and policies into local planning; uncertainty about the allocation of investmentcapital; lack of connection of planning with budget management;) and

c) organisation and resources constraints (lack of local capability to improvecapacities autonomously; lack of budget for doing the planning (and other devolved duties);problems of coordination and integration vertically and horizontally; and challenges indealing with new social and cultural needs and demands emerging from private enterprise,diversification, mobility, information and individualisation of choices and actions.)

5 SLGP was intended to directly contribute to:

1) local capacities in pilot provinces to achieve the strategic goals of pro-poor and

gender sensitive plans and budgets, and improved services especially for the poor andmarginalized people; and

2) national policy, by ensuring that the lessons from pilot units inform and influence

improvement of national guidelines, as well as other aspects of GoVN’s overall policy ondecentralization, and other donor projects

Findings

6 Overview: The opinions about SLGP among pilot partners have converged around a

common ‘story’ - that SLGP came on a wave of interest in decentralisation and participation,

the grassroots initiatives have been well adopted but with less progress on organisation-levelreform, that capacity building has been partially successful but needs more extension andreinforcement, that MPI significantly shifted its interest after 2008, and that the Project isclosing ‘too early’ in terms of institutionalising of practices at subnational units, and ofchanging laws and guidelines at national level.

7 Achievements: SLGP has contributed greatly to the needs, approaches, priorities,

methods, reception or deferment of reforms in planning, budgeting, financing, managing andmonitoring - not so much with new technical knowledge, but to the understanding of what isneeded, of directions and of how to advance reforms in particular situations The greaterpart of the achievement is in the designs, preparations, trialling, training, partial adoption andsome limited propagation of reforms; but little has been achieved in the qualitative changes

of performance of PBS that would serve the SLGP’s strategic Outcomes (in 5.1, 5.2 above)

It seems probable that some kind of grant facility would have strengthened and deepenedthe achievements, by ensuring the applications of SLGP-promoted methods through thewhole project cycle, across more cooperating agencies and amongst more participatingpeoples and groups

8 Relevance: SLGP design was highly relevant in 2005, in addressing LG capacity needs,

and in a broad, unspecified strategy of “changing minds and breaking fences “, which was aresponse to growing local expectations and to the protections and disciplines of severalenabling laws and decisions by GOVN This phase may be termed the First Tier devolution,with shifts of national powers and controls There was a general expectation of flow-ondevolution, from Second Tier (Province), and so on to Third (District), Fourth (Commune),Fifth (Villages), Sixth (People’s Organisations) and Seventh (Households and individuals).The judgment on relevance in 2010 depends on the degree of support for and direction offurther decentralization especially at Tiers 2 and 3, wherein the leaders and staff believe thatthe proven design cannot advance further without legal directives from national level EOPEconcludes that the narrow piloting to two districts and six communes means that there is notthe critical mass of well-informed advocates to bring about changes at Provincial levelagencies and committees Relevance now requires a broadening (more buy-in) anddeepening (more learning by doing) to shift province-wide systems towards internalisedreforms and more strategic outcomes

9 Effectiveness: The demand-based capacity development, and the process approach

with much attention to the feasibility of changes, proved to be an effective pilot designed learning-by-doing process, with an adequate technical backup, proved to be agood approach in capacity development interventions at local level Delays in preparing androlling out several documents and activities resulted in less effective propagation, learningand applications Partial delegation of Project implementation to PPMUs (2008) waseventually regarded as an effective mechanism for piloting towards Outcome 1; but somepartners still regard that as an indication of loss of momentum for specific reforms from thenational centre, and with reduced efficacy of feedback from pilots This perceived ‘loss ofmomentum’ could have been offset by a more directive and demanding role of CPMU for theresults-based evaluation of innovations, and for the upward feedback and use of pilotexperience among national partners There is not enough formal evidence of NationalSteering Committee deliberations, guidance and interventions by which EOPE could make afair assessment

Well-10 Efficiency: National level CPMU-MPI and sub-national levels (PPMUs and localities)

have demonstrated their commitment and diligence in preparing and refining theapproaches, methods, documents, events and guidelines to enable good quality piloting andefficient use of resources of the Project and of partners Local leaders and staff of unitsconsistently praise the efforts and professionalism of PPMUs and the specialist teams whichthey coordinated This reported competence indicates that a grant facility could have been

well managed and used to realise and demonstrate the gains of new methods and morelocalised participation and responsibility

11 Sustainability: SLGP supported around fifty products, guidelines and training sets, to

around 1,000 staff and leaders, with many flow-on applications and some instructions andletters confirming official adoption The LCAs and EOPE informants report the widelyrecognised value of certain changes, and the commitment to continue However, there isvery much uncertainty about sustainability of reforms and their benefits, mainly because:

a) more than half of the trials and innovations have not been adequatelyinstitutionalised nor their performance deeply reinforced (see LCA 3, Tables V.1, V.2, V.3;and the Final Progress Reports from four Provinces);

b) there is some hesitancy at Second and Third Tier about pushing further on thedecentralisation reforms which are permitted under existing laws;

c) there are still many gaps before reaching the level of consistent performance bywhich political leaders would be convinced in taking the risks and time-effort costs in morereforms and more decentralised functions, such as in finance mobilisation or monitoring andoversighting

12 Changes: The most influential of SLGP changes has been in the ‘mindset’ and attitudes

of leaders, staff, cadres and citizens about the need for and possibilities in reform anddecentralisation However, most local partners believe that the mindset changes andpeople’s interest and involvement in PBS can soon be reversed, unless the legalrequirements to reform PBS are promulgated and enforced across all interdependent units

13 Capacity: SLGP has noticeably enhanced local capacities in pilot units, and among a

few neighbouring units, with generally good targeting of interventions, careful approaches,good quality materials and appropriate methods Individuals have benefited most; whileorganisational capacity is constrained by work cultures and the uncertainties in pushingreforms of subnational functions and powers in the devolving hierarchies The awareness ofcapacity building effects has been strengthened by the conduct and findings of three LCAs –which have also revealed the need for more reinforcement and extension across units

14 Organisations: The design and practical limits of piloting have left some units with

partially reformed systems, extending over only a part of their localities and part of theirbureaucracies There has been very variable depth of practice and impact, across pilot unitsand within pilot agencies The impact of SLGP on organisations in planning anddevelopment has been limited by having too-little horizontal cooperation and coordination,and too-limited resources with which to apply new methods and to build harmonisedpreparations and cooperation The finance sector parts of SLGP interventions (delegation ofbudgeting, mobilising resources) have lagged behind the planning parts, thus limiting thepotential combined value of project initiatives Since some of the desired changes arepossible under the devolved State Budget Law (SBL), it seems that some ProvincialGovernments now reflect the uncertainty and inertia in reform which national agencies anddecision makers showed in 1995-2005 period

15 Innovation: It is possible under current laws and procedures for the Provinces to extend

and equalise the spread and depth of beneficial pilot effects Some Central informantsbelieve that subnational units could have innovated more widely using the SLGP productsand opportunities Some subnational authorities have proceeded to institutionalise, withinlimited mandates, such as the delegations on investment project management in four pilotprovinces, and propagating standard instructions and formats to non-pilot units Somesubnational informants believe that the national level has been ‘too slow’, such as inworking on national planning guidelines since 2005, on a planning decree since 2008, and atrust fund for planning reform

16 Cautiousness: Subnational opinions about apparent delay in innovation of SLGP

methods and documents gather under the explanation that national-level institutionalising isrequired to direct the use of new methods and devolution, as local partner-initiators sensethat they have reached the limits of work-culture tolerance and nationwide ideology indecentralisation and grassroots democracy EOPE strongly suggests that leaders shouldhonestly examine the locations and reasons for cautiousness, so as to provide guidance toother projects in subnational governance

17 National Gains: Although CPMU staff believe that they have clear gains from the local

levels, there is not enough clarity in the upward learning by CPMU and MPI, by which todemonstrate linkages of lessons from pilots into national deliberations and policy decisions,and into the directions for where to go in decentralisation Project communications have yet

to be optimally effective in harmonising stakeholders’ understanding of objectives, progressand implementation issues, in order to enlarge project impact (see, for example, therecommendations in each of the Provinces’ Final Progress Reports) This condition is aserious anomaly in a project advocating and enabling vertical and horizontal consultationand transparency as necessary conditions for achieving its Outcomes

18 Dissemination: Although there are around twelve attractive publications (see Annex 10),

and evidence of ‘crossover effects’ to six donor projects, there is not enough clarity and notenough purpose in the processing and dissemination of SLGP information and productsamong GOVN agencies and Donor partners CPMU-MPI is yet to exploit the potential of thecapital created under SLGP in applicable knowledge and constructive professional networks,while PPMUs fear that their small ‘footholds’ in subnational units will soon be eroded

19 A giant, outside? In the overall national context, and in the localities, the rapid growth of

private enterprise and diversified investment complicates the challenges and knowledgerequired at community-based planning, managing projects and oversighting services SLGPmethods, tools and training have not yet given adequate attention to local level integration ofpublic and private domains and functions

Lessons

20 Assessment: EOPE’s assessment of effects and impacts would have benefited from

recurrent and objective monitoring, throughout SLGP, of the coverage and effects of Projectactivities, especially the training and documents, and of the consistency of applications andfollow-up Reliance on people’s memories of then, and on opinions of now, does not giveenough insight into organisational changes

21 New knowledge: Most of the lessons-to-be-learned were already known at design

stage (as was shown in the Risks Matrix, for example) and at MTE This finding implies thatSLGP could have implemented more confidently, quickly and broadly, for example, instrategic and participatory planning The constraints were not ‘technical’, but rather more inthe mechanisms and ideology of decentralisation and People-State relations

22 Making space: Participatory planning, budgeting, deciding and monitoring obviously

require the sharing of responsibilities and functions which are already being exercised by

specific persons in authority, most of whom are naturally reluctant to ‘give away’ theirfunctions Project designs should contain an explicit analysis of political and administrativefeasibility of their proposed interventions

23 Risk exposure: Strong ownership of the pilot provinces (and delegation) does enable

and propel the initiatives However, subnational partners believe that they need thepermissions and disciplines of national rules and guidelines, to be spread across all units

Pilot partners took the risks in technical competence and in the organisations’ culture andhierarchy, but quite soon they have sensed the political limits of the decentralising reforms.

24 Synergy: SLGP targeted parts of the PBS to fit its desired Outcomes, but soon stalled

on financing, specialist staff and oversighting constraints Such experiments would workmore successfully and effectively within a broader national framework for local governance

reform to guide the process across multiple, scattered and overlapping reform interventions;

and by linking the SLGP activities to social security, safety net and social protection efforts,

to ensure successful poverty interventions

25 Cohesion: Translation of leaders’ strong political commitment to the PBS reform, into

generous, regular and specific guidance and goal-oriented project management, is anessential factor in ensuring a cohesive vision towards project success Project owners anddonors should critically and openly examine ‘leadership feasibility’ as a critical resource inproject designs, management arrangements and responses to feedback over projectduration

26 The new dynamic: The drive, mobility, flexibility and individuality in private sector raise

big challenges to State management at all levels; but the words do not appear in SLGP Canany later project concerned with local empowerment and social equality ignore private-publiccoordination and cooperation as a determinant of local conditions and opportunities?

