Assistant for implementation of Vietnam's legal system development strategy

Report Cover Image
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

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 00015601 - LSDS - TOR.doc tor Posted 966
Download document 00015601 - LSDS - Findings&Recom.doc summary Posted 666
Download document 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:
  • 1. Democratic Governance
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:
Name Title Nationality
Ms.Mette Jacobsgaard, Team Leader; Mr.Rolf Larsson, external legal specialist; Mr. Nghiem ThanhTung, local legal specialist; Mr. Le Hoai Trung, local resource person; Mr. Chu Trung Dung, Interpreter and legal resource person Team Leader
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

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