Commune Village Development Budgets 2000-2001 · 2011. 11. 14. · Bai province will be useful to...

1

Vietnam-Sweden Mountain Rural Development 1996-2001

Yen Bai Mountain Rural Development Programme

Commune Village Development Budgets 2000-2001

Yen Bai, October, 2001

2

Acknowledgement The MRDP's document set of CVDB 2000-2001 has been developed during collection and evaluation period from August to November 2001. This is the good reference document for those who want to learn about different approaches to poverty alleviation and mountain rural development. This document set has been completed with the contribution of many people of all levels. The project working group consists of 7 staffs who were assigned to compile the report. Many thanks to advisors and the PBO staff of MRDP under MARD for supporting us with evaluation report. Also special thanks to project management boards of 9 communes, village management groups and staff from 4 districts who have supplied us with reliable data. Hopefully CVDB of Yen Bai province will be useful to those who are interested in poverty alleviation and mountain rural development. Readers' comments are highly appreciated for perfecting the document. Abbreviation CVDB Commune Village Development Budget MRDP Mountain Rural Development Programme CP Creative Process MILS Management Information Learning System APO Annual Plan of Operation PBO Programme Board Office PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SIDA Sweden International Development Agency

3

Contents

I. Overview of CVDB II. Result evaluation 1. Guidelines on CVD 1.1. Guidelines 1.2. Province's guidelines 1.3. District's guidelines 2. Activities 2.1. Scope 2.2. Village information 2.3 Disbursement and material support 2.3.1. Plan and Implementation 2000 village 2.3.2. Plan and Implementation 2001 village 2.3.3. Plan and Implementation 2000 commune 2.3.4. Plan and Implementation 2001 commune 2.4. CVDB training activities in 2000-2001 3. Local involvement in management use of budget 3.1. Commune Village Management Board: Planning, implementing and reporting 3.2. Local involvement 3.3. Support and budget distribution 4. Link to other activities 5. Lessons and recommendations 6. Annex Annex 1: List of communes, villages received CVDB Annex 2: Formats for CVDB Annex 3: Different steps in CVDB planning (PBO) Annex 4: Tan Nguyen Commune CVDB

4

I. Overview of CVDB Mountain Rural Development Programme (MRDP) is the continuation of Forestry Cooperation programme (FCP) with larger geographical areas and objectives. MRDP includes two parts: The first is to continue activities in local areas for methodology, institutional and human resource development in order to support management of natural resources in the upland areas. The second is to build up capacity for central level; policy and strategy formulation and ability to supervise activities. MRDP operates in 5 provinces: Lao Cai, Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang, Ha Giang and Phu Tho MRDP Programme Vision (revised 1998) The Programme should contribute to the re-establishment of green productive uplands that are managed in a sustainable way by healthy farmers having secured land tenure, maintaining the ecological, economical, social and cultural diversity of the area. Programme Main Focus “Create an environment in which poor households in Programme mountain communities (pilot areas) are able to benefit from sustainable and diversified economic activities, such as primary production, processing, services, trade and employment in the context of an emerging market economy” Main strategies:

o Developing implementation capacity of the supporting structure from the central to province, district, commune, and village of 5 provinces to enable farmers to get what they want in stated in the visions and end-results.

o Developing and testing operation methods and sustainable production systems (in terms of economics, ecology, society and culture), and turning barren mountain areas and hills in 5 provinces to productive areas.

o Formulating policies, recommending and guiding to sustainable develop watershed and mountain areas based on learning from development of organization, methods and systems in 5 provinces.

In quarter IV of 1999, MRDP decided to shift from component to decentralization structure for 3 levels Province- district- commune& village. Guidelines from PBO and training had been carried out for all levels. CP method has been used during planning process. During 2000-2001, Yen bai MRDP covers 76 villages in 18 communes of 4 districts: Mu Cang Chai, Van Chan, Tran Yen and Yen Binh. In total 9 poor and ethnic communes (7 in zone III and 2 in zone II in 4 districts) received CVDB. (See annex 1- list of commune- village received CVDB).

5

Commune Village District Name Zone No of villages Zone

Mu Cang Chai De Xu Phinh 3 5 3 Kim Noi, Mo De 3 7 3 Van Chan Nam Lanh, nam

Bung 3 10 3

Tran Yen Tan Dong, Luong Thinh

3 11 3

Yen Binh Tan Nguyen, Tan Huong

2 8 5 in II 3 in III

TOTAL 9 41 (Source: CEMA)

35 villages in the rest 9 communes have been phasing out since 1998 did not allocate with CVDB. Plans are made at each level based on the budget frame. Activities can use CVDB (suggestions from PBO) - Food security and income generation - Protection and management community resources - Improvement of Social service - Infrastructure - Local communication development - Training Budget ceilings for 2000 regulated by PBO - Management : less than 15% - Infrastructure: less than 30% - Others 55% Budget for 2001 regulated by PBO with some changes - No budget frame for communes and villages - Budget was not equally divided for communes and villages - No more ceiling amount regulated for communes and villages Planning decentralization: (province's guidelines are modified from programme guidelines)

- The programme board approved province's and district's plan and budget frame for communes and villages.

- District management board approved commune’s and village’s plans - Commune and village’s development plan must be built based on the full

participation of local people. Financial decentralization: (province's guidelines are modified from programme guidelines)

- Project’s director approved expenditures for province’s project activities within the province code norm.

6

- District project management board approved expenditure in district plan and within province code norm.

- Head of commune’s project management board approved expenditures for commune and village level according to plan and code norm issued by province.

In 2000 project director is responsible for liquidating project budget to programme level. In 2001 project director is responsible for liquidating province and district’s budget to programme. All the vouchers from province and district are remained at province level. Heads of commune project management board are responsible for liquidating commune and village budget to district level. All the vouchers of communes and villages are remained at commune level. Budget from programme is transferred to provinces according to schedule and then districts will transfer to communes and villages. The money is transferred through the bank system to communes’ account opened at district agriculture bank. But for the money from communes to villages is only in cash transfer. Every year international and domestic editing company come and looks at the use of budget at province, district and village levels. Budget distribution in 2000

Level Swedish contribution (Million VND)

Vietnamese contribution (Million VND)

Province 731-24.5% 114 District 713-24% 356 Study tour abroad 280-9.5% Commune 232-8% Village 1023-34% Local labor and materials Total 2979=86% 470=14% Budget distribution in 2001

Level Swedish contribution (Million VND)

Vietnamese contribution (Million VND)

Province 864-31% 171-24% District 986-36% 529-76% Commune 171-6% Village 729- 27% Local labor and materials Total 2750=80% 700=20% In September, 2001, project guided and carried out review of the two year implementation of CVDB, at the same time drawing experience and lessons for MRDP and other programmes and organizations with activities as same as MRDP.

7

Based on evaluation of commune, village, district and province, data have been collected and compiled at province level for documentation on CVDB to propose to MRDP with methodology and main focus.