Recommendations

27 Focus: SLGP has achieved some important results, and partners appreciate significant

benefits But the efforts have turned out to be too fragmented and delayed to make anysignificant gains in strategic development Future projects should make more fundamentaland explicit changes at mid-term to ensure more impact, even if the range of issues,activities and products is narrowed

28 Re-think: The wave of decentralisation and democratisation, on which SLGP arrived,

has abated, indicating that organisational change may be slowed at national and provinciallevels It may be more effective now to pursue those strategic aims of more inclusive,transparent, pro-poor and gender-sensitive planning, investment and services, throughsectoral and limited-locality interventions, including direct support to disadvantagedhouseholds This strategy does not wait on local government systems to achieve suchresults and effects; but it seeks to empower the local people to participate in the rapidlyprivatising socio-economy, and thence to have more leverage on local governance

29 Close-sensing: The coverage, depth and applications have been very variable, as can

be expected in a pilot scheme with a process approach, and delegated implementation.Project management of such conditions requires regular, objective, qualitative andquantitative measuring and evaluating of the practical depth and strategic effects GoodM&E should be a covenant in Donor partnering

30 Recognising Inertia: Capacity building was well received and was successful on the

individuals’ scale, but not so apparent amongst organisations Training events and numbersfaded after 2008, especially on financial and monitoring topics The dimensions and potentialconstraints of work culture and hierarchy politics must be explicitly appraised in projectfeasibility and risk assessment

31 A dividend?: A great amount of knowledge and network capital has been created for

practical applications in Outcome 1, and for propagation in Outcome 2; but the realisation isyet to be demonstrated CPMU and PPMUs should pursue the synthesis of lessons so as to

a) the new planning decree,

b) the strategy and program for the decree’s implementation, and

c) any instructions by Provincial levels to District and Commune units

32 Out-selling: Technical and professional crossover from SLGP to GOVN and Donor

agencies has been too opaque and non-deliberate Such projects should delegate and fund(with payments by results) an autonomous working group, having the duty and mandate topropagate the information and approved products, and giving more emphasis to smallmeetings and online discussions, rather than on distributed documents

33 Contingent relevance: SLGP’s design remains basically relevant (with a focus on

bottom-up and participatory planning and budgeting) - but only if one assumes:

a) that national and ideological factors are favouring both faster decentralisation andpolitico-administrative diversity; and

b) that more resources will be available to actually apply new methods andresponsibilities

34 Role and Methods: It seems that local governance will become increasingly important

as democratisation expands and deepens, as outlined in the draft SEDS/SEDP, and willremain a crucial component in the One Plan for 2011-2015 However, the communal-basedplanning and managing methods will have to adapt radically if they are to remain relevant inthe surging private market systems, which now engage so much of the time and concern ofleaders and staff, especially at Province and District levels, and on which many ordinarypeople now attach their livelihoods and family opportunities

35 Vertical accountability: Some Provinces report that the ‘project has not been

aggressively directed’, that ‘no units comply with certain directives’, and that ‘there has been

no enforcement of implementation’ Project management would be more effective if

national level project leaders demand more scientific evaluation of applications and uptakethrough agencies, and of the desired changes towards inclusive, pro-poor, gender-sensitive

and transparent practices being rooted and sustained in pilot units; and then devote time to

substantive directing and follow-ups

36 Work allocation: The new planning approach has brought new demands on staff, some

of which are difficult to sustain Designs of projects must make a thorough assessment ofthe flexibility and capacity of human resources in host agencies

37 Outlook: The evidence (including Provinces’ final reports) inclines towards a pessimistic view of sustaining Project results, as no legal framework exists on reformed PBS, and

some applications in pilot units – too brief, too narrow or too shallow - are already fading.The further delay in promulgating the long expected planning decree, the lesser the Projectresults will be sustained

38 Securing the gains: MPI should make a detailed ‘progress report’ on its drafting and its

intentions, to be delivered to all concerned units, agencies and donors If the decree is likely

to be delayed until 2012-13, MPI should assemble the practices into temporary nationalguidelines for SEDP, to keep the waning momentum created by the Project, and to guidecontinued reform on the ground MPI should enable a task force / working group to continuethe essential tasks at national and four pilot agencies

39 Sharing now: GOVN and donors should combine in 2011 to refine and package the

products of SLGP, by means of a working group; and to produce a comprehensive and depth analytical mapping of local governance initiatives

in-40 Competence: There is not yet enough evidence that staff and leaders can actually

perform their duties to the standard required to achieve strategic aims, and there aresuggestions that skills and knowledge are fading Before implementation of any new decreearrangements and functions, a scientific, objective baseline test is required of ability-to-doand knowledge of essential principles and techniques

41 In summary: designs in subnational reforms of PBS must appraise the macro-context,

ensure that there are institutional permissions and disciplines, investigate the administrativefeasibility, explore private sector dynamics and opportunities in the target areas / functions,set modest goals but with the flexibility of a process approach, make close theoretical andpractical links from activities to strategic aims, focus resources to make robust and deepimpacts in a few needy places (including households) and functions, cultivate permission atthe centre but devolve responsibilities and budgets, empower the local beneficiaries tooversight (monthly) the project performance, and apply accountability equally to projectowners, staff and beneficiaries

The EOPE Team members are grateful to the leaders, staff, representatives andbeneficiaries who gave us the time and effort to recall, review, explain and appraise whatwas done under SLGP and what was/is its value in their lives, work, their constituents andtheir organisations

The Team greatly appreciate the guidance, advice, documents, information and facilitationprovided by MPI and UNDP, by the Provincial level Project staff, and by staff of cooperatingDonors in Hanoi We are especially grateful to the Provinces for their Final ProgressReports, which state clearly and frankly the record of achievements, shortcomings andcontinuing needs

In addition to the persons listed in Annex 6, we thank the hundreds of others who havecontributed to plans, reports, reviews, documents and meetings referred to in Annex 10 The Team members have acted as independently as possible within the constraints of timeand the EOPE’s reliance on the goodwill, documents, memories and opinions of people whohave committed much time and energy and career-interest to the pilot project Please allow

us the duty to comment as fairly as we can on what we have heard, read and observed,recognising that our conclusions might not might not align with what the participants andmanagers believe to be the true or full picture, or a correct interpretation

We hope that our small effort, even with some contrarian views, will contribute a little toappraising and drawing together the vast and diverse experience in participatory andstrategic planning, budgeting, financing, servicing and monitoring, towards incorporation andenactment through revised legal instruments, reformed systems and empowered-inspiredbeneficiaries at all levels

Abbreviation & Acronyms

SIGNATURE PAGE

Country: Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

UNDAF Outcome(s)/

Indicator(s): Government economic policies support growth that is more

equitable, inclusive and sustainable

Policies, law and governance structures effectively support arights-based development to realise the values and goals of theMillennium Declaration

Expected Outcome(s)/

Indicator (s): Participation, empowerment and accountability:

Decisions relating to the allocation, utilization and mobilization ofresources involve & are accountable to local people

Governance structures and practices are representative,transparent and accountable to their respective constituenciesand decentralized to the extent possible

Expected Output(s)/

Indicator(s): 1 An increasing proportion of public investments are made on

basis of local participation in decision-making and monitoring ofoutcomes

2 Powers are devolved to local government where appropriateand the aims and objectives of administrative decentralization arerealised

3 Local communes have the administrative capacity to acceptresponsibility for a wider range of powers and to exercise thesepowers in an accountable and transparent manner;

4 The public has easy access to reliable information relating togovernment policies, policy choices and the impact of policies,and mechanisms are in place for people to influence national andlocal policy

Implementing Partner: Ministry of Planning and Investment

Other Partners: DLRE/MPI

Total budget allocated: US$4,000,000

Programme Period: 2001 – 2005 and

2006-2010

Programme Component: Achieving the

MDGs and reducing human poverty

A INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

A1 Background

The Project was formulated by MPI, UNCDF, UNDP, Donors and provincial staff in 2003-5, atime of great excitement and interest in decentralisation and people’s empowerment TheSignature Page, above, shows the grand and ambitious outcomes and outputs, reflectingbetter the aims of a long-term program in governance than the aims for a 4-year pilot projectwith a small budget and (then) only three partner provinces The Project Document (PD,p.4) stated that SLGP “seeks to address a range of policy issues which are ultimately linked

to pro-poor and gender sensitive planning, budgeting and management of developmentresources by local governments In doing so, SLGP will also explicitly ensure that nationalpolicies are informed and influenced by pilot experience, particularly with regard to nationalguidelines and procedures for local socio-economic development planning.” The Outcomes

were summarised (PD p.14) as:

1 Improved local capacities in pilot provinces to:

a) undertake socio-economic development planning that is participatory, formulated closelywith budgets and gender sensitive; and

b) manage public resources effectively and transparently – with a view to

c) improving the quality of social service especially for the poor and marginalized people

2 Influencing national policy, by ensuring that the lessons learned in pilot provincesinforms the development and improvement of national guidelines on local socio-economicdevelopment planning, as well as aspects of GoVN’s overall policy on decentralization.”The link of local capacity building to national policy changes was effected through piloting ofmethods UNDP initially aimed for a project to support "capacity building" and to continuesupport to P135 However, when the (UNCDF-led) team went to talk to MPI a wider requestwas made Given UNCDF’s success with the earlier RIDEF project in supportingCommunes, MPI suggested that UNCDF could provide support in piloting planning andother procedures at sub-Province level, so that it could be upscaled nationally Such amethod and outcome would help to achieve one of the goals of the National Plan, which was

to improve delivery of public goods and services at local level The fusion of UNCDF, UNDPand MPI preferences required long discussions on all aspects of project design

Aiming to achieve the overall goal of pro-poor and gender sensitive plans and budgets at

sub-national levels, the project was expected to deliver the following five key outputs:

1 More effective, participatory and inclusive planning and budgeting systems aredeveloped and used by local government organizations in the pilot provinces

2 Investment scheme implementation by local government is more transparent andeffective in the pilot provinces

3 Appropriate local government financial management mechanisms and fiscalarrangements are established and used in the pilot provinces

4 Oversight, accountability and monitoring mechanisms are enhanced at local levels

5 Experience from SLGP provincial innovations as well as from other similar governmentand donor-funded projects inform and influences national policies (in particular, nationalguidelines for local socio-economic development planning and budgeting) and is madeavailable to other provinces/donors

The Project is operated at both national and sub-national levels At the national level, SLGPworked with the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), Ministry of Finance (MOF) andother related line Ministries and organizations, and donors At the subnational level, theproject worked with local authorities (provincial, district and commune) in four pilot provinces

A Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) was conducted in 2008 to assess its progress against outputsand identify recommendations for the Project to reach its objective Management responses

to and implementation of the key recommendations were set up and monitored (see Annex7) The final evaluation (EOPE) now provides a longer view of the Project and its evolvingsocio-economic and political context, and assesses the achievement, relevance,effectiveness, efficiency and impacts of the Project

A2 Project Context

SLGP must be viewed as part of the wave of interest in and demand for tools andopportunities to realise the inspiring aims of decentralisation and grassroots democracy,which spread through most donors and parts of ASEAN in the 1980-90s, and throughVietnam in 1995-2005 The wave has abated as other grand concerns demand attention inVietnam and require more central control, especially economic growth and productivity,major infrastructure, international trade, urbanisation, DFI, national finance management,PAR, disaster preparation and response, and climate change

SLGP must also be viewed in the context of People-State relationships, as centralauthorities learn how to manage the evolution of subnational political participation, financialmanagement, resource and investment management in a market economy, public servicesdesign and delivery, and more localised accountability The piloting provided feedback to theauthorities at all level, even while the need for capacity building and local resourcemobilisation have intensified with or without piloting and innovations

There has been massive socio-economic-political change in the last 15 years, in the

extension of market transactions and the growth of entrepreneurs These capitalist-system influences on people’s lives and interests displace some of the community-based state

management and policy-making for which SLGP, and around ten related projects andprograms, have been providing ideas, tools, training and capacity building

A3 Objectives and Products of the EOP Evaluation

The objective of the EOP Evaluation is to:

a) address the issues of:

Outcomes, taking in the implementation of MTE recommendations

One Plan context), as now and in comparison with the Project design’s period

implementation approach, including the Project's result framework, performanceindicators, adaptation to conditions, management and mechanisms applied inmanagement decentralization to province level

arrangements of the Project

among individuals, organisations and institutions, and achievements in theapplications of local planning and budgeting reform

attention to sustainability of financial resources, the socio-political environment,catalytic or replication effects of the Project, and institutional and governance factors.b) propose lessons learned and recommendations in each of these studied aspects

A4 Evaluation Scope

The specific value-added of the EOPE is to independently assess methods and results inrelation to strategic factors and objectives, such as contribution to the One Plan outcome;relevance to the current context of SEDP and the priorities and needs of the nation; theProject’s role in the decentralization process; design strategy and issues in achieving theobjectives and in possible future support to Vietnam; sustainable capacity strengthening forsub-national partners in planning and budgeting as well as in informing national policies;synergies with other programmes (including those that target the poorest local areas), andwith government agencies, UN partners, and donors; the suitability of implementationarrangements, with consideration of mainstreaming gender equality issues; indications ofhow to capitalize experiences from SLGP pilots to the national system; and of the readiness

of the national and local stakeholders to continue and expand piloted activities

A5 Evaluation Approach and Methodology

The EOPE has been conducted through:

