Support to improvement and implementation of NTPs for poverty reduction

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2006-2011, Viet Nam
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
03/2009
Completion Date:
03/2009
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
6,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 00015593_NTP_HEPR_-_TOR.doc tor Posted 749
Download document 00015593_-_NTP_HEPR_Eval_Report.doc report English Posted 902
Download document 00015593_-_NTP_HEPR_Sum_Recommend.doc summary Posted 681
Title Support to improvement and implementation of NTPs for poverty reduction
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2006-2011, Viet Nam
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2009
Planned End Date: 03/2009
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 6,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: VIET NAM
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 The focus of the project in the first two years was to support the design and national guiding documents of the two Programs. Redirection to support local implementation should be the focus for the remaining period of the project.
2 Under NTPPR component, the identification of TA needs as well as use of project products for policy improvement is more difficult due to too many policies/projects implemented within established sectoral framework of various line ministries. It is recommended that GOV separate social protection policies from the NTP-PR and improve the design of future PR program to avoid such management and coordination complexity.
3 The emerging of Resolution 30a to support the poorest 61 districts requires prompt support from the project, at the same time raise question of overlapping to on-going PR programs. It is recommended that consistent support to local implementation in terms of capacity building will help the implementation of all these PR programs.
4 The project has supported CEMA efficiently to coordinate with other donors' TA projects. It is suggested that similar joint TA Plan should be developed with better ownership and pro-activity from NTPPR Coordination Office.
5 The project does not have an M&E system. Many indicators provided in the initial project result framework remain either indicators to measure the two NTPs rather than the project, or indicators meant to measure project impact rather than outputs or outcome, which are difficult to measure within the project timeframe and resources. It is recommended that these indicators are separated for End of Project Evaluation.
1. Recommendation: The focus of the project in the first two years was to support the design and national guiding documents of the two Programs. Redirection to support local implementation should be the focus for the remaining period of the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/08/10]

The support to local implementation started as from 2008 AWP for both components, however by the time of the evaluation, not many activities have been implemented at local level under NTPPR.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Three provinces have been selected by CEMA to pilot the local implementation of P135-2. Provincial work-plans have been developed and implemented. The regional TOTs under NTPPR are being followed up with post-training evaluation and identification. Recommendations from the MTR module of capacity building to be followed up
[Added: 2009/08/10] [Last Updated: 2011/12/27]
PMU 2010/01 Completed Updates Dec2011: During the process for development of the Resolution 30a on rapid and sustainable poverty reduction in 62 poorest districts, and particularly the Resolution 80/NQ-CP on directions for sustainable poverty reduction 2011 ? 2020 and the National Targeted Program on Sustainable Poverty Reduction 2011 ? 2015) a number of consultation workshops with local authorities/direct implementers have been conducted to get ideas from local levels.
2. Recommendation: Under NTPPR component, the identification of TA needs as well as use of project products for policy improvement is more difficult due to too many policies/projects implemented within established sectoral framework of various line ministries. It is recommended that GOV separate social protection policies from the NTP-PR and improve the design of future PR program to avoid such management and coordination complexity.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/08/10]

A joint Mid-term Review for both PR programmes has finished, which confirmed the coordination and management issue of NTPPR because of the 'silo approach' in its design.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A roadmap for dissemination of the MTR findings and recommendations was built. These recommendations will be used to advocate for the better design of future PR programs. At the same time, the project continue its support to NTPPR Coordination Office to better identify TA needs in M&E, capacity building and communication.
[Added: 2009/08/10] [Last Updated: 2011/12/27]
PMU 2010/01 Completed Update Dec2011: Coordination among line Ministries in implementation of the NTP-PR has been taken into account by the responsible agency/MOLISA as well as related agencies. As a result, mainstreaming and streamlining PR policies and programs have been reflected under the Resolution 80/NQ-CP on directions for sustainable poverty reduction (2011 ? 2020) and will be specified in the NTP-SPR (2011-2015). Key actions: an Action Plan for implementation of the Resolution 80 has been developed which focuses on reviewing, adjusting, mainstreaming and streamlining PR policies and programs under responsibility, to become regular tasks of line Ministries and sectors. Only one NTP-SPR (2011-2015) will be developed and implemented to avoid overlaps and patchiness.
3. Recommendation: The emerging of Resolution 30a to support the poorest 61 districts requires prompt support from the project, at the same time raise question of overlapping to on-going PR programs. It is recommended that consistent support to local implementation in terms of capacity building will help the implementation of all these PR programs.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/08/10]

The Resolution 30a came up after the economic shock with high inflation effected the poor. The project immediately supported the design of such intervention, but the rushing deadline of the GOV was too short to integrate the project inputs in the Resolution.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continue to support the guiding documents, with focus on participatory annual local planning and M&E. Regional TOTs to be combined with coaching to selected 3 districts
[Added: 2009/08/10] [Last Updated: 2011/12/27]
PMU 2010/01 Completed Update Dec2011: The recommendation has been undertaken and reflected under the Resolution 80/NQ-CP and will be followed in the NTP-SPR (2011-2015). Key actions: Continue to support line Ministries and sectors in reviewing, mainstreaming and streamlining PR policies and activities, shifting them to be regular activities under their policy framework/plan.
4. Recommendation: The project has supported CEMA efficiently to coordinate with other donors' TA projects. It is suggested that similar joint TA Plan should be developed with better ownership and pro-activity from NTPPR Coordination Office.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/08/10]

There are support from UNDP, GTZ and SIDA to the NTPPR, but except for some donor information sharing, there's still little coordination from NTPPR coordination office

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussion with NTPPR Coordination Office
[Added: 2009/08/10] [Last Updated: 2011/12/27]
PMU, UNDP 2011/12 Completed Updated Dec2011: Completed Over the last years, various information sharing with international development partners and related stakeholders have been conducted to share information about the directions of the Government on poverty reduction in the coming period. As a result, DPs have better participated and contributed to the development of Resolution 80 as well as design of NTP-SPR (2011-2015)
5. Recommendation: The project does not have an M&E system. Many indicators provided in the initial project result framework remain either indicators to measure the two NTPs rather than the project, or indicators meant to measure project impact rather than outputs or outcome, which are difficult to measure within the project timeframe and resources. It is recommended that these indicators are separated for End of Project Evaluation.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/08/10]

It might be not efficient to set up the M&E system for the project by this time. But it is necessary to review, revise and rearrange some of the initially designed indicators to serve the end of project evaluation and to encourage the project to monitor the progress accordingly

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Consider the suggested revised indicators from the MTE report as starting point to finalize the list of indicators and integrate into annual monitoring tool/plan. Continue to work with the PMU on how to monitor the project outputs and outcome.
[Added: 2009/08/10] [Last Updated: 2011/12/27]
PMU, UNDP 2011/12 Completed Updated Dec2011: Completed This can be considered as a weak point/lesson learned in designing the current project M&E indicators. Key actions: more SMART of M&E indicators for the next TA project will be developed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org