- Evaluation Plan:
- 2006-2011, Viet Nam
- Evaluation Type:
- Project
- Planned End Date:
- 08/2006
- Completion Date:
- 07/2006
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 45,000
Assistant for implementation of Vietnam's legal system development strategy
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 00015601 - LSDS - TOR.doc |
tor | Posted | 966 | ||
| 00015601 - LSDS - Findings&Recom.doc |
summary | Posted | 666 | ||
| 00015601 - LSDS - Eval Rep.doc |
report | English | Posted | 1708 |
| Title | Assistant for implementation of Vietnam's legal system development strategy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | |||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2006-2011, Viet Nam | ||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Project | ||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||
| Completion Date: | 07/2006 | ||||||
| Planned End Date: | 08/2006 | ||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) | |||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 45,000 | ||||||
| Source of Funding: | |||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | |||||||
| Countries: | VIET NAM |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The lack of the LSDS Steering Committee and Action Plan makes it difficult for the project to identify priorities for support |
| 2 | The lack of a clear focus and scope of the project gives the impression that activities are identified and implemented in an ad-hoc manner |
| 3 | The vagueness of the LSDF Rules leads to difficulties in prioritising support to strategic areas |
| 4 | Project management procedures appears to be cumbersome |
| 5 | Project management capacities are affected by the lack of administrative back-up and the current STA vacancy |
| 6 | The lack of a proper M&E capacities in the project renders progress reporting and impact assessment difficult |
| 7 | Inadequate communication between the PMU, UNDP and other project donors have made it difficult to arrive at a common understanding about project planning, progress and impact |
| 8 | The procedure for joint approval of work plans and specific activities is cumbersome and unclear |
| 9 | Project stakeholders should agree on project direction, priorities and sequencing while awaiting the approval of the LSDS action plan |
| 10 | It should be clarified whether activities under the JRS can also be funded under the LSDF |
| 11 | No additional proposals should be processed and funded under the LSDF until priorities have been set and specific guidelines developed |
| 12 | The Project should be extended at no additional cost and with a view to complete and consolidate current activities and outputs and establish the future of the LSDF and the project |
| 13 | Only one international adviser should be recruited |
1. Recommendation: The lack of the LSDS Steering Committee and Action Plan makes it difficult for the project to identify priorities for support
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reinforced efforts should be made to speed up the process of the establishment of the LSDS management mechanism and the promulgation of the action plan
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
PMU and MOJ | 2006/12 | Completed |
2. Recommendation: The lack of a clear focus and scope of the project gives the impression that activities are identified and implemented in an ad-hoc manner
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The formulation of the 2007 AWP should be based on a joint agreement on key priorities among project stakeholders and in consideration of the need for close coordination with other donors and projects
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
PMU and UNDP | 2006/12 | Completed |
3. Recommendation: The vagueness of the LSDF Rules leads to difficulties in prioritising support to strategic areas
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A clearer set of priorities and criteria for LSDF funding during the remainder of the project period should be established
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
PMU | 2006/12 | Completed |
4. Recommendation: Project management procedures appears to be cumbersome
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Streamlined project management procedures should be worked out to ensure more efficient project implementation
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
PMU | 2006/12 | Completed |
5. Recommendation: Project management capacities are affected by the lack of administrative back-up and the current STA vacancy
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The process of recruitment of the STA should be accelerated and a full-time project administrative assistant should be appointed
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
UNDP and PMU | 2006/12 | Completed |
6. Recommendation: The lack of a proper M&E capacities in the project renders progress reporting and impact assessment difficult
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A results and resources framework (with indicators) reflecting the priorities and key expected outputs of the remainder of the project should be prepared. The 2007 AWP should include activities aiming at documentation of result
[Added: 2006/12/15] [Last Updated: 2010/01/19] |
PMU | 2010/01 | Completed |
7. Recommendation: Inadequate communication between the PMU, UNDP and other project donors have made it difficult to arrive at a common understanding about project planning, progress and impact
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Partly agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The PMU should develop a communication plan for the LSDF as part of the 2007 AWP and based on the recommendations of the review report. UNDP and donors should meet on a more regular basis to discuss the progress made by the project and the developments in the legal sector in general
[Added: 2006/12/15] [Last Updated: 2010/01/19] |
PMU and UNDP | 2010/01 | Completed |
8. Recommendation: The procedure for joint approval of work plans and specific activities is cumbersome and unclear
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donors should agree on a simplified, joint procedure for approval of work plans and activities
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
UNDP | 2006/12 | Completed |
9. Recommendation: Project stakeholders should agree on project direction, priorities and sequencing while awaiting the approval of the LSDS action plan
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priorities should be identified in consultation between all stakeholders as soon as possible
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
PMU and UNDP | 2006/11 | Completed |
10. Recommendation: It should be clarified whether activities under the JRS can also be funded under the LSDF
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Further clarification will be needed as part of the prioritisation process
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
PMU | 2006/12 | Completed |
11. Recommendation: No additional proposals should be processed and funded under the LSDF until priorities have been set and specific guidelines developed
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priorities should first be established in a results and resources framework and clear guidelines for the use of the LSDF should be agreed on that basis
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
N.A | 2006/12 | Completed |
12. Recommendation: The Project should be extended at no additional cost and with a view to complete and consolidate current activities and outputs and establish the future of the LSDF and the project
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The extension of the project will be justified in the results and resources framework and formally approved in the next APR meeting
[Added: 2006/12/15] [Last Updated: 2010/01/19] |
N.A | 2010/01 | Completed |
13. Recommendation: Only one international adviser should be recruited
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/15]
Agree
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The recruitment of the LSDF specialist will be put on hold
[Added: 2006/12/15] |
N.A | 2006/08 | Completed |