• Desk study of about fifty documents (Annex 10), including the UN/UNDP CPAP, One

UN Plan, annual and quarterly plans, progress reports, annual review minutes,province’s reports and guidelines, LCA reports, MTE report, related projects’documents, and reviews on best practices (one consolidated lessons fromdevelopment partners’ projects by UNDP, one by SPR)

• Field visits (4 pilot provinces) and interviews with more than 100 local stakeholders(Annex 2, 6), using semi-structured questionnaires (20 completed, see Annex 2); and

a quick survey (85 respondents, see Annex 5) on twelve impacts as identified in theSLGP Final Project Progress Report (PPR, September 2010)

• Interviews with national stakeholders (6)

• Interviews and a small meeting with Donors (10)

• Participation of stakeholders and UN partners (through interviews and the debriefingworkshop at the end of the field work, and telephone discussions with UNCDF)

• Cooperation with CPMU’s and PPMUs’ staff and experts, during field mission and infollow-up questions and materials

The synthesising, validation of knowledge and testing of proposals were done through the reporting process (draft, review, feedback, revisions) and a national level presentation.The main weakness of the EOPE is the lack of consultation with and evidence aboutordinary citizens as beneficiaries of pilot interventions and innovations Pilot partnersarranged meetings to include ‘beneficiaries’ as those having a changed function and/or moreinvolvement in PBS decisions and administration – which they deemed to be staff andcadres of local units and mass organisations This selection is an indicator that theinnovations have not yet had a significant effect on beneficiaries in terms of people’sparticipation, people’s influence on decisions, and the quality or orientation of local services

A6 Structure of the Report

The structure follows very closely the Objectives as in A3, above, firstly in organising andanalysing the evidence available to the EOPE on what has been done and experienced;then secondly in drawing out the effects and value of the results as reported by stakeholders

in interviews and documents

The results and effects are then considered in relation to the wider strategic issues in thedevelopment process and governance, as expressed in documents of GOVN and donors; so

as to lead to conclusions on the values of the Project, and to proposals for consequentpriorities, actions and documents.

B CONTEXT, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT PERFORMANCE

Macro and ideological influences:

SLGP is part of the learning process in decentralisation, meaning the transfer of some

political power, decision making, state management responsibilities and resources from

central to subnational levels Trends in the process are affected by issues of control, authority, legitimacy, transparency and accountability; and by human interests in ideology,

life’s values and purposes, power, status, prestige, hierarchy, dependency, liberty, duty,conformity and individuality

There is also a politico-economic rationale which remains in dispute: that furtherdecentralisation will improve the national condition through allocation efficiency, informationand incentivation to local people, challenge and responsiveness of local governments inresource use and services, and consequent mobilisation of human capital and enterprise,

natural resources and tax contributions The eternal dispute is about the degree of

devolution and delegation from central state (First Tier) control towards dispersed localorganisations responsive to local groups and individuals (Seventh Tier) The tiers mentioned

in this report do not limited to the administration levels as regulated by Government ofVietnam

Participatory and strategic planning as promoted by SLGP is a powerful tool for people andlocal authorities for designing local policies and for promoting, facilitating and guiding localdevelopment The decisions to enable, widen and deepen the use and capability in suchplanning, and to enhance the ‘plannable’ resources, are very much in the control of centralauthorities (national or Tier One, and provincial or Tier Two)

The GoVN has made a few steps to improving the regulations governing planning ThePrime Minister’s Directive 33 led to the Circular 7681 of the Minister of MPI, which requiresplanners to give more attention to achieving social outcomes and applying moreparticipation and public consultation in the planning process A results-based M&Eframework for the five year national SEDP 2006-10 was introduced in MPI’s Decision 555

To further institutionalize the reforms in planning, MPI has been tasked by the GoVN to draft

a Decree on SED planning and M&E in 2010, with the intention of introducing a reformedPlanning Law Since 2008, the overwhelming opinion from subnational partners has beenthat the steps are too few, too small and too slow

What needed attention?

The EOPE first ‘reconstructed’ the pre-project condition as perceived in 2003-5, to betterunderstand what stakeholders were experiencing, and in the Project domain, what they wereexpecting The PD Chapter 1 Situation Analysis, provides an excellent record of conditions,interests and dynamics, drawing on two source papers of UNDP/UNCDF of August 2004:SLGP formulation: social inclusion issues; and the SLGP Formulation Team’s Findings,Issues and Preliminary Options,

Commonly expressed ‘shortcomings’ were: top-down direction, local dependency andsubsidy, lack of communities’ participation and responsibility, a focus on quantities andnorms, lack of credible data, administrative targets rather than real needs and potentials inthe emerging market economies, lack of strategic approach, lack of locally relevant legaldocuments, regulations, methods and tools; lack of understanding of how to fit nationalstrategies and policies into the local planning; uncertainty about the allocation of investmentcapital, lack of connection of planning with budget management; lack of local capability toimprove the capacity autonomously, lack of budget for doing the planning (and other

devolved duties); problems of coordination and integration vertically and horizontally; andchallenges in dealing with new social and cultural needs and demands emerging fromprivate enterprise, diversification, mobility, information and individualisation of choices.

B1 Project Achievements

This Section provides a brief summary of the preparation, design, organisation and implementation of products and activities at national level, and at four pilot provinces, with two pilot districts and six pilot communes in each province It gives prime attention to the feedback from subnational partners (see Annex 2 Notes; also see the Final Progress Reports from 4 Provinces, September 2010.) Details of programs of activities and results are best read in full in the AWPs and SLGP Progress Reports, as listed in Annex 10

There were no specific indicators in the PD result-resource framework by which to measure relative achievements, mainly because the design was committed to a process approach in implementation, and the specific activities and scope of application were to be determined in Inception Phase and in Annual Work Plans (see Annex 4 Results Scorecard, for a subjective assessment of effects) The Output indicators shown on the Signature Page were too general and qualitative for actually measuring the achievements, in the EOPE timeframe and context.

B1.1 Outcome 1: Improving local capacities in pilot provinces to a) undertake

socio-economic development planning that is participatory, formulated closely with budgets andgender sensitive; and b) manage public resources effectively and transparently – with a view

to c) improving the quality of social service especially for the poor and marginalized people

1.1.1 Output 1 Planning More effective, participatory and inclusive planning and budgeting

systems are developed and used by local government organizations in the pilot provinces

Responding to some of the shortcomings, above, SLGP devoted a long time to prepare theapproach to piloting changes towards participatory planning and decentralisedresponsibilities, especially to gain understanding and support - or at least, acceptance -among leaders at national and province levels SLGP was able to learn from the attitudesand responses among various stakeholders involved with decentralising and participatorytendencies in several other projects and programs (notably SFSD, Chia Se, VAMESP,CPRGS) However, even five years on, the SLGP managers offer the reassurance that “thereformed local planning approach is not separated from the existing regulations Whenapplying the new approach, the localities still comply with the direction and the progress ofplanning as required by the Government” (p.13); and “the leaders of MPI have allowed forthe training materials to be used as a reference resource for the socio-economicdevelopment planning and implementation” (p.11, Project Progress Report, 2010)

After preparing the way, SLGP innovations were implemented in participatory strategic

planning (SP) as a methodological break from the impositions and subjectivity of traditional

central planning The exciting SP innovations were necessary to ‘win the argument’ on theimportance of planning reform – that is, in order to change the perception of the role ofplanning and the responsibilities of stakeholders in the market economy, the Project had toshow that new tools are available to all levels of stakeholders

The Project invested much time and research to compile a training manual on “Making

SMART, SWOT and impacts analysis, thus broadening the content and intellectualchallenges and capacity, and the sense of extending control, of those participating and

leading the planning processes Leaders became well involved in the process approach of

management, especially in determining real needs, constraints and potential, creating andscoping meaningful vision and goals, specifying desired and rational impacts, and focusingall efforts and resources towards the achievement and measurement of definable results.The first courses focused on reforms of making strategic development plans at localities, forboth management staff and planning specialists; and these people did in fact play a decisiverole in commitment, leading, demonstrating and implementing planning reform The EOPEconfirms that such leaders and planners are still active in their pilot units, are wellrecognised by their colleagues and beneficiaries, and have extended [within their realconstraints] the thinking, methods, tools and the manual to surrounding units Theconfidence of people, representatives, staff and leaders was boosted as the plans andvisions and were later integrated into annual and five-year socio-economic developmentplans (SEDP)

The training sequence and intensity have been an excellent example for new and pilotprograms Training was firstly at the central level to build coherence and direction, followed

by seminars to raise the awareness of central and provincial leaders about well-proven goodpractices in reformed planning systems There were week-long courses to train Project staffand national consultants, followed by a period of developing materials to be used atprovincial training, firstly in 2006 This was followed by a course for 40 “Master Trainers”from provinces and districts, in 2007 Awareness, commitment and leadership werereinforced by study tours in Vietnam, and five other countries In 2007, A broad trainingprogram for districts and communes was extended, and supported with on-the-job trainingand guidance to units preparing annual plans Repeat and extended training has beenprovided by in-province planners in 2008-9-10 Trainers and managers have been guided

by the exercises, and the results, from three Local Capacity Assessments (LCA)

What changed?

The most common answer is that SLGP boosted the wave of awareness about the need,possibilities, methods and benefits of ‘the new planning’ amongst citizens, representatives,leaders and staff Proof of the awareness and acceptance of change has been cited in allProject documents and meetings, that leaders made real efforts to involve stakeholders inidentifying priority concerns and in analysing real situations and opportunities, going on toCommune SEDP and master plans, P135, GOVN and Province and Donors’ programs.Staff were excited and challenged by the new opportunities - they could now demonstrate intheir daily work, the application of knowledge and skills gained through training courses bylocal officers and SLGP specialists All partners reported improvements in the quality ofplans and the effectiveness of more open and inclusive processes at all levels Severalexamples cited in MTE 2008 have been reinforced by evidence and opinions provided toEOPE in Quang Nam, Tra Vinh, Vinh Phuc, and especially Bac Kan (see Annex 2)

The excitement of course led to questions about how far the new capabilities can be applied.Naturally, participation and ‘voice’ were most active where significant issues and financeswere at stake, and will fade as some expectations are not realised Erosion of interest andsome skills is already happening, according to most subnational informants; on the positiveside, continued practice by some staff involved in finance and investment projects isreinforcing some skills and methods

All respondents expressed the concern that further applications wait on the guidance andprotection of updated guidelines on planning methods, functions and powers - as recorded

by MTE: “while the implementation of formal changes remains constrained by the framework

of existing institutional arrangements, the Project is enhancing the probability that this framework will change, and that substantive improvements will be institutionalized.” The

same ideas were reported in the Project Progress Brief of March 2009, p.4: “ it’s necessary

and high time to ensure sustainability through institutionalising project results ” This

unrealised optimism now evolves to disappointment among some partners interviewed in

EOPE in late 2010 Although some central leaders believe that Provinces do have the power to decentralise further, most subnational informants believe that they need more

central endorsement as protection from critics or reactive elements in their domains

What was inadequate in SLGP’s performance in reformed planning?

