Water Supply Schemes (continued)
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Efficiency What was the level of the
construction quality of the WS schemes?
3 50%
4= Construction quality meets high level standards 3= Construction quality meets expected standards in Vietnam in relation to the price of the works.
2= Construction fails to meet expected standards however it is accepted without major penalties.
1= Construction is very low quality and there are many disputes and penalties are applied.
Efficiency To what extent were the activities delivered in a timely manner?
2 25%
4= Projects were completed in accordance with the planned schedule, with minor exceptions.
3= Projects were completed in accordance with the planned schedule, with some exceptions.
2= Projects were completed in accordance with the planned schedule, but many extensions required 1= Projects abandoned due to cost/time overruns.
Efficiency Extent the unit cost/HH connecting to WS schemes was cost-efficient compare to similar programs in VN?
4 25%
4= significantly cheaper cost.
3= similar cost.
2= higher cost.
1= significantly higher cost Weighted Average 3 100%
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Sustainability To what extent are the
WS sustainable?
3 100%
4= WSCs able to provide WS on a sustainable basis with full cost recovery.
3= WSCs able to provide WS on a sustainable basis but not on a full cost recovery basis.
2= The mandated operator is able to provide WS but remains dependent on subsidies from PPC.
1= Infrastructure breaks, no water service Weighted Average 3.0 100%
Drainage and Sewerage Schemes
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Scoring Indicators
Impact 1A. What is the impact of the DS schemes on the health of people?
1B. What is the impact of DS in yards of HH?
Not Scored Not defined in the PD. Data is not disaggregated and do not have baseline for health Impact 2. What is the impact of the DS schemes on
the wider environment? For example, pollution in local water bodies or for irrigation of crops
Not Scored Not defined in the PD. There is no baseline data or EIA.
Effluent only tested twice.
Impact 3. What is the impact of DS schemes in the
centre of towns and/or for local business? Not Scored Not defined in the PD and there is no baseline data Weighted Average Impact Not Scored
Drainage and Sewerage Schemes (continued)
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators
Relevance 1. To what extent were separate sewers relevant to households and enterprises within the service
area of WSPST funded WS schemes? 1 50% 4= Very good 3= Good 2= Problems
1= Serious deficiencies Relevance 2. To what extent were separate sewers relevant
from the perspective of environmental protection? NS N/A
4= Very good 3= Good 2= Problems
1= Serious deficiencies Relevance 3. To what extent were separate sewers relevant
to the mandated operator of the DS schemes? 1 15%
4= Very good 3= Good 2= Problems
1= Serious deficiencies Relevance 4. To what extent were separate sewers relevant
to the Provincial People's Committee (PPC)? 1 15%
4= Very good 3= Good 2= Problems
1= Serious deficiencies Relevance 5. To what extent were separate sewers and
centralised wastewater treatment relevant to the
Vietnamese sector policies and priorities? 1 10%
4= Very good 3= Good 2= Problems
1= Serious deficiencies Relevance 6. To what extent were separate sewers relevant
to development cooperation policies of Finland? 2 10%
4= Very good 3= Good 2= Problems
1= Serious deficiencies Weighted Average Relevance 1.1 100%
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Effectiveness What % of households (HH) in the
WS service area have access to adequate sanitation?
1 100%
4 = >90% HH in WS service area have adequate sanitation
3 = >90% HH in DS service area are connected to DS
2 = >50% HH in DS service area are connected to DS
1 = <50% HH in DS service area are connected to DS
Effectiveness Quality of effluent discharged from
the wastewater treatment facilities? Not Scored
Not possible to score as most WWTPs have no effluent. Testing only done once by WSPST
Weighted Average 1 100%
Drainage and Sewerage Schemes (continued)
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Efficiency What was the level of design and
construction quality of the DS schemes?
1.6 50%
4= Construction quality meets high level standards
3= Construction quality meets expected standards in Vietnam in relation to the price of the works.
2= Construction fails to meet expected standards however it is accepted without major penalties.
1= Serious deficiencies in the design and/or construction lead to many dysfunctional DS schemes Efficiency To what extent were the activities
delivered in a timely manner?
2 50%
4= WSPST was implemented in accordance with plan/schedule.
3= The planned activities were completed in accordance with plan/
schedule with minor extensions 2= Phase III was required (almost equivalent to Phase II)
1= DS were abandoned due to cost and/or time overrun
Efficiency To what extent is the unit cost of a house connection to a DS scheme cost-efficient compared to similar projects in Class V towns in Vietnam?