8

II. Evaluation results

1. Guidelines on commune and village budget 1.1. Programme’s guidelines

Programme’s guidelines are as follows: - Change in Management Information and Learning System (MILS) - Criteria for village selection - Guidelines in 2000-2001 plan development - Policies on MRDP’s activities - Guidelines on Sida and programme’s cost norm

Summary on programme’s guidelines with the main points as follows:

1.1.1. Change in Management Information and Learning System (MILS) MILS was developed from the follow-up period and the first year of MRDP implementation. MILS’s role is identified in programme main document as follows: End-results of MILS: a functioning system can be expended to supply information and feedback from levels of MRDP programme (from villages to ministry) and guide plan development and implementation. Some of the underlying principles of MILS have been defined in the programme document as follows

∗ The system should support a creative development learning process

involving: design - testing – review – adjustment – testing – evaluation and documentation of activities.

∗ The system should link field activities with those in the center in a two-way feed back mechanism rather than simply extracting information from one level to another.

∗ The system should be designed in such a way that it responds to the real information and learning needs of people at different levels rather than being imposed from outside. It should therefore be a participatory system both in the way it is designed and implemented.

∗ The MILS should itself be regarded as an important area of methods development following the principle of design, testing, review and adjustment.

From 1997 to 1999, four sub-systems of MILS components, the programme has been put into operation effectively. From 2000, MILS has been revised with the following highlights:

- New budget and plan development system is decentralized in three levels: province, district and commune-village not follow the components base earlier.

9

- Each management level in programme self develop plan and annual budget is distributed and implementation result report is done

- 40% of province project budget will be distributed to commune and village which is Commune Village Development Budget. Commune and Village management groups use budget according to programme’s guidelines. List of communes and villages that will receive CVDB and amount of money distributed to communes and villages will be mentioned in district’s plan.

- 60% remaining of province project budget will be distributed to province and district that participate in province’s project.

- Province and district’s plan consists of two types of activities: Supporting activities (focusing on capacity building and institutional development) and 50% of the budget for each activity.

- Province and district’s plans and report must consist of supporting activities and capacity building.

Plan development will facilitate flexible implementation. Maybe we can change or adjust annually. Plan development and report system will be simple and focusing. Changed MILS increases ownership of local levels in plan implementation. Responsibilities, duties and resources are decentralized to different levels which will carry out programme’s activities. 1.1.2. Criteria for village selection Villages and communes received CVDB met the following selection criteria:

- Classification by CEMA: Zone III, remote and poor, priority for new village to MRDP form 1996-1997 onward

- Prior to ethnic minorities villages - Enthusiastic and interested villages with strong commitment for local

contribution. 1.1.3: APO Guidelines form MRDP for year 2000-2001 (for commune and village levels) Guidelines for commune and village staffs in planning and management of CVDB. Summary of the guidelines are:

1. Commitments that need to be met by the communes and villages

- In order to receive and use the budgets the most effective way, there are certain commitment that must be met by the communes and villages

- Commune Project Management Group must be set up by the Commune

People's Committee

- There must be a functioning Village Management Group agreed by the Commune People's Committee

10

- Regular commune/ village meetings, reviews, should be held.

2. Commitments that are made by the districts and provinces

- Release the funds for the projects in a timely fashion - Meet the demands for training as indicated in the commune and village plans

in an effective manner (in line with their APO budget submission). - Develop the capacity of their staff to effectively provide support to the

demands from the communes and villages.

3. What can the village and commune development budgets are used for? In order to achieve the programme overall end-results: “The programme should contribute to the re-establishment of green productive uplands that are managed in a sustainable way by healthy people having secure land tenure, maintaining the ecological, economical, social and cultural diversity of the area” With 2 specific End Results

- Improved livelihoods and income opportunities for rural people in the programme communes and villages including equitable opportunities for poor people, women and men.

- Improved land use practices and natural resources management in the

programme communes and villages contributing to environmental stability in the uplands.

Commune/ Village development budgets can be used for activities suggeted as follow:

- Improved food Security and income for households - Management and protection of Community Resources: - Enhancement of social service delivery: - Local Infrastructure Development - Local Communication Development - Training - Labour input for community activities

4. Management costs for commune and village include: - Allowance for VMG, CMB - Administration costs - Travelling - Meetings

5. Limited areas for CVDB - Village, inter-village Infrastructure: less than 30% of the total

11

- No lending to individual households - Stationeries: less then 10% (Year 2001, ceiling amounts had been removed)

6. Different CVDB planning steps (see annex 3)

- Step 1: Commune Level Preparation Meeting - Step 2. Village Level Consultation Meetings - Step 3: Making the Draft Plans - Step 4. Village Meetings to Agree on the Plans - Step 5: Commune Meeting to Approve the Commune and Village Plans - Step 6: Approve of the Commune and Village Plans by Districts

7. Implementation and monitoring CVDB

- Budget is transferred to commune bank accounts - Budget used under regulations and guideline from PBO, Province project

and Government - Contract and monitoring formats are used to implement plans - Commune / village regular meetings, at least quarterly - End-year report summary of all monitoring formats - If changing plan should be agreed by district People’s committee (see

annex 2) The guidelines for year 2001 is basically same as 2000 but without ceiling amounts. 1.1.4 Programme regulations on implementation and organization - Chapter I: General provisions consists of two articles: issued and programme - Chapter II: Organizing and managing programme and functions and duties of programme’s management levels. Item I: Organizing central management level Item II: Organizing and managing local project. It consists of: province project board, province project management board, district project management board, commune project management board, village project management group, duties of project director of all levels. - Chapter III: Relations and regulations on working and reporting - Chapter IV: Planning management - Chapter V: Financial and accounting management. Include: budget proposal, open bank accounts, disbursement and confirm of grant fund, assets procurement, equipment, construction, expenditure decentralization, allowance for VMG, CMB, auditing and liquidation. - Chapter VI: Technical management

12

- Chapter VII: Programme advisors - Chapter VIII: Executive provisions 1.1.5. Guidelines on cost norm of Sida and programme These guidelines are only the fundamental bases for provinces to built cost norms for their provinces, communes and villages follow the cost norm of provinces. 1.2. Summary of province’s guidelines Apart from the MRDP programme’s guidelines, Yen Bai has regulations on financial management and cost norm, specify regulations on reports and cost norm, planning…., has detail guidelines for provinces. Main highlights: - Plan approval: Province, district APO and village’s budget frame are approved by the programme board. The district’s detail plan is approved by the project’s director. Village detail plan is approved by Head of the project management board. - Project’s accounting and expenditure: Project director authorizes for Heads of district management board and communes management board to approve district budget. - In the year 2000 project director is responsible for liquidating to programme –level. All the vouchers of province, district and commune are kept at province level. - In the year 2001, project director is responsible for province and district budget liquidation to programme. District and province’s vouchers are kept at province level. Heads of commune management board are responsible for liquidating to district level. All the vouchers of communes and villages are kept at commune level. - Reporting, liquidating: communes make quarterly reports and submit to district on 1st and 5th at the beginning of the quarter and district will submit to province on 5th and 8th at the beginning of the quarter. - Disbursement: Province transfers to district quarterly. In order to receive fund for the following quarter fund financial statement must be submitted to project level. All district disbursements made through bank system to account of district and commune’s accounts in Agriculture bank system.