Although the general training manual has been well prepared and well tested, it has notbeen composed as a ‘manual of operations’, as has been done in Chia Se, VAMESP, HoaBinh, RUDEP and others Some units have produced guidelines for their specific condition(Quang Nam, Bac Kan), but all believe that standard guidelines are needed to giveprotection and harmony across all units, and among provinces

As in all innovations and training, the depth of understanding, practice, application andcompetency vary widely among pilot units SLGP tried to cope with these factors bydeploying working groups and technical support groups (TSG), and these have been widelyrecognised as very influential and successful But the closing of SLGP before adequateextension and reinforcement among units and agencies, leaves uncertainty about theuneven adoptions and capability to apply the planning process, mobilise and guide massparticipation, and the role of the ex-TSG staff Where subnational staff and leaders are not

so competent or confident, it is likely that in the short periods allowed by the current annualplanning timetable for local plans, inclusion and participation, approval and oversight, will becurtailed

all respondents in terms of ‘changing the mindset’;

d) the immediate benefits to staff and people from practical tools and skills and methods;e) the SLGP strategy in this Output of thorough preparation and dissemination

There were, and still are, criticisms about the slow beginnings of the Project, with much timebeing spent on work planning, needs assessments, raising awareness and acceptance ofparticipatory processes; and much time spent on sorting out arrangements on UNDP andUNCDF commitments (see Section A1, above), and on STA’s role and inputs The initialProject managers were being more cautious and less confident than the project designers.Some partners opine that the slow beginnings have left inadequate time and resources forwider-deeper applications; while others insist that the investments in awareness and

acceptance were necessary, in an uncertain socio-political context, to allow and to enable

pilots and adoptions in planning EOPE inclines to the ‘too slow’ opinion, on the basis thatthere were clear signs of readiness and enthusiasm in subnational units, adequate politicaldrive under various documents (see Section 2.1, and Annex 8), and sufficient confidencefrom lessons learned in similar projects in Vietnam and other countries

B1.1.2 Output 2 Investment Management

Output 2 “Investment scheme implementation by local government is more transparent and efficient in the pilot provinces.”

According to MTE, “implementation of this component was substantially delayed” The 2007Project Review refers to “delays in the provinces’ development of guidelines”, based on theSLGP guideline on decentralization, but does not explain the reason or locus of delay The

2007 Project Progress Report (PPR) mentions that “PPMUs have demonstrated a high level

of proactiveness in strengthening the capacity and enhancing the sense ofresponsibilities of local government personnel in investment project management, and inensuring transparency and effectiveness in implementation “ In 2008-9, training courseswere conducted widely, involving relevant ministries and sectors, community leaders, massorganizations and local enterprises The training focused on project management cycle(PMC) methods and regulations, investment law, bidding law, regulation on the communityoversight of investments, and criteria for fund allocation, bidding and purchase

Provinces enacted the decentralisation guidelines in 2008, and were supported with ahandbook outlining current laws and regulations related to planning and budgeting DPIs ofthe 4 provinces issued a decision on the establishment of technical support teams (TST)from DPI, DoF, and DoC, for small-scale project management TSTs provide support todistrict and commune project owners in formulating and appraising projects More trainingwas seen to be required for the community oversight functions, and the basic training wasextended to more staff in order to enhance their skills, but equally to build up the demandand readiness for greater decentralisation and participation Training for propagation ofguidelines and good practices, including study tours, continued in 2009-10

The MTE (p.18) concluded that “the overall impact of Output 2 has been to facilitate decentralized implementation and ensure more consistent and transparent approaches to

public procurements and financial management at the district and commune level This

played a tangible role in facilitating the decentralization of project implementation and

ownership as envisaged in the results framework, and has helped raise the provincial level

profile of the project.” In retrospect, it seems premature to write so definitely about initiativeswhich were (and are) still being disseminated, adopted, tested and applied However, EOPEcan report that most subnational informants believe now that the training greatly enhancedtheir understanding of PMC and their confidence about functions and responsibilities

The 2010 PPR mentions “ activities to support a planning and budgeting process that

promotes equality and the participation of the districts and communes, including the identification of clear criteria for prioritization Through the guideline on decentralization for each province to encourage the ownership of the project, the Project has delegated more power to the districts and communes to implement investment projects in their localities Through the activities of SLGP (equipping staff with awareness of the importance and the need for decentralization, and technical skills to realize the policy at local level), the provinces have enhanced the role of the community in bidding, construction monitoring, maintenance and financial management of projects.” These opinions are true, but the extent

and depth and durability of applications of people’s voice, more equitable prioritisation,oversight and efficiency of local projects, and progress towards strategic aims, have notbeen documented or demonstrated Were there scratches on the surface? or were therechanges to the foundations?

Informants to EOPE point to a few small projects in their localities where local voices weresaid to have made some differences, and all leaders agree that they appreciated the variousideas and increased interest of staff and stakeholders Some provincial leaders mentionedimprovements in procedure and transparency of provincial level procurement; but suchchanges would not be noticed at local levels The more common opinion (for EOPE 2010) isthat this Output lost energy and its significance to local partners as the amount of funds at

stake was seen as too small to make a material difference to equality and ownership, as the

availability of funds (and therefore, work progress) was controlled by other levels, as decision making (in the tight timetable) remained inside the offices and committees, and as

private sector decisions became far more relevant than community decisions in determining

household and community conditions (One Commune official summed up his experience ofthis Output as: ‘our gain was only in finding out who were the contractors’.) Nationalguidelines on planning, budgeting and procurement allow very limited time for communesand districts to develop their plans and investment projects, making it difficult and/orproviding reasons to postpone the institutionalising of an effective participatory process Thismassive practical constraint was obvious for many years, but seems to have been ignored inthe SLGP initiatives

It seems now (2010) that there was a procession of research, preparation and training, butinadequate evaluation of the effects, uptake and impact of awareness, knowledge andtraining on the actual practices at local levels According to one reviewer in SPRP, “localinvestment decisions continue to be made without adequate guidance or clear criteria fordeciding between alternative investments” (or linkages with private investments) “Theissuance of revised national planning guidelines will be required to help move towards moretransparent mechanisms ”

EOPE did not hear or find enough concrete evidence to support a conclusion of deep,ensured, durable and significant changes in strategic orientation, transparency, ownershipand efficiency in the public project management cycle

Summary comment

The Project’s technical success in enabling commune and district levels to be more involved

in and responsible for local investment projects, has been mitigated by the practical reality of

a low amount of funds and short time periods in which to apply the processes and skills To

an un-documented and un-measured degree, SLGP has served relevance and adoption,especially in the richer pilot units where there are more substantial stakes and risks inslecting and implementing subprojects; but interest is waning where there is littlediscretionary money to contest and debate at local levels Where private capital is active

and innovative, there is less involvement of community-based participation and oversight.

B1.1.3 Output 3 Budgeting and Financial Management

Output 3 “Appropriate local government financial management mechanisms and fiscal arrangements are established and used in the pilot provinces.”

Financial management was only one component of a broader, strategic concern It was thedesign team’s assessment (2004) that ineffective/inequitable fiscal relations betweensubnational levels are the cause of many planning and service delivery problems Therefore,activities were proposed to ensure appropriate ways of allocating financial resources to localgovernments, but these activities were not taken very far by SLGP in guding documents,piloting and followups with localities, especially at Province level Lack of changes in fiscalrelations impeded the reformed practices proposed in participatory planning and budgeting Progress in this Output was slow in the first three years, partly due to the challenges ofcoordinating policies, priorities and work programs with MOF and four provinces The mainconcerns then shifted into the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) activities, withmuch time devoted in 2008 to disseminating an understanding of MTEF and planning-budgeting linkages for SEDP, and researching provincial capacity building needs to applyMTEF approaches Following pilot studies of MTEF in four non-SLGP provinces under thePublic Financial Reform Management Project, GOVN suspended in 2008 the innovationsrelated to MTEF

More practical gains were made with materials and training programs on Local PublicFinancial Management for 40 “Master Trainers” and district and commune level staff, as well

as to staff in other projects; in guidelines on the Budget Law, on the new accounting systemsoftware, on the liquidation method of investment funds, administrative funds and nationalprogram funds, on the accounting of the commune budget, an on infrastructure constructionaccounting These were recognised by staff and leaders as very valuable, clear and relevantadditions to capacity in financial management

Less successful or influential, in terms of utility and capacity, were the innovations infinancial forecasting, approaches to the mobilization of investment resources including feesand charges, and the research on development of a fiscal decentralization model Overall,the efforts in this Output have petered out in 2009 and 2010 The Output is not mentioned inthe AWP 2010, nor in the “Impacts” section (p 11) of the PPR of September, 2010

Summary comment

SLGP instruments and training have been successfully provided, but not as evenly nor as influentially as in Output 1 and 2, probably because:

a) the people’s interest and potential roles are less direct;

b) the number of persons trained / exposed in pilot units has been much less;

c) there is less enthusiasm among leaders at each level to reform relations and share thefinancial and fiscal responsibilities, meaning that the average ‘mindset’ still tends towardscentral control of raising, allocating and administering resources;

d) the efforts related to MTEF and forecasting have had no practical application value to the pilot units

B1.1.4 Output 4 Monitoring and Oversight

Output 4: “Oversight, accountability and monitoring mechanisms are enhanced at local levels in the pilot provinces.” (Stated in PPR 2010 as “enhancement of the M&E and explanation accountability at the local level in four provinces”)

Output 4 came on a strong wave of innovation and dissemination of results-basedmanagement and methods in monitoring and in management information systems (MIS),reflected for example, in the Hanoi Core Statement, VAMESP, CBRIP, or UNICEF capacity

building; and in the PD’s expectation that the SLGP would “adapt UNCDF’s local

government MIS so as to provide a comprehensive MIS planning, infrastructure investment and service delivery.” PD also expected the SLGP to set up its internal monitoring by which

to track and catch the results and values of piloted activities

According to MTE, “SLGP managers decided to focus more on Outputs 1, 2 and 3, and toaccelerate implementation of Output 4 in the later stages of the Project, building on thefindings of needs assessment At this stage (2008), progress has been negligible.” MTErecommended that SLGP should develop and implement practical improvements at the

provincial level MTE also suggested that “concerted efforts will be required to achieve the

ambitious targets set out in the PD Project managers may need to review these targets and make an informed assessment of what is doable in the remaining period of the Project.”

By 2010, PPR states (p 7) that “SLGP has developed and introduced comprehensive M&E

systems that suit the localities, with training courses on the development of M&E systems, outcome-based management, M&E in the plan and the budget, and policy impact assessment Participants include People’s Councils, mass organizations and citizens from all levels to enhance the capacity, quality and efficiency of monitoring SLGP has attracted both the legislature and the citizens to participate in the M&E of the SEDP M&E support teams have been set up in each Province”, especially to help alignment with Decree 555.

That much is verifiable from the records The PPR also states that “through the materials,

the user can master the outcome-based management approach, monitor the efficiency of the use of public services, have the skills to assess risks and propose appropriate solutions, and have data collection and analysis skills.” Also, “SLGP has provided research on practices and needs, and training support to improve the quantity and quality of the data (analysis and forecasting, CRC) that is sent to the People’s Councils, helping them to fulfill their monitoring role.” These statements are more about intention, than actual results.

