1. The Contribution of Partnerships
to Sector Coordination
and Aid Effectiveness
The Case of Agriculture and
Rural Development Partnerships
in Vietnam
Global Donor Platform
for Rural Development
Summarised version

2. COPYRIGHT
Global Donor Platform studies are joint analyses of its members designed to close identified
information gaps and provide a global public good. Platform studies shall inform and guide
policy makers and practitioners in the delivery of assistance in agriculture and rural develop-
ment.
As such, Platform publications are not copyright protected. The Platform encourages duplication
of its materials for non-commercial purposes. Proper citation is requested at all
times. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work is hereby granted
without fee and without a formal request provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantages and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the
first page. Information not owned by the Platform must be honoured and permission pursued
with the owner of the information.
COPYRIGHT

3. STUDY BACKGROUND
The introduction of sector-wide coordination mechanisms and approaches in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development in Vietnam (MARD) is at an early stage. Experience has been
gained from five ministry-wide and sub-sector level partnership initiatives and the piloting of
multi-donor budget support to a core Government of Vietnam (GoV) sub-sector programme. In
addition ministry-level aid management support structures have recently been established and
various new partnership, networking and strategy development initiatives are being contem-
plated, including, notably, the formulation of a comprehensive Rural Development Strategy for
Vietnam (RD Strategy).
This study[1]
, jointly implemented by MARD and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
(Platform), supports consolidation of these sector initiatives in MARD through analysis of the
experiences gained to date, compilation of key lessons learned and a synthesis of related policy
and operational implications. This in turn will contribute to the exploration of options for the
application of effective ODA management, sector coordination mechanisms and sector-wide
approaches in the context of the upcoming RD Strategy. This exercise assists MARD and its part-
ners in their efforts to implement the Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonisation
and Alignment in the context of the agriculture and rural development (ARD) sector. Further-
more, engagement by the Platform in this exercise will contribute to the dissemination of “the
Vietnam experience” to a global audience.
The basic analytical question for the study is: “What are the (institutional) factors determining the
extent to which individual partnerships effectively contribute to enhanced aid effectiveness and
the application of sector approaches in their respective sub-sectors?”
The following five MARD partnerships constitute the core focus of the study:
1. The ministry-wide International Support Group (ISG),
2. The Forest Sector Support Partnership (FSSP) and the Trust Fund for Forests (TFF),
3. The Natural Disaster Mitigation Partnership (NDMP),
4. The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Partnership (RWSSP), and
5. The Partnership for Avian and Human Influenza (PAHI).
The study reviews the basic question through an analysis at three levels:
National level: This includes an introduction to the overall socio-economic development of
Vietnam and the “macro-level” framework for sector coordination and aid effectiveness. It is this
framework that sets the conditions under which the efforts of MARD and other sector-level line
ministries in this regard are implemented.
MARD level: This analysis reviews the opportunities and barriers for partnership effectiveness
resulting from the immediate institutional and regulatory environment in which the partnerships
operate. This includes analysis of cross-cutting efforts initiated by MARD and its partners to
enhance internal capacity for adoption of new aid modalities and sector-approaches.
Partnership level: This includes analysis of issues of importance for the successful design of
partnership structures, analysis of the effectiveness of the institutional structure and operational
modality applied by individual partnerships, and analysis of the extent to which “outcomes” or
results of individual partnerships have met critical sector-level “change dimensions”.
The emphasis of the study, in addition to reviewing conditioning factors at the national and at
MARD level, is to undertake a comparative analysis of the partnerships, rather than an individual
analysis of each partnership. Such a comparison will enable learning about “what works and
what doesn’t work” across partnerships.
01
BACKGROUND
[1]
The full version of the
study is available at
www.donorplatform.org
>
>
>