13

- Regulations on expenditure: Generally province’s cost norms are lower than programme including cost norm for training, allowance, per diem, accommodation… - Cost for models: Only support materials to those who can not have (organic fertilizers, seeds, seedlings etc). Project doest not pay for local labour, chemical fertilizers, materials to local people. - Support of input material to communes and villages: Level of support decided by villagers (with village meeting minute). For well-off households (Group 1, 2) support less than 70% of the input price. For poor households (Group 3, 4 ) can receive 100 % support of price. - Infrastructure: follows regulations of the Government.

1.3. District guidelines (follow programme and province guidelines) - Planning guidelines

- Financial and reporting guidelines - Approve commune and village’s plans

Guidelines for CVDB for commune and village levels are sufficient, clear and are facilitating to the planning, spending and liquidating processes.

14

2. Activities 2.1 Scope

Year No. of villages

get CVDB

Amount No. of commune

s get CVDB

Amount Avg. No of villages

per commune

2 000 41 1 023 MVND, avg. 25 MVND /village.

9 232 MVND. avg. 25 MVND /commune.

4.6

2 001 41 729 tr. avg. 18 MVND /village.

9 171 MVND. avg. 9 MVND /commune.

4.6

- No new communes or villages get CVDB in 2000 and 2001. The average budget for each commune and village is reasonable. However, budget was not divided equally to all but priority was given to more difficult ones. The lowest village got 10-15 MVND/ village are Zone III involved in MRDP since 1992 or 1993 (Village No. 1 T©n §ång commune, DÕ Xu Ph×nh village in DÕ Xu Ph×nh commune, Dµo Xa village in Kim Näi commune) and Zone II villages: (T©n H−¬ng village in Tan Nguyen commune -Yªn B×nh) since 1998. The highest village got 36 MVND was Chong Xua in De Xu Phinh commune – Mu Cang Chai . - 41 out of 62 villages as 66 % of the total villages in 9 communes received CVDB. No commune with total 100% of village involving in project even though local people want to participate. The main reason is limited budget that can not cover for all villages, and then district decided not to include many villages in the project. Example: CVDB for Nam Bung commune in Van Chan district: (MVND)

Village, commune CVDB 2000 2001

Commune 25 15 Village: 1 - Chan Hung + Trung Tam 50 28 2 - Nam Cuom 35 22 3 - Sai Luong 35 22 Total village 120 72 Total commune +village 145 87 Average per village 40 24 2.2. Local contribution : (000 VND)

15

Commune, village

2000 2001 (up to Aug 15th)

Cash Material

Labour

Total Cash Material

Labour

Total

Total commune

3 870

4 640

8 510

Total village

1 000

12 246

96 707

108 953

1 200

36 240

36 613

74 053

Average per village

25

300

2 359

2 684

29

884

893

1 806

Local contribution focuses on community construction works which benefit to more people, such as extension house combining with kid classrooms, inter-village roads, small bridges, drinking systems etc. More details are shown in the table below:

Constructions

Total value ( MVND )

MRDP fund (MVND)

Local contribution (MVND)

Types of contribution

Village electric grid at village No 8 Tan Dong commune, Tran Yen District

29, 162

9,120 = 30 %

20,042 =70 %

Labour, material

Small bridge in Tan Huong commune, Yen Binh

13, 285

5, 000 = 38 %

8, 285 = 62 %

Labour, rock, sand, stone, wood

Inter-village road in Mo De commune – Mu Cang Chai

28, 852

20,742 =72 %

8 110 = 28 %

Labour, transport of material –sand, stone

Drinking water system in Ban Khao Giong- Kim Noi Mu Cang Chai district.

12, 547

10,200 =82 %

2, 347 = 18 %

Labour, transport of material

Chong Xua extension house- De Xu Phinh- Mu Cang Chai district

30, 000

21,682= 72 %

8, 318 = 28 %

Labour, transport of material

Extension house in Ngän Lµnh, Nam Lanh -Van Chan

31, 830

27,030= 85 %

4,800 = 15 %

Labour

Check dam in village No 3 18 2 = 11 16 = 89 Labour,

16

- Tan §ong - Tran Yen %

%

material

Check dam in village No 4 - Tan §ong - Tran Yen

30

3 = 10 %

27 = 90 %

Labour, material

Extension house in Tan Binh, Tan Nguyen- Yen Binh

32

8 = 25 %

24 = 75 %

Labour, material

Extension house in §ong Ke, Tan Nguyen -Yen Binh

35

30 = 85 %

5 = 15 % and expand 1.5 km road

Labour

Local people’s contribution was discussed during village’s meetings showing the voluntary contribution to build villages. Compared with the previous years, the contribution becomes stronger and easier. Contribution consists of labour, material transport and local material. Mr Kim’s household in Dong Ke village, Tan Nguyen commune, Yen Binh province gave village 1000m2 of land to build extension house. Clearly, village directly managed budget, local people are very happy and become more self-conscious, capital is used more effectively. 2.3 Village information 2000 2001 No of

villages % of total village

No of villages

No of villages

Zone (CEMA) Zone 1 Zone 2 5 30 5 30 Zone 3 36 60 36 60 Village size (No. of hhs) < 30 has 5 5 30 - 60 has 10 10 60 – 100 has 20 20 > 100 has 6 6 Ethnic groups Mixed 5 7 Dao 18 16 H’mong 13 13 Nung 2 2 Thai 1 1 Kinh 2 2 - Villages who make the biggest contribution are Dao people and H’mong people and mix villages. Villages who make very little contribution are Thai, Kinh and Nung people. So project focuses on supporting to poorest villages and communes.

17

- No change in zones. Zone 3, H’mong people are poorest followed by Dao, Thai and Nung people/ - Change in number of households is not much. But some changes on family members. No change in supported geographical areas. - Access to ethnic minority groups is different: Generally Yen Bai’s villages’ access is easy and favourable. However, especially H’mong women in Mu Cang Chai and Van Chan do not speak Vietnamese language so it is difficult to communicate.

Example for detail information of Nam lanh commune- Van Chan district Village Zone Ethnic groups No. of

hhs in 2000

No. of hhs in 2001

NËm KÞp 3 Dao 100 % 85 87 TÆc TÌ 3 Dao 100 % 85 85 Tµ Lµnh 3 Dao 100 % 63 65 Ngän Lµnh 3 H’mong 100 % 20 20 NËm Cµi 3 Dao 100 % 38 39 Giµng Cµi 3 Dao 100 % 95 97 NËm Téc 3 Dao 100 % 49 52 2.3. Disbursement or material support

unit: 000 VND

Level Form 2000 2001 Plan Impl. Plan Impl.

