GEARING DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
TOWARDS THE MDGs: EFFECTIVENESS AND RESULTS
5-6 May 2011 – Bamako, Mali
Panel 1
“Getting and demonstrating results from
development cooperation”
Cao Manh Cuong, DDG
FERD – MPI of Viet Nam
VIET NAM’S SOCIO-ECONIMIC DEVELOPMENT
(2001 – 2010)
HIGHLIGHT SPOTS
1. The average rate of GDP growth per annum is 7.5 percent during
period 2001 – 2010.
2. Viet Nam has moved from the least developing country (LDC) to the
lower middle income country in 2010 with GDP per capita income of
1,160 USD.
3. Viet Nam has made tremendous efforts in fulfilment of MDGs
(VDGs) as a vehicle to achieve the national targets of promoting
ecocomic growth, social development and poverty reduction:

Comprehensive Programme on Poverty Reduction and Growth
Strategy (CPRGS)

MDGs (VGSs) integrated in the socio-ecocomic plans
(balancing economic, social and enviroment achievements)
VIET NAM - 2/3 OF THE WAY ACHIEVING MDGs
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger (achieved)
Goal 2. Universal primary education (achieved)
Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women (achieved)
Goal 4. Reduce child mortality (achievable by 2015)
Goal 5. Improve marternal health (strive to achieve by 2015)
Goal 6. Combat HIV/AID, malaria and other disease (strive to achive)
Goal 7. Ensure enviroment sustainability (difficult to achieve)
Goal 8. Develop global partnership for development (partly
achieved)
CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1. The recent global economy crisis and threats (food, energy,
etc) have caused negative impacts to the developing
countries in their sustainable development.
2. The in-depth and broad integration into the world economy
has presented Viet Nam a lot of challenges, especially in
competitiveness of the economy.
3. Viet Nam is one of the five countries that suffers most heavily
from climate change.
4. Like other Middle Income Countries (MICs) Viet Nam would
face to MIC traps. To make its development sustainable, Viet
Nam should find way to avoid these traps successfully.
OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN
VIET NAM
1. Viet Nam has 51 Development Partners (28 bi-lateral and 23 multilateral donors).
2. In 2000 – 2010 period:
- Total value of ODA commitments: US$ 49.046 bil.
- Total value of ODA under agreements: US$ 33.085 bil.
- Total ODA disbursement: US$ 23.356 bil.
9000.00
8000.00
7000.00
6000.00
Commitment
5000.00
Agreement
4000.00
Disbursement
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
KEY GUIDING PRINCPLES FOR EMHANCING
AID EFFECTIVENESS
1. Ensure National Ownership
2. Use ODA Selectively
3. Maximize the effectiveness and widespread
impacts of ODA
4. Ensure Broad Participation of Beneficiaries
5. Build Strong and Reliable Partnerships with Donor
organizations
POLICIES OF DEVELOPMENT PARTNER IN VIETNAM
1. Respect for country leadership and ownership in the development and
implementation of socio-economic development programs.
2. Alignment to government policies and programs, and commitment to
support strengthened, transparent and accountable country systems.
3. Harmonization and simplification of aid procedures with Government to
ensure effective implementation progress and to reduce transaction
costs of aid delivery.
4. MfDR to implement consistently monitorable measures to meet
planned development objectives.
5. Mutual accountability for development progress in general and ODA
projects, programs in particular.
AID EFFECTIVENESS FORUM (AEF)
A BRIDGE TO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS
1. AEF is one of processes of CG and the
Forum:
2. For dialogue on ODA as well as broader
financing for development.
3. For identifying bottlenecks / opportunities in
implementing aid policy.
4. To identify specific needs and interests of
diverse aid partnerships.
5. For discussion towards HLF-4 in Busan.
2nd AEF Event (CG 2010)
A LOT OF PROGRESS BUT CONSTRAINTS STILL REMAINS
ON AID EFFECTVINESS AGENDA
1. Lack of consistancy between ODA and public invetment
legal framework.
2. Lack of harmonization in procedures between the
Government and its Development Partners (especially at
technical level.
3. Capacity at sub-national level.
4. In-sufficient mechanism for division of labour and
complementarity based on comparative advantages of
Development Partners.
Thank you for Your Attention
11