Not Scored
No data available: there are no other separate sewers projects in Class V towns in Vietnam Weighted Average 1.8 100%
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Sustainability To what extent are constructed
separate sewers & wastewater treatment facilities sustainable?
1.5 100%
4= Mandated operator is able to undertake the required O&M and expand services if required.
3= Mandated operator is able to undertake the required O&M on a sustainable basis using revenue collected from users.
2= Mandated operator is able to operate the scheme but is highly dependent on subsidies from PPC.
1= Infrastructure collapses and DS services are abandoned.
Finnish Revolving Water Fund
DAC Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators
Impact Not Scored
Relevance To what extent is the concessional loan modality relevant to the WSC?
4 50%
4= Concessional loan modality was highly relevant in the past and it remains so from the perspective of the newly equitized WSCs
Effectiveness To what extent did the FRWF provide a model for the establishment of NRWF
Not Applicable
Unexpected Outcome: not possible to score as NWFR was cancelled by GOV as policy of concessional loans was switched to policy of equitizing Efficiency To what VDB developed its capacity to
process loan requests and payments in a timely manner?
2 25%
4= Points 3, plus procedures are updated to reduce time between request and payment.
3= Funds are disbursed with no significant time delays.
2= Funds are disbursed but with significant time delays.
1= Failure to disburse funds.
Sustainability To what extent was the FRWF set up as a sustainable instrument?
2 25%
4= Point 3, plus procedures are updated to reduce time between request and payment.
3= Funds are disbursed with no significant time delays.
2= Funds are disbursed but with significant time delays.
1= Failure to disburse funds.
Weighted Average 3 100%
Cross-cutting Themes
Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Gender
Equality and Women &
Girls’ Rights
To what extent has gender equality and women and girls' rights been mainstreamed in WSPST?
2 35% 4= Gender mainstreamed or transformative 3= Gender sensitive
2= Gender aware 1= Gender blind
See Appendix 13 for a description of the indicators HRBA To what extent has
HRBA been mainstreamed in WSPST?
2 35%
1= Blind 2= Sensitive 3= Progressive 4= Transformative
In the categories, taking into account: (1) services are free to beneficiaries or the costs are affordable (affordability), (2) the services are available at a reasonable distance (availability), (3) the technologies used are acceptable to the users and the facilities are of adequate quality to meet the needs of the
beneficiaries (acceptability), (4) services are accessible to the final beneficiaries (accessibility).
See Appendix 14 for a description of the indicators Environment To what extent
have environmental considerations been mainstreamed in WSPST?
2 30%
4= WSPST caused no negative environmental effects or the effects were mitigated; environmental risk assessment procedures existed and were fully
followed; the capacity of local communities to manage environmental risks was developed; WSPST
contributed to long-term environmental sustainability and resilience of the beneficiary communities.
3= WSPST caused some negative environmental effects and they have been only partially mitigated;
environmental risk assessment procedures existed to some extent; the capacity of local communities to manage environmental risks was developed but with some shortcomings; WSPST did not contribute to long- term environmental sustainability and/or the resilience of the beneficiary communities.
2= WSPST caused minor negative environmental effects and these have not been mitigated; risks of future contamination exist but effects are likely to be small; environmental risk assessments existed only on paper but not in practice; local communities were not engaged in the management of environmental risks.
1= WSPST caused severe negative effects to the environment and they have not been mitigated. There is a risk of severe future contamination. There were no procedures in place to ensure environmental
sustainability of the intervention Weighted Average 2.0 100%
Aid Effectiveness
Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Coherence To what extent has
WSPST contributed to implementation of other elements/
projects in the country programme or the transition strategy, including the private sector and civil society cooperation?
2 20%
4= The contribution of WSPST to the implementation of other elements/projects in Finland's country programme and/or transition strategy, including private sector cooperation, was a key factor in Finland's development cooperation in Vietnam.
3= Several concrete examples of WSPST contribution to the implementation of other elements/ projects in the country programme or the transition strategy, including private sector cooperation.
2= A few minor examples of WSPST contributing to the implementation of other elements/projects in the country programme or the transition strategy exist, including private sector cooperation
1= WSPST has not at all contributed to the implementation of other elements/projects in the country programme or the transition strategy, nor private sector cooperation.
Complemen-
tarity To what extent has WSPST been complementary with other donor- funded water and sanitation projects in Vietnam?
4 20%
4= The design of WSPST took into account the location of similar efforts supported by other donors and no geographical duplication existed with other donor-funded water and sanitation programmes; WSPST maintained its
complementary role throughout the implementation period.