The record shows that activities in 2008-9 involved cycles of assessment, materialspreparation, the Citizen’s Report Card, revisions and training (with more than 300 persons-events), but with little practical extension and application Informants in four provinces in

2010 confirm that there was very little spread effect; that the energy remained with the M&Eteams and working groups, rather than the staff at each level; that coordination of duties andflows of information was very difficult; that ‘explanation accountability’ is not practicable inthe hierarchical administration; that there was continuing uncertainty about the (small) fundsrequired to apply regular monitoring; and that any findings from monitoring are still not muchvalued by most leaders Individual People’s Councillors confirm that they are betterprepared to exercise oversight; but they are a small minority in a very large systems ofcouncils and committees, and were not able to show significant interventions or effects oftheir work The four Final Progress Reports by the provinces give a pessimistic assessment

of the effectiveness and application of activities and tools under this Output 4

None of the partners confirmed that their units had reviewed / revised indicators ormonitoring plans, while completing their plans and budgets this year None mentioned animprovement in the quality of data for planning, budgeting or monitoring The Quick Survey

of Impacts (Annex 5) placed Output 4 matters as tenth out of twelve impacts

The SLGP activities shifted emphasis away from participatory monitoring and communityoversight to awareness and capacity building for leaders and Councilors, including thehighly-appreciated Regulatory Impact Assessment, and Leadership Skills It is relevant tonote that at this time, People’s Councilors were being challenged to show their importance insocio-economic development and State management It is also relevant to note that SLGPmanagers at CPMU and PPMUs provided a bad model, in not being able to monitor,evaluate and report scientifically on their own results, strategic effects and impacts

Summary comment

This Output has had the least achievement, in terms of propagation, adoption and sustainedapplication Based on local opinions, people and leaders remain very uncertain about how toexercise transparency and accountability, and MPI was seen as providing inadequatedirection and followup for these matters of accountability

Conclusions on Outcome 1 : Improving local capacities to a) undertake socio-economic

development planning that is participatory, formulated closely with budgets and gendersensitive; and b) manage public resources effectively and transparently – with a view to c)improving the quality of social service especially for the poor and marginalized people

There is much positive appreciation of SLGP’s work in serving real demands and needs forparticipation and competencies, with relevant methods, documents, propaganda andtraining, which also created more inclusive attitudes, creative spirit in the community andmore cooperation among staff and leaders at all levels Without the SLGP experience, PBSsystems and staff, leaders and beneficiaries, would have been less aware and lesscompetent However, the coverage in planning and investment management has been ‘too

limited’ in extent and depth In retrospect, the ‘long testing and preparatory phase’ was not

necessary, it would have been more useful and effective to have more time and resourcesfor greater propagation, adoption and application across the four provinces

The adoption in participatory and delegated functions of budgeting, finance and monitoringhas been too weak, and there has been too much time given to finalizing training materials.The dominant local opinion is that greater involvement of people in the planning andinvestment activities would have ramped up the readiness and demand for, and uptake of,changes in local budgeting, finance and monitoring The partial loss of national-level andprovincial-level reforming momentum in matters such as MTEF, fiscal models and localrevenues also has affected present perceptions Additions of skills were much appreciated,even with little progress towards the strategic aims

An overview from the centre was provided in the SLGP Progress Brief 2009: “SLGP has

helped (the much larger) national planning and fiscal reform agenda by providing information

on practical subnational concerns and pilot initiatives, developing training material, and building support for reforms.” Pilot units may feel honoured by this recognition; but most of

the informants express disappointment about the Project ending before capacity and reformsare well established, and the carryover of the many unresolved essays and training inunsustained ‘proto-reforms.’ Some national level informants believe that Province unitsand leaders had, and still have, the powers to extend and reinforce the ‘proto-reforms’into sustained applications The four Final Progress Reports of the provinces show clearly

a continuing need for support, both in the direct capacity building, and in the empowering bygeneralised and enforced legal requirements

B1.2 Outcome 2: Contribution to national policies , by ensuring that the lessons learned

in pilot provinces informs the development and improvement of national guidelines on localsocio-economic development planning, as well as other aspects of GoVN’s overall policy ondecentralization

1.2.1 Output 5 Experience Informing and Affecting National Policies and Being

Provided to Other Provinces and Donors

The PD (p.23, 31) included a strong concern for public information and advocacy, statingthat the Project “will routinely provide information to national, local, and other stakeholders inpoverty reduction, development and decentralization policies” SLGP Annual Reviews andthe PPR of 2010 lists an impressive record of partnerships, products, publications, meetings,visits, courses, institutes, collaboration and seminars, directly involving 15,000 person-events (and roughly 3,000 individuals) There is no knowing about the extent and use ofSLGP bulletins and web-postings, nor about the depth of application of its research results,technical papers and guidelines - but certainly the SLGP has built up assets (documents,

knowledge, skills, social capital, networks) which can be mobilised for a reform agenda.

MPI and MOF know far better than the EOPE about the methods and degree of learningbeing internalised in the strategies and decisions of GOVN, and specifically, the knowledgecapital deployed in writing the planning guidelines, M&E for SEDP, State Budget laws, or theMOUs for related projects It is one of the weaknesses of the evaluations (internal to SLGP,MTE and EOPE) that the linkages from ideas, pilots, feedback, lessons and new applicationsremain so vague Stakeholders and observers cannot know how much of uptake ordeletion, acceptance or rejection, is due to technical appraisal, or how much is due tosentiments and ideology in People-State relations

The evident effects on national policies are few and vague (meaning, effects are caused bymany other factors) For example, the revisions to Budget Law and the Decree 555 mayhave been influenced by SLGP experiences and findings, but at least ten other programsand projects could claim some provenance The greatest potential for uptake is in the new

Planning Decree, and some positive signs appear in the second draft (now in circulation, forcomment) For most stakeholders, the Planning Decree will demonstrate the value andsuccess, or otherwise, of their commitment to the pilots.

MPI leaders have provided EOPE with a definite explanation of their process: “After the

analysis of the existing work on planning, the identification of lessons learned from pilot projects on local planning, and through an important consultative process at the central and decentralized level to identify the problems and to collect suggestions, the MPI has elaborated and submitted for comments a draft planning Decree All relevant Ministries and all Provinces have been involved in these consultations.”

Most evidence of gains are of course at project level (as in Kontum, Hoa Binh, Bac Kan,

Cao Bang and so on), with the uptake of approaches, lessons and methods, documents andtrainers, capacity assessments, and in some cases, the units and personnel involved withSLGP Still, all subnational informants believe that uptake has been constrained by lack ofinstitutional direction and protection of innovations

The EOPE has found a surprisingly low level of recognition and knowledge of SLGP’sactivities and effects, among national level agencies, donors, projects’ staff and specialistconsultants Bulletins, website and technical documents have had very little reception orimpact - probably due to the huge volume of information being circulated on Vietnam’s

development and governance SLGP is the major activity to its committed managers and

pilot cooperators; but is in fact a very small component of national and donor efforts indecentralisation, participation and capacity building

MTE emphatically noted that “more could be done to develop systematic mechanisms forsharing information;” that “weak central level collaboration has resulted in duplication ofeffort and sub-optimal quality of some training material;” and that SLGP/MPI should

“consider establishing formal mechanisms to encourage substantive collaboration betweenprojects and experts.” According to EOPE’s evidence, the lack of substantive and purposivecollaboration (as distinct from procedural or ceremonial co-operation), appears as the majorshortcoming of SLGP as a pilot project

Summary comment

CPMU has responded to evidence from pilots concerning the suitability, timing or demand forcertain activities and documents There has been ‘horizontal’ feedback to related projects of

the good practices, lessons, methods, tools and capacity However, from the progress

reviews and workplans, and from MTE, there is no clear trail of feedback, appraisal,internalisation, and response in national policies, as the practical possibilities were / aretaken into the upper levels and ideology of People-State relationships

Conclusions on Outcome 2 : Contribution to national policies, by ensuring that the lessons

learned in pilot provinces informs the development and improvement of national guidelines

on local socio-economic development planning, as well as other aspects of GoVN’s overallpolicy on decentralization

All parties are waiting on a new decree, and the results from the SPR Project, by which todetermine their opinions Although there has been demonstrable uptake of SLGP methodsand documents in some other projects and local units, the greater part of capital gained hasnot been applied, so the Outcome is not yet successful Many respondents believe that the

‘centre is tending to restrain decentralisation and participation despite evidence of demandand effectiveness’ from SLGP and similar projects Some specialists opine that the inertia isnow more at the Provincial levels (Tier Two), as they in turn learn how to manage the rules,practicalities and effects of decentralisation

B2.1 Project design issues, and relevance within national development context

Relevance in practice

EOPE agrees with the MTE assertion that “project design was ambitious”, as PD saw greatopportunities for decentralisation and democratization in the rapidly evolving national policy/regulatory environment (see Annex 8), with tactics of cautious ‘fence-breaking’ and shifting

‘mindsets’ Both PD and MTE seem to have regarded the opportunities as matters ofknowledge, capacity and appropriate tools; and neither document set the evolution in terms

of People-State relations in an emerging market system with diverse global and nationalcapitalist forces rapidly displacing communalism and localism of governance The ‘ambition’was contained in the assumption that reforming forces were growing and were irreversible;

and that small and dispersed pilot activities could accumulate a telling impact “Although

SLGP will only undertake specific pilot activities… the project will explicitly seek to inform the national policy framework” (PD, p.13) Later feedback from pilot partners, delay in the

UNDP-UNCDF collaboration, the shift to a national manager, and delays in proving materialsand the readiness of partners, moderated the Project’s targets and agenda in annualworkplans

SLGP clearly proved its relevance to CPRGS (2002), SEDP process for 2006-2010, HCS(2005), PAR (2001-2010), ideas for revising State Budget Law (SBL 2002), the GrassrootsDemocracy Regulation (GDR), the Ordinance on Planning, the amended Law on theOrganization of the People's Councils and People's Committees (2003) and the NationalCommittee for the Advancement of Women (NCFAW) Plan of Action (2005)

Briefly, CPRGS spelled out a three-pronged strategy of: (i) transition to a market economy;

(ii) keeping development socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable; (iii) building

modern governance PAR committed GoVN to major reforms in organisation, functioning

and financing of public institutions, with administrative decentralisation, defined

responsibilities and increased administrative autonomy for local governments The SBL

empowered provincial authorities with greater budgetary powers and responsibilities andreduced central controls over local government planning and budgeting processes The Law

on Organization provided for clearer functions between the “legislative” and “executive”

sides, between People’s Council and People’s Committee in which oversight and

“legislative” functions on the part of People’s Councils at subnational levels were defined,

especially in planning and budgeting GDR provided mechanisms for ensuring greater participation and transparency in the management of local government activities NCFAW’s

Plan of Action provided a clear pathway for increasing women’s involvement in public policy,and gender equality through cooperation with MPI

SLGP greatly helped to spread awareness of these and other reforms, encouraging leadersand staff at all levels, empowering people and staff with knowledge, skills and permission-to-

do, and demonstrating the real opportunities and constraints for participation,decentralisation and accountability

More recently, the SLGP strategic intent is still relevant to the main task No 6 of SEDP2006-2010, in which the tasks include to “alleviate hunger and poverty”, and to “realize thesocial progress, equity and gender equality” Task No.7 prescribes to “enhance democracy,use national solidarity as the driving force and the decisive factor in improving the efficiency

of a socialist State ruled by Law, creating comprehensive and significant changes inadministrative reform, pushing back the bureaucracy, corruption and waste” Through theapplication of the participatory planning and budgeting at local levels and capacity buildingfor local government officials, SLGP enhances the democracy at localities, serves the newworking approaches and purposes

However - (partly a design issue, partly an operational issue (Section 3)) - it seems thatthere is generally a lack of like-thinking, coordination, cooperation and data-sharing acrossthe main departments at Province and District levels (DPI, DOF, Education, Health,Transport, Agriculture and Rural Development), in their planning, budgeting, implementation,monitoring and reporting PPMU staff are aware of this issue, and have tried with DPI andPPC leaders to involve and promote horizontal cooperation, mainly through training events.Some of them pointed to the retraction of MTEF in 2008 as a signal of failed cooperation.Some explain this design ‘fault’ by the modesty of pilot initiatives; by not wanting to confrontthe established systems of vertical authority before having significant local awareness,adoption and support; and by the low degree of interest from potential horizontal partners in

a ‘temporary small cousin’ in their administration and governance

One Vietnamese technical expert involved in SLGP in 2007-9 gave this considered opinion

to EOPE: “the SLGP was lacking in coordination, cooperation and staff participation across

the main ministries and departments at all levels it did not use this great potential to

improve its effectiveness, impact and sustainability on policies, institutions andbeneficiaries.”

PPR of 2010 (p.13) recognised a fundamental defect: “In parallel with capacity building for

the cadres in the planning sector, SLGP recognizes that attention needs to be drawn to capacity building for other sectors Only in this way can the local planning sector reach agreement and gain support from other sectors that are related to the success of the plan.”