4. The analysis of the institutional structure and operational modalities of the five partnerships
reviews the following partnership “building blocks”:
Partnership rationale, objectives and programme framework;
Legal basis and membership;
Mechanisms for management, steering and coordination;
Issues related to engagement of stakeholders in partnership activity implementation and estab-
lishment of sound organisational linkages;
Issues related to the financing of partnership structures and activities and the financial viability
of the partnerships; and
Coordination between partnerships.
The analysis of partnership “outcomes” explores the extent to which the partnership has moved
from “process” (e.g. the way in which it supports definition of sector priorities, the way stake-
holders are consulted and the modalities for ODA delivery) to “performance” (i.e. is it delivering
results “on the ground”, and for whom?). To analyse these questions, the study applies the five
outcome areas defining “the SWAp model of change” applied by the global study on the applica-
tion of SWAps in agriculture and rural development conducted by the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI) on behalf of the Platform[2]
.
On this basis, the following five partnership outcome areas are analysed:
1. Policy co-ordination and planning;
2. Aid management, harmonisation and alignment;
3. Ownership, leadership and institutional capacity in the context of decentralisation;
4. Public expenditure management and service delivery; and
5. Interface between public and non-state actors.
Concluding, the study analyses the key lessons learned and intends to form the basis for a con-
sultative process for facilitating a common definition of policy implications for various relevant
forums. These would include individual partnerships, MARD, the Partnership Group for Aid
Effectiveness (PGAE), the Like-Minded Donor Group (LMDG) and the Aid Monitoring Working
Group (AMG) of the International Non-Governmental Organisation Resource Centre (INGO-RC).
02
BACKGROUND
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[2]
Global Donor Platform
for Rural Development
(2007): 'Formulating
and Implementing
Sector-wide Approa-
ches in Agriculture and
Rural Development”.
This study includes a
brief desk review of the
Vietnam forest sector’s
efforts to develop ele-
ments of a sector-wide
approach. The use of
the ODI “SWAp change
model” areas is inten-
ded to enhance the
complementarities of
the two studies.

5. 03
MARD PARTNERSHIPS – ENHANCING AID EFFECTIVENESS
Overall, MARD partnerships have emerged as relevant instruments for ODA coordination,
enhancement of aid effectiveness in the context of the Hanoi Core Statement and wider sector
and sub-sector coordination. Critical partnership features contributing positively in this regard
include the following:
The partnerships have contributed to cross-sector coordination. In the context of the barriers
faced by the GoV with regard to inter-ministerial coordination, the partnerships have facilitated
coordination between different ministries and stakeholders. Importantly, MARD itself finds that
this is an important value-added by the partnerships.
The partnerships have contributed to policy coordination and development. Partnership inter-
ventions in this area have been most efficient in the preparation of the Vietnam Forestry Deve-
lopment Strategy where the GoV could take maximum ownership of the process. The MARD lead-
ership acknowledges the contributions and potential of the partnerships in this regard. There is a
tradition for top-down policy making and limited inclusion of stakeholder constituencies in it,
particularly with regard to local levels of government and non-state actors. Given this, the part-
nerships are well positioned to act as channels for stakeholder inclusion in policy-making and
for bringing issues identified by sector constituencies into the policy arena.
The partnerships have enhanced sector-level information management. Given the lack of sys-
tematic sector information exchange networks, the partnerships become important forums for
information dissemination, which, in particular, has guided the design of new programmes. While
the partnerships’ contributions towards strengthening of sector performance monitoring are still
emerging, valuable efforts in this area are being pursued by three of the five partnerships.
The partnerships have demonstrated an ability to evolve incrementally in response to changing
sector conditions. This ability to “learn by doing” is recognised by the MARD leadership and is
critical if the partnerships are to stay relevant in the context of the rapid socio-economic develop-
ment in Vietnam.
The partnerships have increased ownership of ODA management processes by the ministry
and MARD departments. As noted by MARD, the partnerships have helped MARD departments
“to learn to deal with donors”, and helped donors to appreciate national leadership in ODA man-
agement. MARD departments have found it easier to present policy issues to and receive feed-
back from donors collectively rather than individually, and have gradually become comfortable
with the partnerships as mechanisms for consultation and coordination. This has contributed to
enhancing ownership of ODA management by MARD departments. With increasing MARD owner-
ship, the partnerships are emerging as platforms for two-way communication: From being pri-
marily platforms for donors seeking to influence GoV policy the partnerships are increasingly
becoming platforms used by the GoV to seek inputs and advice from sector stakeholders.
The MARD partnerships are results-oriented. The fact that MARD partnerships are not only
platforms for broad policy dialogue, but also support collective identification and coordination of
agreed sector interventions, increases the relevance and value added of the MARD partnerships.
The analysis of issues for successful partnership design points to the importance of:
Establishing a common analytical starting point for sector development needs;
The presence of lead-agents for the design process with a mandate and desire to look beyond
their own narrow institutional interests; and
Carefully defining the sector scope of the partnership as required to maintain close linkages to
sub-sector stakeholder constituencies and avoid programmatic overlap between partnerships.
MARDPARTNERSHIPS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