3= The design of WSPST took into account the location of similar efforts supported by other donors but WSPST was only partially able to adopt to the changing context in the water and sanitation sector in Vietnam, leading to minor duplication of efforts during implementation.
2= The design of WSPST did not take into account the location of similar efforts supported by other donors; some action was taken to rectify the situation, but important duplication of efforts remained in the implementation.
1= The design of WSPST did not take into account the location of similar efforts supported by other donors and no efforts were made during implementation to re-focus the intervention area, which led to duplication of efforts in isolation from other relevant actors.
Coordination To what extent has WSPST
coordinated, collaborated and shared information with different partners and stakeholders?
3 20%
4= WSPST coordinated, collaborated and shared information with key partners and stakeholders throughout programme
implementation; in addition, joint financing or other concrete and formal efforts formed an important part of the intervention.
3= WSPST coordinated, collaborated and shared information with key partners and stakeholders throughout programme
implementation through established mechanisms and/or on cases with clear objectives.
2= Coordination was mainly based on ad hoc informal exchanges.
1= WSPST operated largely in isolation from key stakeholders.
Mutual
Accountability To what extent has WSPST promoted mutual
accountability?
2.3 20%
4= Rapid Transparency Assessment in category "strong"
3= Rapid Transparency Assessment in category "above average"
2= Rapid Transparency Assessment in category "below average"
1= Rapid Transparency Assessment in the category "weak"
Ownership To what extent were infrastructure projects delivered using existing country systems (and avoiding creating parallel structures)?
2 20%
4 = WSPST delivered its infrastructure projects entirely through existing country systems. WSPST staff had only an advisory role.
3= WSPST delivered its infrastructure projects entirely through existing country systems. WSPST staff had a role for ensuring quality through approvals of different steps of implementation.
2= WSPST delivered its infrastructure projects entirely through existing country systems. However, implementation was led by WSPST staff leaving a passive role to the project owners and other key Vietnamese actors.
1= WSPST infrastructure projects were implemented fully outside existing country systems, laws and procedures.
Weighted Average 2.7 100%
Efficiency of Programme Steering
DAC
Criteria Evaluation Question Score Weight Scoring Indicators Efficiency To what extent did
the WSPST Steering Committee provide direction (to project investors/owners)
and solve problems? 2 40%
4= Successes and challenges feed into the policy dialogue and strategic decisions, in addition to 3.
3= Meetings include proactive problem solving, options and different solutions discussed, plus performs minimum functions expected from SC
2= Complied with minimum functions of the SC
1= Failed to perform minimum functions of the SC (regular meetings, recording meeting minutes, making decisions and approving plans/reports)
Efficiency To what extent was Embassy of Finland [Water Advisor, Head of Cooperation and Ambassador]
able to represent MFA and supervise the International TA
2 10%
4= Leads sector debate with GoV outside the SC, organises relevant events with GoV and other key stakeholders, regular policy dialogue, plus level 3
3= Active intervention at SC meetings, influences specific decisions on WSPST, active participation in donor coordination, support other sector influencers.
2= Attend SC meetings, but passive in participation, and fails to properly supervise the international TA consultants 1= Fails to regularly attend SC meetings and fails to properly supervise the international TA consultants Efficiency Performance of TA
Consultants for Water Supply
2 20%
4= In addition to the elements described in score 3=
Deliver added value beyond the contractual expectations, e.g. support to the Embassy on policy dialogue and strategy analysis, identify future sector trends in the national and international context.
3= Deliver expected outputs within agreed times, outputs meet quality standards, important issues are taken to the SC (e.g. release of local budget and other issues outside the control of the TA), proactive risk management to mitigate negative impacts and presentation of innovative solutions to the identified problems, translating examples from other countries into potential solutions in the country context.
2= Outputs to the expected quality standards. When obstacles outside the influence of the TA were encountered (e.g. time delays related to counterpart contributions, payment of invoices, etc.), they were recorded and reported to the Steering Committee and/or Embassy of Finland.
1= Failed to deliver effective works, failed to recognise and report the proposed solution is not appropriate for Vietnam or the specific locality.
Efficiency Performance of TA Consultants for
Sanitation 1.5 20%
As above for International TA Consultants (WS)
Efficiency Extent that VDB performed its role as an independent entity able to approve/reject business plans?
2 10%
4= VDB made loans based on financial feasibility with some schemes rejected.
3= VDB carries out full appraisals as an independent body, records objections, but approves all proposals.
2= VDB approves loans on basis of state subsidy.
1= VDB did not approve any loans Weighted Average 1.9 100%