1. Swiss association for international cooperation PO Box 81, 298F Kim Ma Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel +84 4 3843 1750 Fax +84 4 3843 1744 helvetas@hn.vnn.vn Community based Governance-Extension-Market project in Cao Bang (CB-GEM) supported by Swiss Association for International Cooperation (Helvetas) Helvetas Vietnam Lessons learned- Challenges  Commune Participatory Socio-economic Development Plan (SEDP)  Commune Development Fund (CDF)  Construction of small-scale rural infrastructures (drinking water)  Ethnic minority forum on life and policy

2. Helvetas Vietnam Commune Participatory Socio-economic Development Plan (SEDP) 2006-2007: Pilot 15 communes; 2008-2009: 58/199 communes in 9 districts; Aim: to cover all communes in the province (now the Developing Business with the Rural Poor Project (DBRP) in Cao Bang also applies the guideline for its planning) Lessons learned:  Working with the system (Department of Planning & Investment (DPI), District Finance & Planning Office (DFPO), Commune People‘s Committee (CPC), establishment of provincial and district planning working groups  SEDP simple and low cost guideline & training material developed and institutionalized (by a decision of the Province People‘s Committee)  ToT/ facilitators training on SEDP by DPI and DFPO in close cooperation with Province Political School (PPS)  Participation of all involved stakeholders in the planning process  Village priorities (people‘s needs) integrated in the commune SEDP  Commune SEDP integrated in the district SEDP for funding  SEDP training integrated in the province training institutions (Province Political School, Technical Economic High School) Challenges:  Mobilization of government funding for planning process (training and implementation)  Committment and leadership at commune level  Facilitation skills at commune level, especially knowledge on marketing  Low educational attainment and language barriers  Big needs requested by the people, but lack of funds to realize priorities, especially most of funding sources not yet decentralized to commune level

3. Helvetas Vietnam

4. Commune Development Fund (CDF) 2007: Pilot in 6 communes; 2008: in 15 communes; 2009 in 21 communes of 8 CB-GEM districts (now the Public Service Provision Improvement Program in Agriculture and Rural Development (PS-ARD) in Cao Bang applies CDF in 37 communes) Lessons learned:  Helvetas transfers its financial support (CDF) directly to the commune bank account that the commune can use to realize priorities stated in their commune SEDP (mainly for drinking water and extension activities)  Clear, simple and transparent guidelines developed, trained, agreed and backstoped with involved parties > the communes have enough capacity to implement projects  With CDF: Local contributions for small scale infrastructures up to 60% and the cost for same size projects 5 times less than financed via P135, P134;  Project maintenance fully done by Users without any further assistance from Helvetas  Capacity of commune cadres improved by practicing who to manage and implement CDF  Created conditions for establishment and operation of small local private construction enterprises Challenges:  Readiness by local government to adopt CDF simple financial procedures  Rejection by higher authorities to decentralize government development budget to the commune

5. Helvetas Vietnam

6. Construction of small-scale rural infrastructures (drinking water) To 2008: 125 DWS for about 3.500 HHs/ 20.000 inhabitants (H’mong, San Chi, Dao, Tay, Nung) Lessons learned:  Simple financial procedures and decentralized supported budget to the commune  Equal and transparent sharing of information, budget and cost to involved actors, especially the community  Project ownership by the commune/ villagers leads to high responsibility for implementation, management, O&M  Participation of local stakeholders, esp. community in all steps: planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation  Training and usage of local manpower  High local contributions (labors and available materials) led to project cost effectives (3-4 times lower than government project with same size and beneficiaries) and project sustainability Challenges:  Committment and leadership at commune level  Lack of technical capacity at commune level while the commune receives not enough and in time support from district  Lack of computers or/and IT skills at commune level

7. Helvetas Vietnam

8. Ethnic minority forum on life and policy (1) 2009: 3 commune level/ one province forums planned. So far 2 commune level forums organized in the area where majority are H’mong and Dao Context:  H’Mong, Dzao, San Chi, Lo Lo considered EM groups in Cao Bang live in highlands, where basic infrastructures (road, clinic, school, irrigation, electricity, etc.) are poor, lack of public/extension/market services and harsh natural conditions for agriculture production  % EM represented in the commune Government is far lower than their share in the population (11,8 / 41,5%), while in contrast (87,4 / 57,9% with majority groups: Tay, Nung)  EM often are regarded as “backward”, “superstitious” and “conservative” repeated over time > believe by Government staff that ethnic minorities are not capable enough to conduct serious businesses Objectives: To increase dialogues between people of ethnic communities living in the poor upland areas with local government, in order to contribute to developing priority policies which are responsive to the need of the people and suitable to local resources, which leads to sustainable and fair development in the upland ethnic minority areas in Cao Bang province

9. Helvetas Vietnam Ethnic minority forum on life and policy (2) Lessons learned:  Cao Bang PCEM takes leading roles in the activity  Strong working relationship between PCEM and the commune in preparation and organization of the forum  The forum objective and requirements make clear to involved people (government cadres and the community)  Community preparation meeting to select representatives and define what to say in the forum is needed  Correct awareness by government cadres at all level on the forum‘s meaning is important  Using EM local people, who can speak Vietnamese for intepretation  The first time, the EM groups in Cao Bang had a fair place to openly address their concerns and opinions to government authorities  Forum focuses on EM programs/ policies carried out in the commune (information, implementation, assessment, proposals/recommendations). In both forums, priorities for discussion were P135, P134, Health insurance, Credit for the poor...  Giving VOICE to EM people in Cao Bang isn’t easy and the local government (PCEM) has no experience at all in this issue Challenges:  Lack of experience of both project staff and government partners  Lack and poor facilitation skills  Low educational attainment of the EM groups and language barriers  Habit to shy speaking out in front of people

10. Helvetas Vietnam Thank you for your attention