In Tra Vinh, for example, MOLISA and their counterparts at subnational levels have notparticipated in the Project; in Vinh Phuc, it seems that only DPI and DARD took part This isunfortunate as they could have been able to provide important inputs to ensure a well-reformed PBS from poverty reduction perspectives

It is well known that sustainable poverty strategies should link to good social security andsafety net The reality is that participating departments/units were defined by project design,and some good potential was not included The basic design of SLGP lacked the degree ofinclusion promoted in its goal statements and required for its greater success

Perspectives on relevance

CPMU-MPI express their views on Outputs and Impacts as a coherent package (forexample, Progress Review 2007; Project Progress Report 2010) Coherence of activities, asviewed from top-down, was not so apparent to all pilot partners, partly because of theuneven exposure and participation among individuals at subnational levels The pilot

‘package’ was the major task of the CPMU and PPMU, but only a small part of the partners’

career paths and daily concerns

From the Annual Plans, there seems to be less coherence and rationale for the menu andpriorities in the second half of the Project, as:

a) the energy faded in planning and budgeting;

b) products and purposes in financial management and monitoring became lessdefinite and less participatory, met more organisational inertia/resistance, and wereconstrained by delays in experts’ inputs;

c) managers at CPMU and PPMU had to slow down to take account of the LCAs’revealing much diversity in capacity and in readiness, across units, and between individuals;

d) more partners saw a need for institutionalised and standardised practices as thereal constraint on local systems, especially in budgeting, finance, projects and monitoring;

e) more partners perceived a national-level slowing down in enthusiasm fordecentralisation, participation and accountability

Some of the reported ‘patchiness’ (see Annex 3 Coverage %) is due to the varying degree

involved, sometimes absent, and sometimes on the sidelines, as happens with mostactivities at local levels There is no systematic results-based monitoring to show theconsistency and depth of key persons’ involvement in both the training and the applications.MPI proceeded without any draft policy guidelines for experiments on the ground - at thattime, it seems that widespread enthusiasm for decentralising initiatives was enough to ‘gainspace’ for innovations and permission to implement the pilots It is logical that the demandfor guidelines (a decree) has grown in recent years, as partners - now much more aware ofboth the potential and the restraints - need to know where/how the experiences will beapproved institutionally and applied at which levels.

The phased process approach was very effective in building the pilot program - firstly, togradually build up the understanding, acceptance and capacities in the provinces, and thenguide them in learning-by-doing, including self-assessment in LCA1 Some informantsopined that the two years of preparation was too slow, and left not enough time forapplications and consolidation Given the wide variations in the conditions, capabilities andchallenges across the 36 pilot units; and given that attitudes and progress were influenced

by the particular combinations of PPMU staff - cum - Province and partners’ staff, opinionsdiffer widely about the effectiveness of the first half oif the Project The EOPE leans to theopinion that a more positive approach was required by the pilot partners and was doable onthe basis of related innovations in laws, regulations and similar decentralised projects

An important but unresolved issue concerns the possible strategy of building momentum andthe ‘legitimacy’ for reform The proposition is that:

If SLGP had progressed faster, wider and deeper on participatory strategic planning

and decentralised investment management,

then the demonstrated relevance and benefits would have strengthened the adoption

and propagation in the more ‘organisational’ reforms in financial management, financing ofinvestment budgets, monitoring and oversight;

and would have enabled MPI to move earlier on institutionalisation.

A counter proposition is that moving faster and deeper might have brought out moreorganisational resistance to participatory, decentralising ideas and practices, especially atProvince levels in control of Tier Two arrangements

B2.2 Project design issues, and relevance vis-à-vis One UN Plan

The PD (p 11) detailed the SLGP’s relevance to UNDAF 2001-2005, and UNDP Common Country Assessment (CCF) 2001-2005 Project actualities were relevant to UNDAF (2006-2010), One UN Plan 1 (2007) and One UN Plan 2 (2008-2010); and the opportunities and effects remain relevant to outcomes No.1 and 4 of One UN Plan 2 (see table 1 below).UNDP and One UN strive to link good governance to poverty reduction, through suchreforms as participatory planning and budgeting, equitable and transparent selection ofinvestments and contractors, and more responsible oversight of budgeting, managing andimplementing Other important and direct connections between SLGP activities and CCF -UNDAF - MDG objectives and means, include awareness of the needs and benefits ofgrassroots democracy, the explicit attention to pro-poor and gender equity matters, thefunctions and powers of levels of units, responsiveness and equitable accessibility inservices, and more public accountability Each of these activities accords with UNDP’scurrent country programme’s strategic outcomes:

a) local capacity strengthened for implementing the pro-poor policies and plans;

b) more accountable, transparent and participatory governance, and a more coherentframework for the sustainable financing of development

In 2010, the designed linkages are still valid, and have been demonstrated to some degree

in the changes made in pilot units But the linkages lack width - meaning that there hasbeen limited horizontal propagation and adoption within the resources and mandates of thepiloting project The linkages also lack depth - meaning that there have not been enoughapplications, and not enough enabling changes (finance delegation, budget resources,actual decision making, practical monitoring and oversight, national regulations andguidelines on planning and staff for planning and monitoring), to make the attitudes and

practices irreversible

The design defect may be that the stakeholders including donors have not collectively

resolved the major purpose of the SLGP - is it more to provide to central agencies some

results and legitimacy for the rules and products of reform? or is it more to enablepropagation of useful improvements in the daily governance of the cooperating units? Thepiloting units clearly hoped for the latter, hence their strong feelings of being ‘left short’ ofsustainable systems and impacts The commitment of just $4 million indicates an approach

of a ‘systems catalyst’, not of a ‘systems builder’

Table 1: UN Agencies Aims Relevant to SLGP

14 Agencies: FAO, ILO, UNAIDS,

UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO,

UNODC, IFAD, IOM, UNDP,

UNFPA, UNICEF, UNV, WHO

6 Agencies: UNICEF, UNFPA, UNDP, UNAIDS, UNV, UNIFEM

14 Agencies: FAO, IFAD, ILO, UNAIDS, UNIFEM, UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO, UN-HABITAT, UNIDO, UNODC, UNFPA, UNV, WHO

1 Government economic

policies support growth that is

more equitable, inclusive and

sustainable.

1 Social and economic development policies, plans and laws support equitable and inclusive growth and conform to the values and goals

of the Millennium Declaration and other relevant international agreements and conventions

1 Social and economic development policies, plans and laws support equitable and inclusive growth and conform to the

values and goals of the Millennium Declaration and other relevant international agreements and conventions

2 Improved quality of delivery

and equity in access to priority

appropriate and affordable

social and protection services

2 Quality social and protection services are universally available to all Vietnamese people.

2 Quality social and protection services are universally available to all Vietnamese people

3 Policies, law and governance

structures conform to the values

and goals of the Millennium

Declaration.

3 Viet Nam has adequate policies and capacities for environmental protection and the rational use of natural resources for poverty reduction, economic growth, and improving the quality of life

3 Viet Nam has adequate policies and capacities for environmental protection and the rational management of natural

resources and cultural heritage for poverty reduction, economic growth and improving the quality of life

4 The principles of accountability, transparency, participation and rule of law are integrated into Viet Nam’s representative, administrative, judicial and legal systems

4 The principles of accountability, transparency, participation and rule of law are integrated into Viet Nam’s representative, administrative, judicial and legal systems

5 Viet Nam has adequate policies and capacities to effectively reduce risks of, and vulnerability to, natural disasters.

5 Viet Nam has adequate policies and capacities to effectively reduce risks of, and vulnerability to, natural disasters,

communicable diseases, and other emergencies

B3 Effectiveness of Project Management Strategy, Implementation Arrangements and Procedures

The phased approach proved to be effective, both for managing and for the program ofinnovations CPMU led the implementation rather cautiously (except for proceeding withactivities before the systematic LCA1 was completed) and slowly, so as to build up theunderstanding, acceptance and capacities in the provinces, and to be more sure of themethods and products to be offered Local units’ leaders and staff were eagre for thecapacity building aspects, and some of them believe that the earky interventions were tooslow

Early Project operations and modalities were sub-optimal because of arrangements betweenthe main donors UNDP had suggested a pooled funding modality where it would be themanaging agent for UNCDF funds SLGP was the only project UNCDF had ever delegatedthis role of managing funds to another agency Therefore, this required lengthy consultationsboth internally and with UNDP in terms of spelling out in the MOU the arrangements andrelationship between UNDP and UNCDF in managing the project Until the MOU was agreed

on, UNCDF was unable to release any funds to SLGP nor were UNCDF advisors able tovisit and provide any backstopping for CPMU, PPMUs or subnational partners Therefollowed an intensive period in 2006-7 of research and consultations to approve the guidingdocuments and training materials, and to propagate quickly to the communes and districts.Project management responsibilities were delegated to PPMUs, in 2008, with the CPMUretaining the approval of the work plans and budgets This approach was initially criticised bysome provincial stakeholders for ‘reducing the drive and direction from the national centre’;but later opinions were clearly favorable, especially on the criteria of local relevance

MTE commented that “the establishment of separate PPMUs with decentralized planning

and implementation powers was a key factor in building national ownership, and in ensuring that the project management led by example in terms of decentralization.” Further leading by

example could have been demonstrated by shifting approval and block budget to PPC level.The delegation may have influenced the common opinion (in 2010) that MPI seemed to shiftits interest after 2008 Another critical factor - in perceptions, and possibly in management -

is that MPI moved the SLGP from DRLE to the DNEI , with a new NPD whose time andtalents were split among several other demanding duties (including the preparation of

SPRP) MTE assessed that “shifting to the Department responsible for designing and

implementing the SEDP results-based M&E system (RBME) should help ensure better

linkages with policy makers responsible for national level reforms in planning.” Only MPI,

and certainly not the EOPE, can assess the effectiveness of these shifts, which will be

‘proven’ in the linkages to, progress and quality of SPRP and a new planning decree EOPEcan only comment here that dissemination and uptake of RBME in Output 4 was among theleast effective of SLGP activities

Another factor mentioned by some stakeholders is that changes in work planning andreporting format of UNDP, and changes in responsible UNDP staff, added to the impression

of declining interest (or ‘energy’) in the second half of SLGP The Progress Brief of March

2009 recommended that “UNDP oversight over project implementation at provincial level

should be strengthened,” but there is no evidence to EOPE that this increased interest and

involvement was enacted

Equally important was the indefinite responses to the MTE’s findings, for which manyinformants believe they gave exceptional time and energy in preparation and execution (seeAnnex 7 Management Response) It may be true that the delegation to PPMUs confusedthe line of responsibilities for responding to MTE; however, there is no clear connection fromMTE to the minutes of NSC nor to the AWPs of 2009 and 2010 The Project Progress Brief

of March 2009 merely repeated extracts from MTE, but with no prescription of any alteredpriorities and no description of responses in management

The MTE commented ambiguously on the NSC (‘effective in bringing provincial concerns to

the attention of central authorities”, while “NSC could have played a more effective governance role”) PD prescribed that NSC has the role “to ensure a good cooperation and coherence with other like-minded programmes/projects so that the SLGP’s and other innovations in this field will be institutionalized.” The EOPE is unable to conclude on the

evidence of NSC’s role, there is simply not the trail from review meetings to approved,endorsed and verified follow-up actions

Two national-level partners believe that the monthly review meetings of MPI and UNDP, fromthe time of MTE, did not apply the results-based management approach, by which the depth

of applications, problems and solutions could be explicitly considered EOPE can onlysuggest to those involved to reflect on whether the ‘ownership’ principle was over-riding the

‘partnership’ principle in project direction

The PD (p 24) stated that “a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system will provide

quantitative indicators enabling stakeholders to assess whether the project is generally on

target and making progress towards the specified outputs.” It seems now that the lack of

internal monitoring and oversight was a weakness in the vision-strategy domain of SLGP,while operational matters were managed at PPMUs, and much of the technical andintellectual force was actually from ephemeral experts with no career-commitment to theresults Local and upward evaluations were lacking, a serious defect where well-crafteddocuments were the main input and training was the core dynamic, and where providerservices were distributed among about 100 institutions and trainers (in-house, andcontracted)

For example, the MTE warned that lack of “impact monitoring systems means that it is

difficult to get a clear overview of the overall extent of changes in processes Nevertheless, commune level accounts suggest that substantive changes in processes are beginning to be realized.” ‘Commune level accounts’, while full of authenticity, are also very subjective, and

are not a suitable basis for directing a project The lack of RBM and RBM&E remains as aserious contradiction of the good governance prescriptions which SLGP was designed topromote and institutionalise

EOPE agrees with MTE’s “general view of central and provincial agencies that SLGP was on

the right track (2007-8), and relevant both to the needs of the Central Government, and particularly of the authorities in the pilot provinces” MTE was optimistic about the readiness

and ability of Project partners to resolve all issues But signs of concern had alreadyappeared (some important delays in inputs, in finalising assessments on feasibility forinnovations, and finalising documents); and other signs appeared in 2008 (such asProvinces’ decentralising in investment project management, and resistance / low interest infinancial delegation and monitoring - for - oversight) Looking back over the documents andworkplans of 2008-10, it appears that SLGP senior managers let too many matters drift(Annex 7), while PPMUs and provincial partners busied themselves on propagation of themost acceptable activities (daily skills, dispersed participation), while slowing down on themore contentious matters of finances and oversight, and becoming frustrated at the lack ofnational-level institutionalising and applications-in-depth

