Delays in start-up of uplift projects mar achievement goals: ADB
FAISALABAD (October 09 2007): Asian Development Bank has observed that the rating of the technical assistance for "Streamlining procedures to reduce delays in the start-up of development projects" is unsuccessful because of its discontinuity and the TA's main outputs were not achieved.
According to ADB's Project Completion report, the dissemination and training workshops were not conducted nor was there any appetite by the EA to implement the initial proposals.
The TA provided useful inputs to EAD and P&DDs in identifying weaknesses and recommending a basic framework for streamlining post-approval procedures and reducing start-up delays for all development projects, including ADB funded projects. ADB assessment report noted that the issues identified were not new and the government had already cognised of the respective deficiencies and issues.
However, key investment in terms of systematic and sustainable capacity development of officials, training, and the provision of necessary office equipment are vital to affect any change of the prevailing situation.
According to report, project processing and implementation capacity continues to remain weak in Pakistan leading to implementation delays and sub-optimal utilisation of aid resources. Significant start-up delays of development projects adversely affect achievement of project goals, contribute to cost overruns, increase cost of borrowing, and result in poor development results. Asian Development Bank (ADB) financed projects have suffered perpetual start-up delays, in some cases averaging to over 2 years, mainly due to delayed loan effectiveness and the late setting-up/staffing of project management units (PMUs).
Such protracted delays adversely affect project implementation schedules, often resulting in extension requests of the loan closing date. Repeated transfers of the project directors, lack of qualified technical staff, poor accountability, and a complex decision-making process has also seriously affected project implementation.
Due to unfamiliarity with ADB's procurement procedures and lengthy approval formalities within the executing agencies (ESA), contract awards have been inordinately delayed resulting ultimately in delayed project benefits.
Pakistan government had requested ADB in 2004 to provide an advisory technical assistance for streamlining procedures to minimise delays at the start-up stage of development projects from the approval to the award of the first substantive contracts.
It was recognised that measures introduced to address start-up delays in ADB projects under the TA would have broader relevance in terms of addressing similar delays in all other development projects. Total cost of the TA was $570,000, financed on a grant basis by ADB's TASF ($450,000) and the government ($120,000). The TA was well formulated and was relevant to government needs, including well-drafted terms of reference adequately reflecting the assignment.
Commenting over the "Expected Impact, Outcome and Outputs", ADB report mentioned that the TA aimed to reduce excessive delays during the start-up phase of development projects by analysing processes and stakeholders' involvement, proposing recommendations, and initiating measures to minimise such hold-ups with the objective to increase efficiency and effectiveness of development assistance.
The TA also envisaged a critical evaluation of ADB's procedures, including a possible alignment with Government's protocols. The expected outcome of the TA was to strengthen the pre-approval project preparation capacity of the Government by developing a streamlined and monitoring system of internal clearances with all relevant stakeholders thereby saving time and money.
Expected outputs were (i) recommendations and an implementation plan for reducing start-up delays in projects through a comprehensive diagnostic study on the reasons for such delays, (ii) recommendations regarding systemic improvements in the Economic Affairs Division (EAD) and the foreign aid sections of the provincial planning and development departments (P&DDs) to increase their effectiveness in addressing start-up delays in projects, and (iii) capacity building for EAD and P&DDs to enable them to effectively monitor, facilitate, and follow-up with EAs and PMUs.
Commenting over the "Delivery of Inputs and Conduct of Activities", ADB report stated that initial inputs envisaged under this TA were to be provided during 18 months and included 54 person-months of consulting services (3 international and 51 domestic), 6 workshops at federal and provincial levels, formulation and operationalisation of a Management Information System (MIS) to track and monitor the status of development projects at the start-up stage, hands-on-training for selected key staff of EAD and P&DDs, and provision of equipment for EAD and P&DDs. To monitor the progress, a high level overseeing body was set up in EA, with Secretary EAD as the chair.
ADB report disclosed that the overall performance of the consultants was poor. Due to frequent changes of staff in charge, both in ADB and in EAD, there was a lack of continuity in the management and implementation of the TA. This situation was further aggravated when the selected Team Leader, who performed reasonably well, resigned shortly after submitting the diagnostic report. The selection process of the new Team Leader was stalled due to an insufficient response of interested parties and a lack of consensus between ADB and EAD on the selection of the best candidate.
The two institutional and capacity development specialists who were contracted after the team leader's departure continued their work and maintained some degree of continuity and momentum in absence of any team leader.
The EA appreciated the initial findings of the consultants as documented in inception and diagnostic reports, which highlighted major reasons for delays both caused by ADB and by the Government. The TA identified and documented the current Government systems and procedures used in ADB assisted projects - from project concept approval to loan effectiveness and contract awards - and compared its possible synergy and relevance with ADB's internal procedures. The TA suggested measures to curtail the processing times and streamlining institutional bottlenecks and made recommendations regarding a modification in protocols, increased capacity building, and systems' automation.
The key outputs of the TA were not achieved due to lack of ownership by the EA and a subsequent request for a major change in scope to avoid overlaps with other TAs of ADB and other donors, particularly in the wake of generous assistance to the Government following the October 2005 earthquake.
According to report, the timing and sequencing of the TA impeded its efficacy as there was an overlap with several other concurrent initiatives though it must be recognised that a one-time effort through a TA cannot achieve sustainable capacity development and a change in the mindset. There has to be a sustained, long-term programme by the Government that carries forward the work identified under the TA. The development of the proposed MIS needs specific expertise, and extra time, budget and, most importantly, training of relevant staff. The Government's commitment and regular monitoring of such efforts is essential for achievement of development impact and outcomes.
The key reasons for start-up delays are systemic and a TA may only highlight causal or contributing factors, that cannot per se be addressed through capacity building of a single agency or EA. Systemic re-engineering of Government functions would require a different incentive system for project staff and massive revisions in procedures and rules of business. On the same vein, changes to ADB's own procedures are beyond the scope of any TA. In conclusion, TAs cannot be a panacea for deep-rooted inefficiencies afflicting the public sector.
ADB pointed out that instead of addressing the project start-up delays through one-off TA(s) interventions, the critical systemic issues related to such hold-ups should be dealt with by (i) monthly portfolio reviews with EAD as practised by PRM since more than a year, (ii) harmonised project processing and implementation procedures of ADB and the Government, (iii) pragmatic project readiness filters including advanced procurement actions and setting-up of project implementation units at project fact-finding stage, and (iv) realistic project design and implementation arrangements with minimal loan effectiveness conditions. These efforts should be complemented through targeted and sustainable capacity development initiatives.
Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]