(upto 25/8)

Districts to communes

Bank transfer 1 255 000 1 000 000

900 000 450 300

Cash 205 000

Material (cash equivalence)

- 33 750

Total 1 238 750

Communes to villages

Cash 1 070 000 1 006 792

755 337 210

Material (cash equivalence)

33 750

Total 1 040 542

18

- District transfers to commune upto 99% of the plan. Commune transfers village upto 97%. Only one commune (Luong Thinh) has 30 millions outstanding moved over to the year 2001. By 15 August, 2001, implementation was only 50 % of the plan and expected to finish in December. District transfers to commune by bank transfer. Commune transfers to village by cash. Input for production is bought by villages. - Only for Luong Thinh commune, district gives advance for village when budget was not transferred in time in terms of Van Dien NPK fertilizer, with the 25 tones valued at 33.750 millions VND. Once commune and village receive budget, fund is returned to district. All other communes and villages transferred money through the Agriculture bank system. - Model under district budget: The year 2000, 30 millions VND of Tran Yen district for fertilizer, varieties and seedlings are supported to 120 HHs of category 3 and 4 in Tan Dong and Luong Thinh communes. - Input for production is supported to the whole community. However, priority is given to poorer households. HH category 3 and 4 get more and the support level is decided by villages.

Example of Disbursement in Mu Cang Chai

Province to district District to commune Date Amount

(MVND) Date DÕ XuPh×nh Kim Näi Må DÒ

3 / 6 / 2000 50 10 / 6 / 2000 10 10 10 7 / 7 40 23 / 7 15 5 10 5 / 9 50 10 / 10 40 30 / 10 25 15 20 10 / 11 20 1/ 12 250 1 / 12 70 40 90 28 / 12 144 28 / 12 33 23 28 19 / 1 / 2001

30

Total

624 / 594 105 %

153 / 153 100 %

93 / 93 100 %

158 / 158 100 %

19

2.3.1. Plan and implementation in villages in 2000 Unit: 000 VND

Mu CangCh¶i V¨n ChÊn TrÊn Yªn Yªn B×nh Total province Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl.

Agriculture input

94 185 105 650

63 150 60 608 42 350 40 975 2 680 2 999 202 365

210 232

Support to poor hhs

Forestry input

17 250 18 238 800 18 050 18 238

Agricultural seeds

38 995 35 061 18 000 18 000 18 530 17 855 75 525 70 916

Agri. Forestry seedlings

1 000 1 662 4 500 26 300 24 824 31 800 26 486

Livestock 10 500 10 500 8 400 8 800 18 900 19 300 Model 14 000 14 150 2 000 10 100 8 825 26 000 22 975 Community resource management

20 400 23 300 13 200 8 470 10 200 5 366 8 000 5 600 51 800 42 736

Social services 1 700 11 400 14 003 11 400 15 703 Infrastructure 80 298 124

488 72 900 75 456 76 800 47 939 33 400 41 035 263

398 288 918

Communication/ information

2 500 2 413 4 600 6 214 7 100 8 627

Training 33 700 33 572 45 150 41 711 25 800 20 282 15 540 12 461 120 190

78 026

Management 48 722 48 727 40 900 39 538 40 500 35 507 23 790 22 020 153 912

145 792

Equipment 11 700 20 280 31 700 32 237 43 400

52 517

TOTAL 329 000 392 143

312 000

303 353

223 000

176 221

159 000

158 940

1023 000

1030 657

Percentage of 2000 plan implementation as follows:

- Support production input for HHs : 35.9 % - Project management : 28 % - Training : 14.1 % - Infrastructure : 7.6 % - Equipment : 5.1 % - Community resource management : 4.2 % - Social services : 1.5 % - Information : 0.8%

+ The need of local people focus on agriculture input and infrastructure followed by technical training and community resource management. It is completely relevant as it reflect true effect on social economic life of remote and poor local people. + Some difference between plan and implementation. Activities which exceed plan are paid by district budget (commune and village’s supporting plan).

20

Example on chart of 2000 village budget use of communes Kim Noi Commune – Mu Cang Chai Nam Lanh Commune – Van Chan Dong Tran Yen Commune Tan Huong Yen Commune – Yen Binh 2.3.2. Plan and implementation in villages in 2001 (upto 15 August) Unit: 000 VND

Activity Mu MangCh¶i V¨n ChÊn TrÊn Yªn Yªn B×nh Total province

Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl. Plan. Impl.

Agriculture input

40 200 42 824

71 830

54 160

31 200

4 400 2 700 2 700

145 930

104 084

Support to poor hhs

Forestry input

Agricultural seeds

6 000 6 500

14 100

6 600

20 100 13 100

21

Agri. Forestry seedlings

6 000 8 230 3 200 3 200

9 200 11 430

Livestock 16 000

16 000

Model 600 600 Community resource management (JFM)

1 900 900 3 300 41 500 900

Social services 4 000

4 000

4 000 4 000

Infrastructure 49 000

15 200

29 400

23 300

92 600 38 500

Communication/ information

7 300 20 800

2 600

30 700

Training 20 000

40 090

21 000

36 200

1 800 31 600

16 500

132 890

59 300

Management 16 000

53 980

12 900

28 900

18 000

12 500

8 200

157 180

55 100

Equipment 25 800

12 120

10 800

2 300 6 000 6 000

69 300 20 420

TOTAL 93 554

215 000

100 180

179 000

42 600

110 000

70 500

729 000

306 834

Percentage of 2001 plan implementation as follows:

- Support production input for HHs : 27 % - Project management : 22 % - Training : 18 % - Infrastructure : 13 % - Equipment : 10 % - Community resource management : 6 % - Information :4 %

+ The various activities are funded from CVDB compared with 1999 and previous years when budget was managed by province level showing the more support to villages. Activities selected by villages are more relevant to local people’s need focusing on main three activities: input for production, infrastructure and training. Villages actively make their own plans and know very clearly how much they are supported. Local people’s contribution is voluntary and much more. + Difference between villages’ plans showing priority given to the poorest villages. + Budget utilization for activities are various is different at villages’ budgets according to the selection of each village, condition and real situation of villages. + Selection for 2001 activities is different somehow with the year 2000. Budget for project management 2001 increases compared with the year 2000 due to review and project evaluation. Infrastructure decreases compared with the last year due to focusing more on training because villagers realize the good effect

22

of training. On the other hand with the limited budget infrastructure development is very difficult. + In the year 2000, budget for Luong Thinh Commune, Tran Yen district transferred to commune was late because commune management board proposed that village plan approved by district should be transferred to commune but district and village do not agree, so that plan was revised several times. Chart of 2001 village budget utilization of communes: Mo De Commune – Mu Cang Chai Nam Bung Commune – Van Chan District Luong Thinh Commune – Tran Yen Tan Huong Commune – Yen Binh district

23

2.3.3. Plan and implementation at commune level 2000: (Unit:1.000VND)

Plan Implementation

Support to HHs

Input for agriculture production ( fertilizer, pesticide ... )