6. 04
MARDPARTNERSHIPS CRITICAL ISSUES FOR MARD PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE
AND VIABILITY
The following policy and institutional factors at the MARD level affect the programmatic and
operational efficiency of the partnerships:
Overlap in the division of institutional mandates, sector coordination and aid management
responsibilities between MARD departments;
Risks associated with the proliferation of partnership initiatives related to programmatic overlap
of partnership mandates and limitations on the amount of resources that stakeholders can allo-
cate towards engagement in partnership-based coordination;
Challenges to creating linkages between the partnerships and national/cross-sector aid effec-
tiveness and coordination initiatives;
Obstacles to integration of sector-based strategies and action plans into the mainstream GoV
five-year planning framework (the Socio-economic Development Plan, SEDP);
Challenges to lateral coordination among MARD departments and between MARD and other
ministries;
Reluctance of GoV and international stakeholders to effectively pursue an effectiveness agenda
at the sector level;
Barriers resulting from existing financial and administrative mandates, regulations and culture,
and resource constraints faced by national and international stakeholders.
The study also reveals that a range of programmatic, operational and institutional issues needs
to be addressed to enhance partnership performance and efficiency, ownership of partnership
constituencies and, hence, partnership viability. Critical issues to be addressed by the partner-
ships include the following:
The partnerships have not yet contributed significantly to the mainstreaming of national-level
aid effectiveness, administrative reform and decentralisation efforts in the sector context and
at local levels. Aid effectiveness, improved governance and decentralisation are often included as
partnership objective statements. In practice the partnerships have not established efficient link-
ages to national efforts in these fields, nor have they effectively supported the mainstreaming of
such initiatives at provincial and local levels of government.
The partnerships have succeeded only to a limited extent in engaging critical provincial and
non-state constituencies. The partnerships have not established structures for meaningful,
demand-driven engagement of provinces, the business sector and civil society actors in partner-
ship policy support, sector coordination and other activities. The recent reorientation of the FSSP
is an exception
Operationally, the partnerships largely remain parallel structures. All partnership secretariats
are incorporated as “independent units” that are affiliated with, but not integrated into, MARD
departments (the International Cooperation Department, in the case of the ISG, RWSSP and
PAHI, and the technical departments, in the case of FSSP and NDMP). These independent units
follow operational procedures external to MARD procedures. They rely mainly on contracted staff
and are largely dependent on international financing of their operations, with limited
counterpart funding provided by MARD/GoV.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

