Passing responsibility?

According to Deputy Minister of Planning and Investment Cao Viet Sinh, to effectively manage and use ODA and make clear the responsibility of ministries, the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) has submitted the amended Decree 17 to the Government. Prof, Dr. Nguyen Mai, a member of the External trade research group of the Prime Minister, said that a group of senior experts are appraising this decree.

Two issues have been put forward regarding managing and using ODA capital: What is the responsibility of related ministries? And will ministries continue to offload responsibility to each other, as in the case of PMU 18?

The amended decree emphasizes the role of the MPI as the nerve-centre in managing ODA. The MPI therefore assists the Government to unify state management of ODA, which it does through internal regulation. The role of the Ministry of Finance, the State Bank of Vietnam, the Government Office, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are also defined by these. Yet, while the regulations regarding responsibility are very clear, the MPI manages to wriggle out of any allegations of wrongdoing.

“Admitting mistakes and taking responsibility for any scandal at PMU 18, MPI, the Ministry of Finance, or the National Assembly’s Economics and Budget Committee, would simply undermine concepts of power between representatives of ministries, particularly while compiling Decree 17,” said one expert associated with compiling Decree 17, which was issued in 2001.

After the Decree 17 was issued, Vietnam attracted large volumes of ODA, yet problems relating to management and allocation of ODA capital and other controversies between the MPI and the MoF emerged. Arguments over jurisdiction began to get out of hand, forcing the National Assembly to intervene with the Budget Law (2003), which set regulations that assigned the larger projects to the MoF.

According to experts, in the original version of Decree 17, the responsibility of ministries in managing ODA was made very clear, but its implementation proved problematic. Subsequent amendments to Decree 17 further emphasised the responsibility of ministries and donors wanting to see further clarity and real possibility of enforcement.

Hoang Phuoc Hiep, Head of the International Law Department, under the Ministry of Justice, said management of foreign capital is regulated by the Budget Law and Decree 17. Compilers must compare the two documents before making any changes to Decree 17 to avoid further passing of the responsibility buck between ministries.

According to Mr Hiep, under the Budget Law, even the National Assembly’s Economics and Budget Committee has no real responsibility toward supervision, not only of related ministries, but in cases such as PMU 18.

Government decides everything?

Most road and bridge construction projects using ODA capital need supplementary capital, a factor that opens the gate to the bull of corruption. To “handcuff” project developers in PMUs, the amended decree abolishes the regulation that states the head of the governing body has the right to make adjustments to projects in excess of US$500,000 in cost.

The regulation stating that the MPI must preside over the appraisal and submit to the government for approval of any change to an ODA project by which expenditure increases by more than $1mil has also been replaced. Accordingly, the government will decide on all cases related to changes to ODA funded projects. The amended decree also forces ODA projects to conduct bidding under international conventions, preventing favourable bidding assignment and other related loss causing problems.

Regulations for the monitoring and evaluation of ODA projects will also change. ODA projects will be subject to snap audits to detect embezzlement, while evaluation of the impacts of ODA projects to social-economic development will be conducted within three years of project completion instead of five years.

However, according to Kyoshiro Ichikawa, senior expert for investment of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), it is necessary to attach importance to systematic aspects when amending policies for ODA spending. He said that Vietnamese authorities should pay special attention to inspection tasks. The PMU 18 scandal occurred partly because of the weakness of the inspection and supervision methods.

Source: VietnamNet