Input for forestry production, industrial trees

8 260 7 200

Agriculture trees Seedlings, seeds of forestry and

agriculture trees 8 500 8 570

Livestock/ Fish 3 000 Model 9 500 8 000 Community resources management Social services 4 000 5 324 Infratructure 18 590 21 800 Communication/ information 60 400 71 597 Training 59 990 52 136 Management 31 360 28 601 Equitment for management 26 400 44 365 Total 232 000 247 593

Chart of 2000 commune budget use De Xu Phing Commune – Mu Cang Chai Nam Lanh Commune – Van Chan Tan Dong Commune – Tran Yen Tan Huong – Yen Binh

24

2.3.4. Plan and implementation at commune level 2001(up to August 15):

Plan Implementation

Input for agriculture production ( fertilizer, pesticide ... )

Support to HHs

Input for forestry production, industrial trees

Agriculture trees Seedlings, seeds of forestry and

agriculture trees 4 200

Livestock/ Fish Community resources management Social services 2 000 2 000 Infratructure 9 000 8 300 Communication/ information 15 000 15 000 Training 76 600 73 600 Management 42 900 14 920 Equitment for management 21 300 12 100 Total

171 000 125 900

Chart of commune budget utilization 2001: Mo De Commune – Mu Cang Chai Nam Lanh commune – Van Chan Tan Dong Commune – Tran Yen district Tan Nguyen Commune – Yen Binh • Difference between expenditure according to the plan compared with the

actual spending:

25

In the year 2000, at commune level there is some expenditure different with the plan: - Communication/Information: Because when planning radio system in Tan Dong commune the budget was limited to 50 millions VND, but in fact, in order to put this system into operation budget needed was 60 millions. Commune and district proposed the project to support more 10 millions VND. - Infrastructure: Spending exceeds 3 millions VND. This was in the supporting plan of districts –to communes and villages - Management and training: lower implementation compared to plan and was move to equipment for management; it was due to the necessity of management work. In general, the difference was not much between plan and implementation with expectable reasons which were rooted from local people’s needs. • Different budget utilization levels of CVDB in deferent activities:

Year 2000 Year 2001 - Support to HHs 2.6 % 2.2 % - Social services 1. 7 % 1.1 % - Other infrastructure 8 % 4. 8 % - Communication/information 26 % 8 % - Training 26 % 49. 6 % - Management 13.5 % 22. 9 % - Material and equipment for management

11.4 % 11. 4 %

Total 100 % 100 %

• Budget utilization was various in 2000 and 2001. Year 2001 has drawn lessons from 2000, and this is the last year of the project therefore, focus was more on training and project management

• Use of CVBD was also very various. VDB concentrated on support of

production input for households; training and infrastructure. While CDB focused on training, project management and communication. This is entitly reasonable as budget was use with different purposes at deferent levels. CDB for building communal staff capacity, meanwhile, VDB is for more direct support to households.

26

Example of Tan Dong development budget – Tran Yen District

Year 2000 Year 2001 - Support to HHs 12 % - Social services - Other infrastructure - Communication/information 60 % - Training 5 % 70 % - Management 7 % 14 % - Material and equipment for management

16 % 16%

Total 100 % 100 % 2.4. Training activities relating to CVDB 2000 – 2001. CVDB training in 2000 – 2001 includes - Making commune and village plans - Monitoring and making reports. - Financial management and accounting. Training courses are organized by province, district and commune. So the results are shown in the below table:

Topic/ Content/ Year

Days of training

Number of participants from communes/ CMB

Number of participants from villages/ VMG

Organizer

Male Female Male Female 2000 - Training and making commune and village plans

3 26 1 107 16 Province, district

- Training on financial management

3 20 8 110 15 Province, district

- MILS reporting 2 8 1 Province - Plan, finance and MILS report

3 12 3 District, commune

- Making plans 3 78 19 48 6 Commune 2001 - Making plans + financial management

2 19 8 105 15 District

- Monitor and report 1 35 11 16 2 Commune • Number of male and female participants depends on number of people who

participate in VMG and CMB. Generally number of women participating in

27

CMG is still very low only 1 woman out of 27 in 9 CMGs and 16 women out of 123 in 41 VMGs.

• Contents of training class are relevant. But time for training is short, so need

more time for practice. Training is needed to repeat. • More training is very necessary for main topics as plan, financial

management and report… 3. Local participation and budget utilization and management 3.1. Participation of CMBs and VMGs to planning, implementation and reporting * Planning, monitoring and reporting - Planning and reporting formats (issued by the programme) were used by communes and villages in accordance with the programme’s instruction. - Province and district give out proposals for communes and villages to select appropriate activities with each commune and village’s conditions and characteristics and not have separate formats for province and district. - 50 % of villages do not have regular reports. Due to the limitation in capacity of villages staff reports were done informally to CMBs. - Communes submitted reports to districts quarterly but it was often late and districts must remind a lot because travel was difficult and limitation in communication. - Districts report to province was very late and insufficient in accordance with the requirement. Because they have to wait for reports from communes and villages and they do not control communes and villages’ daily activities. - According to communes and villages’ proposals, each upland commune needs a district staff to support the planning, monitoring and reporting. - 8 out of 9 communes thought that financial reports were correct, there were no special difficulties. - Only one commune (Luong Thinh) thinks that due to the limitation of capacity, CMBs’ project management is still very weak. * Infrastructure - Communes hold meetings on building projects, mentioned expenditure supported by the project, discussed on people’s contribution, type of contribution (labour cost, material etc) and decided on scale, investment and appointed to carry out the project.

28

- Survey, design and carry out construction works - Construction worth more than 10 MVND, design fee applied to the Government construction norms, and be designed by district construction and transportation section. - Construction worth less than 10 MVND, CMB select experience local people design without design fee. But when checking and taking over the construction district staffs are invited to inspect the construction. - Design fee paid out from commune village development budget. In some case design fee came from district budget. - All communes have set up regulations for maintenance, management and protection of the constructions. * Input for agriculture, forestry and livestock. - Rice variety: bought from district variety station under the Centre of variety. - Fertilizer: bought from district agriculture input shop under material company. Only one commune (Tan Dong) bought 30 % of fertilizer from private companies - 50% of forestry varieties were bought from commune and SFEs and 50% from private nursery. - There are two types of vouchers: financial vouchers and contracts (with private). Generally there was no difficulty in making liquidation. But in upland areas and ethnic minority, there must be instruction for beginning to the end. - Quality of goods purchased was ensured. - District staff recommended where ware good place to buy, and also guide communes and villages how to avoid counterfeit goods. - District staff helped to check the quality and price of seeds, seedlings and transportation. 3.2. Local participation The important things are to ensure that: - All villagers know about VDB and what it can be used for, and how actual plan built. - Men and women have same opportunities / roles in decision of activities in the village plans. The below table shows the summary information and gives out indicators how communes and villages managed in terms of the above matters.