7. 05
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LESSONS LEARNED AND PARTNERSHIP DO’S AND DON’TS
RECOMMENDATION 1: The following lessons learned and partnership “do’s and don’ts”
should be considered when establishing new – and advancing existing – partnerships.
The study identifies the following lessons learned as critical for maximising the programmatic
and operational efficiency of the partnerships:
Building partnership structures (or programmes – if joint, legally-binding programming is
agreeable to partners) on jointly defined and negotiated sector vision/strategy and analysis.
This provides clarity when deciding on partnership rationale and programmatic scope, structure,
membership, institutional roles and responsibilities and programmatic linkages.
Maintaining a sensible balance between “process” and “action”. The GoV and its international
partners have collectively committed to pursuing the principles laid out in the Hanoi Core
Statement (HCS). In practice national and international partners alike face various institutional
barriers that prevent effective pursuit of collective action. A key purpose of the partnerships is,
therefore, to nurture collaborative behaviour through attention to process, without losing sight of
the fact that partnership engagement must lead to concrete results to ensure that partners feel
that the partnerships add value.
Ownership by and representation of sector level constituencies. The analysis points to the
importance of ensuring a strong ownership of partnership coordination efforts and activities by
institutional sub-sector stakeholders. While agents at the ministerial or higher level must
address the need for creating an enabling environment for partnership operation, the ownership
by sub-sector actors is essential to consolidate efforts and actions. This, however, does also not
necessarily imply that the partnerships should be embedded in the technical departments
responsible for the sub-sectors concerned. While this solution may be the preferred option in
principle, final decision in this regard should take into consideration the capacities and mandate
of the hosting department and the required level of access to the leadership of MARD and other
ministries. Furthermore, attention must be given to the careful definition of “sector level con-
stituencies”. Again, as the experience of the FSSP in particular suggests, the composition of
these constituencies’ changes over time as the sectors undergo structural change given the rapid
socio-economic development in Vietnam. Effectively including private sector and other non-state
actors, therefore, becomes of critical and increasing importance, depending on the sector con-
text. All constituencies need to feel ownership of the partnerships to ensure their viability, not
only central level GoV actors and their international partners.
Incremental evolution of partnership rationale, focus and structure. Given the dynamic and
rapid socio-economic evolution of MARD sub-sectors, the thematic issues the ministry is facing,
and the barriers faced by many partners with regard to pursuing HCS principles in practice, it is
thus critical that partnership programming, planning and structures are flexible enough to allow
for incremental evolution of the partnerships. Such flexibility will allow them to: a) learn by
doing; b) more effectively reflect the changing conditions in their sector and operational environ-
ment; and c) gradually move towards joint and, eventually, legally binding action to the extent this
is relevant in the context of the individual partnership.
RECOMMENDATIONS
>
>
>
>
>

8. Linking partnership action to the aid effectiveness agenda and to the application of wider pro-
gramme-based approaches to planning and resource use in sectors where this is relevant.
The efforts of the partnerships at this time should be focused on institutional and policy develop-
ment, which will create a foundation for enhanced aid effectiveness and the selection of relevant
modalities for joint support. This requires establishment of stronger linkages between the part-
nerships and national and ministry level aid effectiveness initiatives to support mainstreaming of
these at the sector and lower administrative levels.
Resourcing coordination efforts. Medium to long-term financial security for partnership opera-
tions is needed in order for the partnerships to maintain a long-term horizon for their activities.
Financial viability is required whether the partnerships are operating outside the government
system or as an integral part of departmental structures and mandates. International financial
support is likely to be required in the short to medium term, even where partnerships are incor-
porated into MARD structures and financial systems.
Monitoring partnership effectiveness. It is important that systems for assessing partnership
effectiveness and value added are put in place, as this will enable efficient review and adjustment
of partnership structures, mandates and operations given the rapidly changing socio-economic
development in Vietnam.
PARTNERSHIP DO’S AND DON’TS”:
Initiation and rationale
Partnership initiation:
Joint “sector issue analysis” agreed to, including national trends, sector trends and stakehold-
er analysis, as a basis for definition of partnership rationale, priorities and structure.
Realistically define partnership scope and focus so that it reflects institutional realities and
constituencies. Ensure clear demarcation vis-à-vis other partnerships.
Initial leadership and investment by key agencies (with the government taking a lead role).
Take a long-term strategic view. Partnerships should be dynamic, long-term and continually
developing.
Partnership rationale, objective and programme focus
Adopt GoV policy frameworks as the basis for partnerships or support the GoV in designing
relevant sector policy/strategy. Opt for good ones, not perfect products! Avoid parallel pro-
gramme frameworks.
Emphasise collaborative action and incrementally move towards new modalities/programme-
based approaches/SWAps if not all partners are “ready” from the outset.
If a partnership is not about SWAp, but about coordination of individual programmes, do so
within an agreed, collaboratively defined strategic framework (agreed action plans, lead agen-
cies, thematic groups).
06
RECOMMENDATIONS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

