Civil Society and People’s Participation, Mid Term Review of the Grassroots Democracy Project

Background

The program is in direct support of government's effort to promote grassroots participation as promulgated through the Grassroots Democracy Decree (GDD decrees 78 & 79) of Vietnam. Thus the project advances the increased knowledge and awareness by Vietnamese people and government officials especially at commune and village level on the GDD and related rights and responsibilities of right holders and duty bearers.

Purpose/objective

The Mid Term Review was commissioned to assess the progress, relevance and effectiveness of the grassroots democracy project and suggest activities for increasing community participation and project sustainability. It was also meant to assess the quality of people's participation.

Methodology

Research methodologies used were for collection of both qualitative and quantitative information. Participatory methods with stakeholders were applied using in depth interviews and group discussions with both male and female stakeholders.

Key findings

1. There has been increased community awareness and local government officials' knowledge on GDD. Skills of most staff involved in the project are also reported to have improved especially related to mobilizing people's participation in development. On the whole the project accorded the staff the opportunity to practice what they learnt in: communication on GDD via mass media and IEC; conducting survey on GDD implementation as well as the opportunity to share information and learning.
Thus the GDD project has been successful in raising awareness of local people concerning rights with demonstrable positive evidence of improved mobilization of people's contributions and increased attendance to meetings, questioning relevant local authorities in some cases, thereby exercising their right to information. Local authorities are on the other hand better able to understand the grassroots situation especially concerning those living in remote rural areas. The Local Authorities have made some strides in involving themselves and participating in community meetings at times and thus according them the opportunity to collect grassroots information first hand. As a result local people's trust and belief in their local authority has improved. Village codes and regulations were also developed after the training.
Nevertheless, the GDD implementation is still in its infancy hereby considered as formalisation stage. The main focus has been on information sharing and knowledge building. As a result, significant changes are yet to be realized with regard to active engagement of local people in decision making. Some local people are still grappling with the understanding of the decree itself and related rights and responsibilities.
2. GDD activities reviewed were found to be diverse and implemented according to plan.
3. The Plan supported GDD project warmed up the scene for implementation of the decree which had become sluggish since enactment.
4. The training provided was observed to be limited in scope, short in duration and sometimes too theoretical with little use of broader range of participatory techniques like case studies and to some extent and so paused challenges to participants' ability to apply in real life situation.
5. Communications i.e. posters, leaflets were quite varied in format and usually placed strategically in the respective communities. However, there was limitation in that the communication means were unavailable in other communities and there were some ethnic groups that did not have such communications translated in their languages. Few people per resident cluster participated in the festivals and some of the festivals were organised using one method i.e. question and answer format, thus not making good use of other means like performing art and games. Some festival facilitators also lacked previous experience in organising such events thus making the whole process stressful.
6. The GDD project set up village regulations (codes) with people and also managed to establish demonstration villages with criteria of transparency, accountability and increased people's participation. However, the demonstration villages were of limited success. Lack of integration of livelihood models made the GDD model villages unattractive to most villagers like farmers unions. Again the models of grassroots participation failed to create opportunities for formal information and learning exchange across Plan areas and with other organisations also involved in implementing Grassroots democracy interventions.
7. The GDD proposal did not define concepts or criteria for assessment of people's participation. As such the MTR tries to reflect the initial changes in communities though this might not be significant at this time.
8. Impact of Plan supported projects is more significant especially in awareness raising and capacity to manage projects. Staff from local authorities have also learnt from Plan's experience in project management particularly with regard to construction projects where Plan applies stringent and transparent measures in its monitoring and supervision which is rated as effective. The local commune desire to apply the project management and supervision model to their own setting.
9. Quality of participation while commended in Plan areas is not the same across the board. There are exceptional experiences where local people felt they are sidelined in beneficiary selection and participation in their community by others who are more influential. Women and children were not adequately included in training sessions however there is growing realisation and acceptance of children's participation. The participation of these groups is notable in Plan areas.
10. The project faced challenges in finding diverse range of appropriate partners in some of the target areas.

Recommendations

1. The project should have more comprehensive, diverse activities of multi dimensional nature and influence, involving a cross section of various community groups e.g. unions for youths, women and farmers including government authorities and policy makers at commune, village and provincial level.
2. While training for both officials and common people should continue, it is recommended that there is need to conduct needs assessments in advance and also to differentiate the training content for officials from the training targeted for common people. The training for the non official participants is to include legal elements while that for officials should include community mobilization. Development of standard training package that can be used many years in future is considered important.
11. Improve quality of communication with special consideration to reach the ethnic minority. IEC (Information, Education and Communication), therefore must be simple and attractive, using various means of communication and incorporating this in people's activities and festivals and available in relevant ethnic languages.
12. There is need to develop models of grassroots democracy in order to achieve project sustainability. I.e. integrate concept and models of grassroots democracy into projects, training and assisting people to develop specific models of participation and people's involvement and draw relevant lessons and sharing from them.
13. Enhance influence and impact on policy advocacy and behaviour change.
14. Promote people's participation, especially engaging women and children in implementation of all Plan supported projects and the GDD project in particular.
15. There is need to give clear direction to GDD Project and develop concepts and approaches.
16. Increase cooperation and diversity of local partners in accordance with local context.

Comments from the organisation

Please, note that final evaluation was scheduled in concluding year of this project and results will be shared as soon as they become available.
1. As a result of this review, Plan Vietnam discussed the way forward to implementation of the key findings. As such therefore issues of broadening partnerships and enhancing staff capacity are part of this consideration.
2. The evaluation recognizes the influence that the project has had in increasing people's participation even though it has on the other hand observed that there are exceptional cases of bureaucracy and incidents where people are sometimes brought on board only to pass what was already decided by leadership. It is most important to note that building of capacity for popular participation is a gradual and continuous process. Partner involvement remains pivotal to enhancing people's confidence in their leadership and also to contributing to the overall fulfilment of project objectives.