29

Year

Women participation to

CMBs

Women participation to

VMGs

Number of the meetings held

during one year

Information to villagers

No. of CMBs

% of women in CMBs

No. of VMGs

% of women in VMGs

No. of village

% villages inform to all villagers

2000

9 3.7 41 13 255 (Average 6 meetings/village/year)

41 100 %

2001 9 3,7 41 13 255 (Average 6 meetings/village/year)

41 100 %

- CMBs discussed with VMGs on allocation of budget. After receiving budget, commune transfer to village either by giving advance or paying out with vouchers. However, the liquidation of commune and village was very slow. - CMBs held meetings monthly with VMGs. - CMB members were very enthusiastic and with high sense of responsibility but in some cases CMBs seemed to be waiting for instructions from district so process became very slow like the case of Luong Thinh village. - Planning and implementation of VDB have been discussed during village meetings. There have been 70 - 100 % of the total numbers of households took part in these meetings. No money has been paid to participants at village meetings. It can be said that that is strong point of local people in implementation. - Contents of village meetings often cover: guidelines on utilize of budget, selection of activities, cost for each activity, and decision how large the construction will be and how much local people with contribute, level of price subsidy for poor households, monthly or quarterly activity review. In some upland areas, meetings are in local dialect so that all villagers can understand and make commends. - The percentage (%) of women involving in CMBs (3.7%) and VMG (13%). These numbers are very low. The main reasons for low participation were very few women in commune leadership, especially in upland areas women face with difficulty in Vietnamese language.

30

3.3. Support and support distribution (including subsidy) Showing through the table: 2000 2001 Total of

HHs

% (compared with total of

HHs)

Total of HHs

% ( compared

with the total of HHs)

Production input

Category I+II 1 435 100 %

Category III+IV 1 221 100 %

1.6 Total 2 656

Livestock/fishing

Category I+II 100 7 %

Category III+IV 48 4 %

1.7 Total 148

Models Category I+II 8 0,6 % Category III+IV 9 0, 7 % 1.8 Total

17

Communes and villages have given priority to supply input for poor households (except Tan Huong commune in Yen Binh has delivered equally to all households ). Priority as follow: - T©n Nguyªn commune -Yªn B×nh: Category 1 + 2 got 50% of price of seed, seedlings, fertilizer, Category 3 + 4 subsidy 100 %. 6 households in Deo Thao village received one female cow each for breeding. - All communes in Mu Cang Chai district: Category 3 + 4 get more fertilizer then others. - All communes in V¨n ChÊn : Category 1 + 2 got 70% of price of seed, seedlings, fertilizer, Category 3 + 4 subsidy 100 %. - T©n §ång commune in TrÊn Yªn : Category 1 + 2 got 10-20% of price of seed, seedlings, fertilizer, Category 3 + 4 subsidy 50 % .

31

Example of support and distribution of Tan Nguyen –

Yen Binh district 2000 2001

Total of HHs

% (compared with total of HHs)

Total of HHs

% ( compared with the total of HHs)

Production input

Category I + II

270

100 %

Category III + IV

250 100 %

1.9 Total 520

Livestock/fishing

6 2.4 %

1.10 Total 6

Models Category I + II

8

3 %

Category III + IV

8 3.2 %

1.11 Total 16

Compared with 1999 and the previous years: - Input is given to poor households and not equally as the previous years. - Material support increased - Changes in types of materials, meeting the demand of local people. For example: Inputs people selected are new rice varieties, NPK fertilizer, cinnamon, tea not fruit tree and organic fertilizer as the previous years. - Communes and villages were more active and supplied input to local people timely. - Price subsidized for different kinds of target groups and was discussed among villagers, therefore it was more transparent and much easier in delivery. In short, the decentralization of CVDB have brought back much of benefit to local rural communities. Other advantages:

32

- Households participating to project activities all were trained, no distinguish poor or rich, men or women. Some cases, women have their own separate training courses. - Advantages of the support to common works such as building of extension houses, road construction, communication systems, etc are benefited by more people. At the same time it is easier to mobile local contribution. Disadvantages of common support are not showing how much poor households supported. Moreover, development budget was limited so could not be used for big constructions. The other disadvantages is the management, maintenance and protection of the constructions for long-term usage, especially for common works, it is difficult to collect regular contribution of local people. - There is often no payment for simple work as limited budget therefore local labor takes place in management of community constructions works. 4. Linking to other components of MRDP - Support of the province and district as identified in commune and villages’ plans such as construction designing, trainers, training materials, methodology ... - CVDB planning process was made by Creative Process. However, PRA was also integrated ( PRA tools helped in ranking, village assessment of environment and social economic change) 5. Lessons and recommendations 5.1. Experience lessons: + In order to reflect the need and priority of local area: it must have the close link among levels to enable communes and villages to master district’s planning. And then develop the local (commune) long-term development approach, and organize the annual short-term plan under the method “participatory” “bottom up”. Local people discussed and ranked the priority within the budget frame and in lines with commune and district development objectives. + In order to fund for poor households and ethnic minority and women: - From the province, district programme, there must be clear view point about the priority and focus on poor households, ethnic minority and women by specifying priority for poor households. Budget should not allocate equally to all communes and villages and should be focus on poorer communes and villages. - Communes and villages using PRA to rank the household categories give out indicators to each household group, analyze reason for poverty. Classifying poor households and then identify the best supporting method (training, price subsidy, credit etc). Villages must discuss to support to poor households to have specific support objectives, and decision for support (material subsidy). Do

33

not support in cash but in material and production input, training and improve the capacity to alleviate poverty. - VMG should regularly visit, support and monitor how poor households use input from the project, encourage them because they are easy to be spiritually hurt. + In order to manage activities, reporting and accounting effectively.: - Training should be done right at the beginning of the year. Training should focus on planning and project management and be repeatedly. Training for young people to be key staffs in the future. Province’s staff as key trainers, district level as facilitator in the field. - Objectives of the programme and project should be clarified and made understood to staff at different levels on project’s philosophy, focus and sustainability of the programme, as well as main approaches for commune and village development. - More training should be done on method of plan making, financial management for communes and villages. Enhancing consulting of province and district to enable them to select activities. In parallel with the project training, should the programme hold training courses (short and long-term) to communes and villages in upland areas with two subjects Math and Vietnamese. - Following democracy in project activities. - Following reporting and accounting quarterly at district level. - In order to gain the target of MRDP, communes and villages activities should focus on development of agriculture, forestry and fishing such as: Food security, change in tree structure, increasing yield of trees and animals, forest plantation and protection, applying new technology etc, build models for poverty alleviation. It should not cover all activities and invest on infrastructure when budget is limited. 5.2. Effectiveness of CVDB: 1 – MRDP’s new changes are very relevant to the Government’s policies: poverty alleviation, democracy, decentralization to the grass roots and administration reform. The Government can consider the model of CVDB of MRDP to apply sustainably in the future. 2 – All levels are active in building and implementing plans. Combining and linking with district and commune development objectives are better. Communes and villages’ plan was discussed by local people publicly and democratically. Selection of activities and budget allocation was appropriate with desire of local people and real situation of communes and villages.