B4 Efficiency and Utilization of Project Resources

B4.1 Subjective opinions

It is difficult now (2010) to reconstruct from hard evidence and memories an informedjudgment on efficiency and utilization The lack of recurrent internal evaluations and annualmonitoring of outputs in relation to resources and efforts, prevents a fair assessment Also,the issues of STA’s role and contribution, and of subsequent intermittent nationalconsultants, were not clearly documented

The EOPE team heard from most informants that efficient utilization was ‘guaranteed’ by thepiloting nature of the project, and by the high demand for innovations and the high interest inwhat was being offered The initial and follow-up LCAs have been a very valuable exercisefor the potential beneficiaries, and a very useful guide on targets, methods and impliedefficacy for leaders, owners and managers of SLGP and related projects The devolution ofproject implementation to PPMUs ensured a closer link between providers and customers.The close working and personal relationships of MPI with the four PPC Chairmen in NSCensured agreement in annual priorities and directions The diligence and commitment ofPPMUs and DPIs have been noted in project documents, reviews and supervisory missions.Training courses and materials have not been objectively appraised All informantscommented favorably on the relevance, quality and effects of training and seminar events(and some of them were sometimes participants, sometimes event-leaders) Somerespondents from Quang Nam and Bac Kan believed that some training materials wereinadequate (‘not relevant’, ‘out of date with regulations’, ‘too theoretical’) Others said thatmore cycles of explanation and application are still needed (Outputs 1.1, 1.2, 1.4); or thatmaterials should be consolidated to a nation-wide approved set

It was generally reported that several years of application are required to confirmacceptance, commitment and capability in new methods, techniques and documents -meaning that utilisation must be judged over an ‘administrative cycle’ and not just in thedeployment for a year or two In terms of change management, efficiency must be ratedagainst the work culture, as much as against individual capacity and changes in procedure(which might be only formal, or ceremonial) There is also a need to replace the skills andknowledge capital lost as staff retire or are transferred in their positions

Workshops and seminars have been rated highly by all informants, which EOPE interprets

as the satisfaction of peers collaborating on real and common concerns, and confirming theircompetence and commitment Study tours are of course well-rated, publicly, by the

participants and organisers MTE reported that “ Provincial leaders argued that study

tours helped raise awareness and build commitment among national and provincial

policy makers, and helped build momentum for further reform.” This last assertion probably

refers to individuals’ attitudes; but it seems to informants of EOPE that the more importantmomentum for reform was to be generated through increasing voice, capability and provenperformance from the local units

Some pilot units’ staff suggested to EOPE that the funds would have been more useful inexpanding and deepening the planning, investment management and paying for monitoringand oversight There were no explicit examples provided to EOPE of how study tour findingswere actually applied to SLGP activities or priorities

The Progress Brief of March 2009 expressed some anxiety about the rate and direction of

utilisation: “SLGP should step-up efforts to support the use of pilot initiatives at the

subnational level priority for remaining resources should be to further field testing and completing the packaging of training material for use beyond project completion.” There was

a perceived need then to “review target outcome indicators and assess what is now

desirable and achievable.” These statements cast doubts on the effectiveness of Project

managers’ decisions in the annual review(s) and workplans for 2009

B4.2 Coverage and Depth

The PPR of 2010 specified 33 activities implemented in Outputs 1, 2, 3 and 4 (listed inAnnex 3) For matters such as reform, piloting, understanding and capacity, the criticalmeasures are in coverage (who participated and where?) and depth (intensity? frequency?duration? applications? competence?) Managers and reviewers, partners and stakeholderswould all have benefited from systematic and recurrent monitoring The EOPE could onlyask respondents for their considered assessment of the coverage achieved in their unitsrelative to the planned scope of activities

From the CPMU perspective, 12 of the 33 activities were completed to 100% (18 in VinhPhuc Province, 16 in Bac Kan Province, and 3 in Tra Vinh Province (where respondents hadmore time to consider their responses to the Survey) For CPMU, the average completionrate of activities was 93%, while ‘All Partners’ was 72% (of which Province units were 86%,72% and 80% respectively) District and Commune completion rates ranged down to 50%,mainly because many of the 33 activities in feasibility assessment, refining documents,finance and monitoring did not involve those levels Comparing the activities (in rows ofAnnex 3), there was typically a ‘drop off’ of 10-15% from the CPMU perception to the partnerunits’ perceptions

Because of the better preparation and more time for Tra Vinh respondents for this quicksurvey, EOPE gives more weight to their markedly lower scores However, EOPErecognises that Tra Vinh has been the most ambitious in extending pilot activities across thewhole, densely populated province Their scores may be interpreted as the ‘coverageachieved in relation to what Tra Vinh authorities desired’

The quick and unscientific impressions confirm the opinions in interview notes (Appendix 2)that participation and uptake varied significantly across activities and across units, hence thediffering opinions (on effectiveness, utilisation, relevance, impact etc) between national levelowners and subnational implementers The variation in provision and experience raises theneed for more systematic checking and evaluating of effects, which was largely ignored byowners and leaders

B4.3 Summary comment

A positive guide to utilisation is that the SLGP has involved about 3,000 persons in about15,000 person-events, plus exposure and information to an unknowable number of readers

A very large part of the resources have gone into capital accumulation, that is, theknowledge of partners and the products for wider future application A positive appraisal isthat SLGP has helped to store up the means and directions for more decentralisation,participation, and strategic pro-poor development A more pessimistic appraisal from somelocal partners is that much of the capital is and will remain un-used; and that better utilisationtowards the Project objectives would have been achieved in more support – enforcedinstructions and resources - for local units in their applications and practice of the ideas,methods and tools.

It was apparent in 2007 that there was no well-recognised and effective mechanism withinMPI or UNDP for gathering, synthesising, standardising and disseminating ‘capital’ acrossagencies and among projects In retrospect, a dedicated staff was required for liaison anduptake, as well as a clearly funded open working group on subnational planning, governanceand development

B5 Gender Issues

The PD (p.14) showed that the SLGP should ensure that planning and budgeting processes

will be gender sensitive Output 1 seemed to contain this objective in the words “with higher

participation and social equality” Both MTE and EOPE have found inadequate expression of

gender balance and sensitivity in the products and guidelines The PPRs of 2007 and 2010report nothing on gender-sensitive planning and budgeting; while PPR of 2008 mentions “4courses on gender mainstreaming for 2008 SEDP, involving 200 participants.” There is nomention of the issues in “Impacts” over five years (PPR, 2010, p.11)

Very few partners mentioned to EOPE the Project goal of making planning, budgeting,implementing and monitoring more “pro-poor and gender sensitive.” It seems that the goalhas not been well internalised - perhaps it has been partly obscured by the excitement andchallenges of local participation and sharing of powers, and by the commitment of masteringnew tasks and skills

Pilot units have strived to raise the female participation in training and meetings, helped inpart by the female representation in state agencies and mass political-social organizations.While all units visited reported typical rates of 30-40% female attendance, all partnersrecognised that attendance at meetings and involvement in training are no guarantees of adeepening concern for gender balance and social equity in socio-economic and public andpolitical affairs Some (40) female interviewees express the view that their best options foradvancement are in small scale projects in the field, and not within organisations or localunits, where the overwhelming drive is to economic and material growth

The lesson from SLGP is that local actors aspired to participation, to the fact and experience

of having a voice How to use that fact was not a common consideration

B6 Linkages and Partnerships with other programs

Based in the hub of development planning and practice, SLGP has established orstrengthened valuable partnerships with donors and projects (PFMRP of WB, JICA and HoàBình, SDC and Cao Bằng, UNICEF with UNDP and KonTum, ADB and TT Huế, IRISHAIDand Bắc Kạn, RUDEP and Quảng Ngãi, Oxfam GB, BTC, AusAID, and so on) In truth, most

of these linkages existed or would have been created without SLGP; but they have beenuseful in propagating awareness and the products of SLGP

An equally important stream of social and knowledge capital has been established withscientists, universities, and training centers through material development, research andtraining (Sytem, Crown Agents, GTZ, UNHABITAT, the National Economics University, Cần

Thơ University, Đà Nẵng University, the Central Institute of Economic Management, theInstitute of Finance, and so on) This helps sustain the impact of the project On the otherhand, this partnership has also helped the universities, institutes and training centersdevelop new training contents for their lecturers.

SLGP has provided its products to 63 provinces and cities, organised experience sharingmeetings with JICA Project delegation and the delegation from Lao PDR, completed studytours to five countries and among ten provinces of Vietnam SLGP can rightly claim that thehorizontal and vertical cooperation and shared training among district and commune cadresand the members of mass organizations, has improved the favorable conditions fordialogues and agreement in project matters, and in broader matters of governance anddecentralisation

Each pilot partner can describe linkages and crossover at localities or to neighbouring units(projects such as IFAD, VOICE, P135 activities, and so on) which are clearly derived from

SLGP experience At the national level, there are many shared effects, so it is impossible

to ascribe those changes directly due to SLGP, and those changes due to complementaryinitiatives of GOVN and donors There has been no central mechanism (or ‘liaison officer’)

to track and demonstrate the practical and technical linkages, and to convince observers(and the EOPE) that the value of the nominated linkages and partnerships has beenmaximised in implementation and impact

The majority opinion tends to conclude that SLGP benefited from and enabled linkages atnational and international level rich in technical, publishing and training competencies, some

of which have been shared with subnational partners Much potential remains un-used,waiting on funds for deepening in pilots, expansion of pilots, reinforced efforts in suchactivities as MTEF, policy impact analysis, forecasting, data for planning, and monitoring andoversight, and institutional enactments which confirm the momentum for reform

Several observers (Quang Nam, Tra Vinh, Bac Kan) believe that organisational linkages anddissemination activities were less effective than the personal qualities and interests ofleaders In this view, it is mainly through the offices and persons of PPC and DPI, that SLGPhas been successful in practical linkages with current and new projects, mainly at village andcommune levels, with much less evidence of practical activities at province level

Linkages and cross-over of experience appear to have depended on individual preferencesand personalities of leaders Although the NPD operates at the national hub, it seems thatMPI is yet to demonstrate the actual linkages from SLGP to the national-level selection anddesign of GOVN and donor-supported projects All of this may be validated or substantiallychanged, depending on the outputs from SPRP and next cycles of support by GOVN andDonors concerned with subnational planning and development

B7 Preliminary Impact

B7.1 Overview

The PD expected impacts to appear in “sustainable, inclusive and pro-poor outcomes, by

promoting improvements to service delivery frameworks and processes, and by building local capacities to provide appropriate and high quality infrastructure and services; and in information to stakeholders, contributing to development of national planning guidelines.”

SLGP PPR 2010 (p 3) recalls that the two original “objectives were:

1 To improve the local capacity in ensuring the participatory and gender-sensitive planning and budgeting for participatory socio-economic development, as well as in efficient

aiming at improving social service quality, especially the services for the poor and the underprivileged.

2 To complete national policies by ensuring that the lessons learnt from pilot provinces will contribute to the development and completion of the national guidelines on the local socio-economic development planning, and to other similar projects funded by the Government and donors.”

Thus the piloting was intended to be useful to the host units and stakeholders, as well asinstructional to national policy makers and other projects “Piloting” implies a temporaryengagement; being “useful” requires some minimum of understanding, competence andadoption in the work culture If the piloting stops before the minimum is felt to be achieved,there will be some frustration and disappointment among partners and stakeholders

With regard to achieving useful impacts on people, systems and institutions, SLGP carries five dimensions of frailty -

a) testing a few parts of a huge system of P&B,

b) across a few units of government,

c) with shallow depth of application and practice,

d) active for a brief period of time,

e) with a very limited budget in the field.