9. Machinery and membership
Legal basis and membership:
To enhance clarity and ownership, all partners should formally sign up to the partnership
“constitution”, whether by signing the founding Partnership Agreement or a subsequent
exchange of letters.
Address the need to identify structures for representation of provinces and non-state actors
from the outset, if treated as “add ons” they are unlikely to join!
Management, steering and coordination
Avoid being too ambitious. Be pragmatic, incremental, patient, process-focused, flexible….
Establishing collaborative arrangements is tricky!
Support GoV ownership and decisive leadership (vis-à-vis both GoV agencies and donors).
Be realistic in terms of capacity to pursue commonly agreed sector activities.
Separate partnership coordination and implementation functions
(add value, not another layer).
Ground partnership planning, coordination and implementation in national agencies and
national operational, financial and planning frameworks (e.g. FYP) and build capacity.
Engagement of partners
Build institutional mechanisms that facilitate engagement and ownership of national partners
in partnership activity implementation, and facilitate support by international partners as
required.
Engagement of provincial and non-state actors should be demand-driven.
Financing of partnership structures and activities
Establish a timetable for the financing of partnership operations by national stakeholders. It
should be acknowledged that international financing may be required in the short to medium
term.
Programmatic and external linkages
Define partnership priorities in the context of cross-cutting national governance and aid effec-
tiveness initiatives (e.g. SEDP/FYP, PRSC, PAR/decentralisation, PFM, HCS).
Include support to the sector’s key GoV programme, if any, as an integral part of the partner-
ship’s programmatic priorities.
07
RECOMMENDATIONS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

10. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
FOR DEFINING PARTNERSHIP MODELS
RECOMMENDATION 2: The following analytical framework for defining partnership models
should be considered when establishing new – and advancing existing – partnerships.
Vietnam is undergoing a rapid socio-economic transformation towards a market-oriented econo-
my. At the same time, Vietnam is supporting decentralisation and related administrative reform,
and experiencing a relative decline in the role of ODA. The roles of central government agencies,
provincial and local authorities, international donors, and non-state agents, such as the business
sector and national and international civil society organisations, are, therefore, being trans-
formed. These sector changes play out differently in each of the sub-sectors covered by MARD
partnerships, and therefore affect individual partnerships differently. An additional sector-specif-
ic factor affecting the evolution of individual partnerships is the presence (or absence) of core
government service delivery programmes in the sub-sectors.
It is a very positive sign that the design and evolution of the current partnerships have responded
to these varying sub-sector conditions. This is a testimony to the responsiveness of the consti-
tuencies of each partnership, and the importance of allowing these constituencies to determine
the overall direction and focus of each partnership. It is unlikely that the partnerships would have
been able to respond in a dynamic fashion to the developments in their respective sub-sectors if
a more prescriptive “one-size-fits-all” approach had been applied by MARD with regard to the
steering and coordination of the partnerships.
Therefore, when deciding on the future direction of the MARD partnerships, the starting point
should be that the current partnerships, in spite of many similarities, have evolved differently.
They serve different purposes in the context of the different needs and stakeholder settings of
their respective sub-sectors. This “partnership diversity” is desirable as it reflects a dynamic
engagement by partnership constituencies.
Consequently, it is useful to establish a framework for the definition of alternative “partnership
models” that reflects the following important (and inter-related) parameters:
1. The socio-economic characteristics and stakeholder make-up of the sub-sector in which
the partnerships operate. The purposes and functions of the partnership structures differ
depending on whether they operate in the context of “sectors” focusing on economic produc-
tion, social service-delivery or combinations thereof, or whether they support the manage-
ment of “cross-cutting issues”, such as disaster mitigation or avian influenza.
2. Trends in the relative importance of ODA investments to investments by other stakeholders
in sub-sectors supported by partnerships, such as the business sector and the GoV itself.
How ODA investments will evolve given Vietnam’s move towards middle-income country sta-
tus is not yet clear, and will certainly differ from sector to sector.
3. Pace and depth of the current institutional evolution of MARD. The role and function of
partnerships should be defined in the context of MARD’s shift towards an institutional focus
on policy development and the establishment of overall regulatory frameworks for the imple-
mentation and monitoring of sector activities by provinces and non-state actors.
4. The desired basic purpose or rationale of each partnership. The partnership’s institutional
set-up and linkages should depend on whether the partnership is mainly focused on
• strengthening ODA coordination in a given sector,
• enhancing aid effectiveness,
• strengthening GoV sector coordination as such, or
• combinations of these purposes.
08
RECOMMENDATIONS