34

3 – Communes and districts staff’s capacity on management, operation and accounting is increased through activities. 4 – Through participating in building and implementing and monitoring plans, communes and villages have increased the awareness of local people, and encouraged them to contribute more. 5 – Expenditure for management, transaction, and travel is decreased when communes and villages managed budget. 6 – CVDB has policies and regulations and priority for poor households, women to contribute directly to poverty alleviation. 5.3. Shortcomings: 1 – Budget of the year 2000 was very late so need to find out the solution. Some activities of district and commune must continue at the beginning of the year 2001. 2 – Procedure, accounting process was still very complicated, reporting and liquidation was very slow. 3 – Staff’s capacity of communes and villages was limited and unequal did not meet the demand and needed more support from district’s staff. 4 – Some communes and villages were relying on the support from district without be active in implementing project. 5 – Peoples in communes and villages are living separately, travel is difficult, and the instruction of province, district and commune often come very late. 6 – Selection of activities: still fragmental, when budget is limited, building infrastructure is selected, this activity is not relevant. 5.4 . Recommendations: After almost 2 years of CVDB implementation, some recommendations are highlighted as follow: 1. Training should be done right at the beginning of the year. Training should focus on planning and project management and be repeatedly. Training for young people to be key staffs in the future, especially, Math and Vietnamese for ethnic staffs. 2. Objectives of the programme and project should be clarified and made understood to staff at different levels on project’s philosophy, focus and sustainability of the programme, as well as main approaches for commune and

35

village development. Project should not cover many activities and should exclude infrastructure due to limited budget. 3. Increase support of district staffs direct to commune and village in different kinds of activities. 4. Budget should come in time at the beginning of the year. Budget should not divide equally to all villages. Expenditure, vouchers, liquidation to communes, villages should be simplified but keep following the financial regulations. 5 - Decentralization to all levels. Financial liquidation can be done at the same level. 6 – Taking advantage of other support and investment to build infrastructure, transport means, communication system, and equipment for upland areas… 7 - CVDB should be continued to test in the longer term and report results to the Government for larger application. Annex 1 - List of communes and villages received CVDB

Mï Cang Ch¶i District

V¨n ChÊn District

TrÊn Yªn District

Yªn B×nh District

DÕ Xu Ph×nh : NËm Bóng : T©n §ång : T©n Nguyªn : 1 - DÕ Xu Ph×nh 1 - ChÊn H−ng 1 - Village 1 1 - Khe Cä 2 - H¸ng Cuèn Rïa 2 - NËm C−ëm 2 – Village 2 2 - TiÕn Minh 3 - Chèng Xua 3 - Sµi L−¬ng 3 – Village 3 3 - Khe Hïm 4 - Mµ Lµ Thµng 4 – Village 4 4 - §«ng KÐ 5 - Ph×nh Hå 5 – Village 7 5 - §Ìo Thao 6 - Village 8 Kim Näi : NËm Lµnh : L−¬ng ThÞnh : T©n H−¬ng 1 - Dµo Xa 1 - Ngän lµnh 1 - Khe Lôa 1 - Khu«n Giá 2 - H¸ng Chó 2 - Tµ Lµnh 2 - Vùc Trßn 2 - Khe GÇy 3 - Kh¸o Gièng 3 - NËm Téc 3 - L−¬ng ThiÖn 3 - Ngßi Vå 4 - NËm Cµi 4 - TrÊn H−ng Må DÒ 5 - Giµng Cµi 5 - Liªn ThÞnh 1 - Må DÒ 6 - TÆc TÌ 2 - MÝ H¸ng 7 - NËm KÞp 3 - N¶ H¸ng B 4 - N¶ H¸ng A Total : 12 hamlets Total : 10 villages Total : 11 villages Total: 8

villages

36

Annex 2 - Formats for planning and monitoring activities- from programme guidelines Village planning, year ......... 1T Village .............................. Commune......................... District ............................ 1. End results: 2. Current reality : 3. Action plan:

Activities Responsibility

Date start Project fund

Local contribution

Date: Head of VMG Head of CMB ............................................... ...............................................

37

Commune planning, year ......... 1X Commune......................... District ............................ 1. End results: 2. Current reality : 3. Action plan:

Activities Responsibility

Date start Project fund Local contribution

Date: Head of CMB ..............................................

38

Summary of village plan, Year ............ 2 T District: ....................commune: .................village............... APO budget: ........ Plan agreement date at village : ............................. Plan agreement date at commune : ............................

End result number:

Description Date start Village project fund

Village contribution

Total

Date: Head of VMG Head of CMB ............................................... ...............................................

39

Summary of commune plan, Year ............ 2 X District: ....................commune: .................village............... APO budget: ........ Plan agreement date at commune : ............................ Plan agreement date at district : .............................

End result number:

Description Date start Commune project fund

Commune contribution

Total

Date: Head of CMB Head of DMB ............................................... ...............................................

40

Village Plan monitoring format, year ........... Village:.....................................Commune: ....................District........................ 1. End results: 2. Monitoring : Completed activities Date Commend Signature Villag

e commune

41

Commune Plan monitoring format, year ........... Commune: ....................District........................ 1. End results: 2. Monitoring : Completed activities Date Commen

d Signature

District Commune

42

Annex 3 What are the steps in making the commune

and village plans? Step 1: Commune Level Preparation Meeting

4. Purpose of meeting: • To introduce the purpose and conditions of using the Commune and

Village Development Budgets to commune cadres and village leaders. • To introduce the sequence of steps and community meetings required for

making the commune and village plans. • To agree on responsibilities and timing for making the commune and

village plans. Participants: • Commune Peoples Committee • Peoples Council • Village leaders • Women's Union representative • Farmer's Association representative • other commune cadres • other people decided on by the commune and villages. Step 2. Village Level Consultation Meetings Purpose of meetings: • To introduce purpose and conditions of using the Commune and Village

Development Budgets to everyone in the village, and make sure that this is clearly known and understood by all households.

• To discuss with people in the village to identify what different activities they would like to use the budgets for.

• To discuss the training requirements of the village to assist in the implementation of activities.

Participants: • All households in the village. It is recommended that several meetings are

held to make sure everyone is involved in the planning process. • In particular, separate meetings should be held with groups of women to

make sure their ideas are included. These meetings can be organized by the Village and Commune Women’s Union representatives.

43

Step 3: Making the Draft Plans The draft plans are made by the VMG after the consultation meetings. These should use the formats provided for commune and village level plans. FORM 1T Contents of the Plans: The planning process for the Village Plan is based on the use of. For each identified End Result a separate form should be completed with the following information: • Desired End Results • Current Situation • Activities • Responsibilities for the activities • Date to carry out the activities • Cost from the development budget • Local contributions. In addition to the formal End Results the VMG should consider in detail the training requirements of the village. A list of the types of training, target groups and numbers should be made for submission to the District. Step 4. Village Meetings to Agree on the Plans Purpose of meetings: • To present and discuss the draft plans with people in the village. • To approve the End Results, activities, responsibilities and budgets. • To identify the End Results those have the highest priority. These End

Results and activities will be carried out first. • Agree priority training areas and target groups or identified trainees. Participants: • Full village meetings with all households. Output: The village meeting will agree the end results for the village. These shall be recorded in three ways: 1. Minutes from the meeting. These should include a full list of all those who

attended the meeting. 2. A summary form for commune approval. The summary (FORM 2T) of the

End Results, budget, local contribution etc. should be finalized and signed by the VMG Head. This summary form will then be submitted to the Commune.