The outcomes, indicators and extended strategic objectives written into the Signature Pageand the initial could not be served significantly with these dimensions The ‘few parts’ havenot been fused into a full package of mutually reinforcing reforms in any of the units; all localpartners regret the lack of extension to more units, and the lack of practice andreinforcement in organizations and individuals; the times for preparation, orientation,adoption and internalisation have been very much under-estimated; and field level budgetshave been inadequate for practical reinforcement and checking

These practical constraints have also counted against the progress towards strategic aims,implied in terms above of inclusive, pro-poor, service delivery, participatory, gender-sensitive,transparent, underprivileged, completion of national guidelines It seems to EOPE that whileMPI has devoted much resources and expert time to the methods, materials and documents,the subnational partners have trimmed their aspirations to:

a) limited, shallow participation and information which do not disturb the political and administrative practices,

socio-b) the practical skills to enhance the work and influence of staff and cadres in localunits and mass organisations,

c) to the seminars, assessments and visits in which to explore and understand thedynamics and potential in the matrix of state-people relations concerning decentralisation,participation, transparency, financing, and accountability, and from which they have taken,over the past four years, a cautious approach to advocating and enforcing reforms towardsdecentralisation

B7.2 What measures?

The PPR of 2010 (p 11-12) summarises the macro view of impacts, and these have beencompressed into impact labels in Annex 5 EOPE is not able to challenge or measure theopinions expressed there, because there is no benchmarking of the comparative statements

- such as “resource allocation has become more transparent with stronger decentralization”;

“greater awareness of reformed planning”; “beneficiaries’ capacity has been significantlyraised”; “cadres mastering the updated regulations of the laws”; “there is coordination withother projects”; or “monitoring capacity of the People’s Councils at all levels has beenimproved through SLGP activities.”

Most of the evidence for such results comes from the leaders, staff, PPMU teams andparticipants in SLGP management and activities, and has been repeated with emphasis byall units visited by EOPE (Annex 2 Summary Notes, Annex 6 Persons Consulted) Somevisible evidence of self-assessed improved capability comes from the excellent LCAs, andfrom the notebooks and documents of beneficiaries able to demonstrate to visitors what theycan now accomplish Some evidence of apparent participation comes from the attendancerecords of commune meetings, and the cadres’ and staff records of cycles of study,proposal, review and approval of plans and some investment projects in units of eachprovince (Annex 2) At national level, CPMU can demonstrate cycles of revision of materialsand guidelines informed by local levels’ consultation and expertise

The positive opinions must be offset by the evidence, and many other opinions, concerningthe fading of interest and practice in planning and budgeting (Outputs 1, 2), the withdrawalfrom MTEF and subnational financing models, delegation and resource mobilisation (Output3), and the lack of propagation and uptake in monitoring and oversight practices, and quality

of data (Output 4) In summary, evaluation is dependent on the weight of opinions, and isthus limited by the lack of recurrent and objective monitoring and evaluations of activities,and by the lack of localised indicators of the strategic effects

B7.3 Relative importance

EOPE made a quick survey of local informants’ impressions about the 12 Impacts

statements extracted from PPR 2010, rated on criteria of importance of the impact to the PBS; depth of impact; and probability and quantity of sustained effects (Annex 5) All (85)

informants were part of the Project or governing apparatus, including mass organisationsand People’s Councils

In the short time available for understanding the content and criteria of the Quick Survey, forconsidering a response and for making a score (1 6 maximum), most respondents opted forvery high ratings More discrimination among Impacts would have appeared if respondentshad themselves (rather than the MPI document) composed the list to be assessed

From a potential of 3060 cell-scores (85 informants, 12 impacts, 3 criteria), almost 60%recorded the maximum (=6) Averages were typically 4.8 for Importance, 4.3 for Depth, and4.6 for Sustained The most highly rated Impacts were on “planning as participatory” and

“roles in planning and budgeting”, and “responsibility in investment project cycle” (overall5.4-5.6); while the lowest rated were “improved monitoring” (4.0) There was some trend toslightly lower ratings at the communes, which perhaps reflects a lower recognition of theMPI-sourced impacts statements

B7.4 On capacity building

The PPR of 2010 provides a broader view of capacity in the process of reform Changes

“from the central to the local levels raise the issue of the local capacity (especially the district

and commune levels) of receiving and complying with the regulations provided in the policy

of decentralization and empowerment of the Government” (p.2) “To succeed in the implementation of the new approach, to succeed in the decentralization policy, capacity building for the local cadres is not limited to the scope of the planning and other related skills Only when they are capable can they receive the new tasks efficiently and effectively.” (p.13) These comments touch on the issue of "discipline", which the CPMU and

other experts correctly interpret as "complying with the regulations" Some experts expresstheir concern that GOVN may consider to restrain the decentralization policy if localgovernments do not show adequate commitment to national interests, while seeming to run

These concerns can help to explain the careful preparation (testing feasibility of localconditions) for most of the activities, the apparently slow startup in 2005-6, and the relativelack of Project energy on finance and monitoring initiatives.

All respondents and the Annual Reviews have identified changes in capacity of individuals,especially in receiving (‘mindset’ changes), understanding and communicating the ‘newplanning’ and decentralised development, in conducting participatory planning, consultativebudgeting, investment project management, finance administration and accounting Therewere few mentions of gains in oversight and reporting capacity, probably because most staffand people are uncertain about the work culture and institutional permissions and taboos inthe changing hierarchy of responsibility

The leaders at each level affirm the exemplary capacity development within PPMUs and thevarious technical teams The main gains across the planning and budgeting andmanagement systems are detailed in LCA3 of 2010 There is much approval for gains inmanaging finance systems - clearly a gain in daily skills, by career-minded staff, and having

an impact on organisational efficiency and status

Almost all respondents in the Project’s training evaluation surveys, give a high rating (around90%) on quality and relevance, plus strong expectations of applying and being able to sharetheir gains from training in their daily work However, there was no evidence available toEOPE to measure how the skills had been used and how the expectations had beenrealised Some leaders explained how more strategic thinking had actually been included inthe SEDP and the 5YSEDP; and others averred that procurement compliance and timelinesshad improved because of SLGP guidelines, training and application LCA3 concludes (p.171) that many people recognise the significant gains in capacity due to SLGP support, but

that ‘the achievements are not enough to fill the existing capacity gaps.”

This final statement confirms the frustration and disappointment among many pilot units, thatthe SLGP support has been sufficient to validate (some) methods and documents, but notsufficient to build the capacity and adoption to a perceived minimum which will be useful tothe units in their daily and future duties The staff, cadres and leaders are clearly hungry forcapacity building, aiming for efficiency, competence and status; but not driven by thestrategic aims of the SLGP Outcome statements

B7.5 On strategic aims

Each of the pilot units have shown to MTE, visiting missions, related projects and to EOPEsome estimable examples of advances in participation and consultation (horizontal andvertical), some pressures on implementers of local investment projects due to strongervoices and supervision, some better reporting on SEDP plans from some units, and someexamples of local institutionalising through official instructions and letters Noticeably absentfrom EOPE discussions are examples of participation and voice in financial matters, whilethe Citizens’ Report Card (CRC) innovation appears to have been sidelined There werevery few mentions of improvements in delivery or quality of services There is someevidence that participation is still very closely managed, through the cadres of local units andthe people’s representatives in semi-State mass organisations (Tier Five)

In this Project, pilots were designed, tried and examined in a vacuum, with no single draftguidelines from the top So it is not surprising to EOPE that the strategic ‘signals’ throughoutSLGP documents (sustainable, inclusive, pro-poor, participatory and gender-sensitiveplanning and budgeting, participatory socio-economic development, transparent, services forthe poor and the underprivileged, social equality) have had very few expressions amongrespondents in EOPE, even after direct questioning on such matters

Several leaders insist that increased competence, confidence and demonstratedperformance have stimulated the demand for more substantive institutional and strategic

changes, which (according to MTE, p.74) will “increase the probability that planning reforms

will be institutionalized in formal policy/regulatory documents and guidelines.” To most of the

respondents, poverty and exclusion are so pervasive in their localities, that any advance inlocal capability in governance and finance will ‘automatically’ relieve other constraints The probable explanation is that the many committed and capable leaders, staff and cadres

have the primary concern for administrative proficiency, not for strategic direction This

primary concern of course fits the normal and commendable career developmentaspirations; but it is also compelled by the perceptions of and day-to-day relations with

people and organisations in the surging private sector, with its market-efficiency imperatives pushing aside community-distributive concerns

SLGP and similar initiatives assume that the latter concerns can still be decisive in shapingsocio-economic development But the day-to-day evidence in local units and in households -including the households of the leaders and cadres - is that more and more of the localcondition and livelihood is determined by private effort and relationships Typically, acommune budget has grown by 5% per year since 2001; while commune ‘GDP’ has grown

by 10-20 per year Typically, 20% of commune people have moved to outside employmentsince 1990, and high school participation has more than doubled in twenty years From

broad consultations among subnational informants, the more interesting contest today is for more equitable participation in private opportunities, not for voice and influence

on the relatively small community resources and services

B7.6 On informing and influencing national policies and other projects

Subnational units have demonstrated ‘institutionalising’ the lessons, by local instructions ondecentralising investment project management, delegation in financing, and generalised use

of proven methods and documents in planning They have also transferred directly toongoing or new projects, such as to IFAD in Bac Kan and the northern mountains region, toADB in Quang Nam, and to IFAD in Tra Vinh

Project - to - project crossover has been achieved at national level too, but this seems toEOPE to have been more coincidental and adventitious, than structured and deliberated.The MPI gave permission (2009) to specific provinces and local units to use the provenSLGP methods and documents in a UNICEF project in four provinces – pilot partners wishedthat MPI required the application of new methods (including MTEF) to all projects and toSEDPs

Some of the knowledge capital has been shared with national and provincial level partners,

so as to enhance training and research resources

However, EOPE has seen little evidence of “informing and influencing national policies” andguidelines The PPR of 2010 does not mention this aspect among the impacts and results.SLGP leaders reported that some ideas were taken into the Decree 555 concerning

monitoring and evaluating of SEDP The MTE reported that “CIEM officials involved in the

drafting of national planning guidelines noted that SLGP experiences and guidelines had proved useful to their work.” SPRP staff and consultants (2009-10) have analysed lessons

and documents from SLGP to be considered in the new Planning Decree How far thelessons will be considered and applied depends equally on the relevance of the lessons, and

on shifts in the political - ideological balance of People-State relationships To the

subnational partners, the critical minimum of a new decree is the decentralisedempowerment of planning-financing linkages.

B7.7 Summary comment on Impacts

SLGP carries five dimensions of frailty (see 7.1, above) But SLGP’s strength was in its

timing (wave of grassroots democracy and internationally proven methods and tools), its relevance to the interests of people and staff and leaders; and paradoxically, in its modesty

(by not generating ‘too much’ challenge and resistance in long-established institutions).SLGP gave space and protection to the leader-innovators, their staff and local people andorganisations, at a time when the administrative-political-economic context was changingfast, with still much resistance to sharing responsibility SLGP has given (to a small minority)the personal capacities for improved service; and it has enhanced the local confidence inbeing able to create and manage subnational change

Participatory planning, budgeting, deciding and monitoring obviously require the sharing of

responsibilities and functions which are already exercised by specific authorised personsand organisations Sharing requires that a preceding authority gives away, or delegates,some aspects of decision making and supervision All respondents have commented on thereinforcing interactions of awareness, permission, participation, strategising for their own lifeand careers, voice in allocations and designs, decision making, understanding, skilling,capacity building, cooperation across ‘old’ fences, empowerment, exposure, approbation andencouragement from people and leaders - creating a more interested, concerned, confidentand responsive community

EOPE confirms such achievement in each pilot province, although those achievements

reach much more into local planning than to investment projects, budgeting, finance,oversight, forecasting, and data systems To many subnational stakeholders, it seems thatthere was not enough national-level interest in propagating the proven gains and followingthe proven directions, at the same time as piloters were gaining and positively appraisinguseable benefits in their work and among their constituents

Projects such as SLGP are clearly pilots for the central authorities; but for the piloters andinnovators, there are deeper considerations and career-type risks and commitments to bemade in their offices, among their colleagues and in their communities It is not surprising

that many local partners feel both appreciation of the SLGP experience, and disappointment

in its termination before the gains are secured