11. The study suggests the following conceptual framework for the future strategic evolution of the
MARD partnerships that establishes a range of alternative models for the MARD partnerships:
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE
STRATEGIC EVOLUTION OF MARD PARTNERSHIPS
09
RECOMMENDATIONS
>
Partnership
purpose
Aid coordination
Aid effectiveness
Sector coordination
/ PBA application
Production sectors
• Are the partner-
ships relevant
assuming the redu-
ced importance of
ODA investments?
• Are the partner-
ships relevant
assuming the redu-
ced importance of
ODA investments?
• Partnerships are
mainly national
platforms for sector
dialogue, informati-
on sharing and
coordination bet-
ween the GoV and
local and non-state
sector constituen-
cies.
Social service
sectors
• Partnerships
remain primarily
platforms for
GoV/donor aid
coordination. They
may continue to be
“independent
units”.
• Partnerships are
nationally embed-
ded platforms for
sector dialogue
between the GoV,
international part-
ners local and non-
state constituen-
cies. And/or:
• Partnerships are
frameworks for
budget support to
national program-
mes.
• Partnerships are
mainly national
platforms for sector
dialogue, informati-
on sharing and
coordination bet-
ween the GoV and
local and non-state
sector constituen-
cies.
Thematic issues
• Partnerships
remain primarily
platforms for
GoV/donor aid
coordination. They
may continue to be
“independent
units”.
• Partnerships are
nationally embed-
ded platforms for
sector dialogue
between the GoV,
international part-
ners local and non-
state constituen-
cies. And/or:
• Partnerships are
frameworks for
budget support to
national program-
mes
• Partnerships are
mainly national
platforms for sector
dialogue, informati-
on sharing and
coordination bet-
ween the GoV and
local and non-state
sector constituen-
cies.
Sector characteristics

12. SPECIFIC PARTNERSHIP MODELS
On the basis of the analytical framework above, the following specific partnership models
emerge. These models should inform decisions on the establishment of new partnerships, and
the detailed design of such partnerships:
Partnership model 1: Forums for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, planning and coordination.
This type of partnership establishes structures supporting the creation of horizontal linkages as
well as upward and downward linkages between the many state and non-state sector stakehold-
ers with an interest in sector policy formulation and planning. To the extent that ODA still plays a
role in the sub-sector, these partnerships may also be focused on enhancing the aid effective-
ness agenda. These partnerships are fully integrated into GoV structures and apply GoV regula-
tions. This model is primarily relevant in production-oriented sub-sectors, but may also be appli-
cable in social service sectors and “thematic areas”. The FSSP has initiated a re-orientation in
this direction.
Partnership model 2: Operational partnerships for efficient service delivery in sub-sectors
focused on public service delivery. These partnerships act as conduits for the collaborative
development of programme strategies and the efficient use of resources allocated for public
service delivery. They are fully integrated into GoV structures and apply GoV regulations. If ODA
investments are still high, they could take the form of operational partnerships for provision of
budget support to national public service delivery programmes. The RWSSP and NDMP could
potentially move in this direction.
Partnership model 3: ODA coordination partnerships. This applies basically to the MARD part-
nerships in their current form. They may stay as “independent units”, but, ideally, they would be
integrated into GoV structures.
Partnership model 4: Thematic partnerships addressing cross-cutting recurrent or emerging
priorities. The form of these partnerships will depend on the nature of the cross-cutting priority
issue(s) in question. But common to all will be the need to establish effective structures for coor-
dination between different ministries/sectors and effective systems for implementation at local
levels. The exact institutional structure and linkages for these partnerships will partly depend on
whether the cross-cutting issue in question is an emerging one (e.g. avian flu) or a recurrent one
(e.g. natural disasters).
Partnership model 5: The International Support Group (ISG). This is a special case, as this part-
nership is specifically focused on ministry-wide policy dialogue between MARD, as an institution,
and the international partners collaborating with the ministry.
10
RECOMMENDATIONS

13. PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES AS PART
OF VIETNAM’S RURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATION 3: Options for applying partnership structures as part of the preparation
and roll-out of the Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam should be explored.
In this context the establishment of a temporary partnership structure for the preparation and
roll-out of the RD Strategy could be considered. It could take the form of an “innovated” ISG, or a
working group under this partnership (a temporary measure given the experiences that such
higher level partnerships are not viable in the long term). If it is decided to systematically use
partnership structures in the context of RD Strategy implementation, then these should be estab-
lished in the key sub-sector areas within MARD’s mandate where partnership structures have not
yet been established. It is the view of this study that the use of partnership structures as plat-
forms for collaborative engagement between national and international stakeholders in the
preparation, roll-out and implementation of the new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD
Strategy) would contribute to a wider buy-in to the strategy among relevant constituencies.
Additionally, the use of partnership structures would result in better coordination of the roll-out
and actual implementation of the strategy at subsequent stages.
It follows from the analysis that there is significant scope for enhancing the programmatic and
operational efficiency of the MARD partnerships as well as the “partnership steering” capacity of
the departments hosting partnerships. In consequence, there is scope for reducing the transac-
tion costs associated with engagement in and operation of the partnerships. These objectives
need to be achieved without losing the relative institutional autonomy of the partnerships, i.e. the
“freedom” of the partners and stakeholders in individual partnerships to determine the program-
matic focus and key institutional and operational characteristics of each partnership. This auton-
omy is critical for ensuring the level of ownership and buy-in needed for ensuring partnership
relevance and sustainability.
In order to facilitate the suggested strategic evolution of the MARD sub-sector partnerships, the
study recommends i) establishing a MARD partnership support and facilitation team and
ii) institutionalising partnerships as integral parts of the MARD organisational structure as
outlined in the following.
11
RECOMMENDATIONS
>

14. ESTABLISHING A MARD PARTNERSHIP SUPPORT
AND FACILITATION TEAM
RECOMMENDATION 4: A MARD team for partnership facilitation and support should be estab-
lished. This “partnership service centre” should maintain a facilitating rather than a prescrip-
tive function and seek to i) enhance partnership efficiency through provision and pooling of
resources (e.g. technical assistance, common library of partnership administrative and opera-
tional tools); ii) facilitate better linkages between the sub-sector/thematic partnerships and
national and MARD level aid effectiveness, governance, public administrative reform and decen-
tralisation initiatives; iii) guide consultations between MARD and partnership constituencies
regarding the most desirable arrangements for the location of partnerships, and iv) guide the
establishment of new partnerships (if any!).
RECOMMENDATION 5: Options for the exact location of this team and other institutional
arrangements should be defined in consultations between MARD and the various partnerships
and partner constituencies. However, the options for locating this team within an “innovated”
ISG should be explored.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Given the rapid progress towards increased market orientation in ARD,
the consequent changes in the function of MARD and the relative importance of public and pri-
vate stakeholder constituencies, for the ISG to take on this function would require a redefinition
of the ISG focus, mandate, resources and institutional location (described in detail in the full
report).
INSTITUTIONALISING PARTNERSHIPS AS INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE
MARD ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
RECOMMENDATION 7: Establish a time-bound strategy for the full integration of partnership
structures into MARD and/or other national structures, including non-state structures.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Systematically review and decide on options as to where to locate current
(and future) partnerships (detailed recommendations in full report). Specifically, the proposed
review of specific options for each of the current partnerships should be linked to the planned
institutional review of the departmental functions and division of work between MARD depart-
ments supported by the MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme.
12
>

15. 13
Prepared by
Jens Rydder, Dao Thanh Huyen, Lotta Höglund
Commissioned by
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,
Vietnam (MARD) and the Global Donor Platform for Rural
Development
Facilitated by
The International Support Group (ISG) of MARD
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those
of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views
and opinions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Vietnam or of the member organisations of
the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development.
Published by
Global Donor Platform for Rural
Development,
c/o Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
Dahlmannstraße 4, 53113 Bonn,
Germany
June 2008

16. www.donorplatform.org
Contact:
Secretariat of the
Global Donor Platform for Rural Development,
c/o Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development (BMZ)
Dahlmannstraße 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone:+49 (0) 228 24934 166
Fax: +49 (0) 228 24934 155
Email: secretariat@donorplatform.org
Website: www.donorplatform.org
Publication date: June 2008