3. The planned activities and the budget allocated should also be clearly written on a blackboard or poster, which is displayed permanently at the ordinary meeting place of the village (e.g. extension house).

44

Training Needs Request from the Village to the District In addition a training needs request will be completed by the village to assist the District in planning support to the village activities. This training needs request form (Training Request) should also be approved by the village meeting. Step 5: Commune Meeting to Approve the Commune and Village Plans Purpose of meeting: • To present the village Desired End Results summary forms and budgets

(Forms 2T). • To present the commune Desired End Results, activities and budgets

(Forms 1X & 2X). • To approve the commune and village plans and budgets. • To approve the village and commune training needs requests. (Training

Request Forms) Participants: • Commune Peoples Committee • Peoples Council • Village leaders • Women's Union representative • Farmer's Association representative • other commune cadres • other people decided on by the commune and villages. Step 6: Approve of the Commune and Village Plans by Districts Purpose:

• Formal approval of plans made at Commune and Village Level; • Approval forms the basis for release of money to Commune Bank accounts

on presentation of money release form. • Process the 'Training Request Forms' from the villages and communes into

an agreed District training programme to provide supportive activities to the commune and village plans.

Participants:

• District People's Committee representatives; • MRDP District Coordinators • Commune and Village Leaders • Other appropriate representatives e.g. Women's Union.

45

Annex 4: Commune Village Development Budget of

Tan Nguyen Commune, Yen Binh district 1- Scope and budget is distributed in Tan Nguyen Commune Commune and Village Budget (Million VND)

2000 2001 (adjust Oct) 1- Commune level 10 13 2- Khe Co village 28 14.8 3- Tien Minh village 15 14.8 4- Khe Hum village 15 12.8 5- Dong Ke village 28 14.8 6- Deo Thao village 28 13.8 Total of villages 114 71 Total of communes and villages

124 84

Average/village 22.8 14.2 2- Detail characteristics of villages in Tan Nguyen commune

Village Zone Classification

Ethnic group

HHs in 2000 HHs in 2001

1- Khe Co 3 Dao 89% Nung 11%

125 135

2- Tien Minh 2 Nung 100% 131 139 3- Khe Hum 2 Kinh 83%

Nung 17% 101 103

4- Dong Ke 3 Nung 83% Dao 17%

97 104

5- Deo Thao 3 Nung 67% Dao 33%

107 110

46

3- Plan of Tan Nguyen Commune in 2000 (summary) 2 Activities of 2000 – commune level

Budget (thousand VND) End-result/activity Project Local

Priority

1- Build kitchen of health station

1000 3100 1

2- Loud speaker for Tan Phong village

2500 2500 3

3- Make 10 sets of tables and chairs for commune project management board

2050 4

4- Organize a study tour for commune, village's staff in neighboring districts

1950 2

5- Effective project management

2500

Total 10000 5600

April 15, 2000 Head of commune project

management board Chairman (signed)

47

2.5 Nong Cong Chinh Activities of 2000 – Deo Thao village – Tan Nguyen commune


Priority

1- Supply 5 productive female cows to 5 poor households

9000 Local labor 1

2- Planting 5ha of tea (supply with variety)

6400 Local labor 2

3- Building 4 models of fruit trees (supply with variety)

2200 Local labor 4

4- Protect 400 ha protection forest

4500 3

5- Building kitchen for health station (inter-village project)

2800 Local labor 5

- Project management 3100 3 Total 28000


management board Chairman

(signed) Nong Cong Chinh

April, 2000 On behalf of village management group

(signed) Sach Van Se

48

Activities of 2000 – Dong Ke village – Tan Nguyen commune


Priority

1- Growing 2.5 winter maize on 2 rice crop land (supply with variety)

23300 1

2- Supply with China hybrid variety for 100% rice area)

1710 1215 2

3- Developing 4 models of fruit trees (supply with variety)

3500 4

4- Upgrading 2km inter-village routes

2000 2000 3

5- Upgrading village's meeting hall

900 200 5

6- Building kitchen of health station

1500 6

4 7- Project management 3060 7 5 Total 15000 5215





(signed) Hoang Van Cat

49

Activities of 2000 – Dong Ke village – Tan Nguyen commune


Priority

1- Supplying with China hybrid rice variety for 24 ha

4000 12560 1

2- Supplying with variety for 5ha of tea

5500 2

3- Building 4 models of fruit trees

2200 4

4- Protect 250 ha protection forest

3500 3


2800 8

6- Building house for technical transfer

500 10000 (2000 for district)

7

6 Project management 3500 6 7 Total 28000 27560





(signed) Truong Tuyet Cat

50

Activities of 2000 – Tien Minh village – Tan Nguyen commune


Priority

1- Building …..Extension house (wooden house with leaf roof and 3 rooms)

3000 Local labor 3


3700 Local labor 2


1500 Local labor 4

4- Growing 10ha winter maize on 2 rice crop land

3670 1

5- Project management 3130 5 8 Total 15000 11000





(signed) Sach Van Se

51

Activities of 2000 – Khe Co village – Tan Nguyen commune


Priority

1- Building extension house (wooden house with leaf roof and 3 rooms)

4500 1000 6


3700 Local labor 2


4500 1000 4

4- Growing 2,5ha winter maize on 2 rice crop land

2800 1

5- Planting 7ha of cinnamon 2100 5 6- Building 1 ditch on the route to village

500 8

7- Training on household economic accounting

1140 7

8- Building 4 models of fruit trees

2200 3

9- Project management 3560 9 9 Total 15000 11000


management board Chairman (signed)

Nong Cong Chinh


(signed) Ly Xuan Vinh

52

4- Results of 2000 plan implementation – Tan Nguyen Commune

Activity Khe Hum

village

Tien Minh

village

Deo Thao

village

Dong Ke

village

Khe Co village

Commune level

Total

Input for agriculture production

1799 1799

Agriculture variety

2250 2610 1722 2100 8682

Tea variety 3198 5660 4216 8550 21624 Livestock/fishing 8800 8800 Model 2354 2155 2167 2149 8825 CFM 4500 1100 5600 Society services 1780 2264 3254 3016 3689 2324 16327 Infrastructure 3245 3000 12426 6364 2729 27764 Media/Information

682 682

Training 1084 1315 698 500 2355 1950 7902 Project management

2488 2613 2933 2793 2793 2305 15925

10 Total 15000 15000 28000 27940 28000 10000 123940

Commune Village Development Budgets 2000-2001 · 2011. 11. 14. · Bai province will be useful to...

Documents

Transcript of Commune Village Development Budgets 2000-2001 · 2011. 11. 14. · Bai province will be useful to...