Hindrances to ADP implementation

A national English daily, The Financial Express, in its 25 October issue reported that the government could implement only eleven per cent of annual development programme (ADP), in terms of its financial outlay, in the first quarter (Q1) of this fiscal, reflecting a disconcerting picture about the utilisation of the allocated funds, mostly in the form of foreign aid. It is common that the development agencies of the government those primarily implement the development projects could not implement ADPs in full in the past years. To find the main reasons of failure we have to look at the planning and implementation process of the annual development programme (ADP) from historical background. In 1971 when Bangladesh emerged as an independent country after bloody War of Liberation, virtually the civil and military bureaucracy were not organised that are indispensable to run public administration. Bangladesh had only a few civil officials above the rank of Deputy Secretary. Number of experienced managerial cadre officials required to operate commercial and industrial enterprises were indeed insignificant. Before the liberation most of the industries were run by non-Bengali people. They left Bangladesh just before liberation as they did not support independence of Bangladesh. The junior officials were posted in higher posts of civil administration. Different industrial units left by the non-Bengalis and nationalised commercial and industrial enterprises could not be managed effectively and efficiently as a result. After mid-seventies civil and military officials were posted to those industrial and commercial units and various other autonomous and semi-autonomous organisations, banks, authorities, boards and even statutory bodies. Those officials were also inexperienced in running commercial or industrial enterprises but as they were from disciplined bureaucracies they developed structured systematic management. With the passage of time, they were transferred to ministries. They developed some sorts of emotional belongingness with those enterprises, and as a result tried to keep control on those state organisations. As they were close to the local decision maker political authorities it was easy on their part to introduce different rules and regulations to control those field level development agencies and nationalised enterprises. During the last 40 years they centralised almost all decision making authorities to the ministries concerned and even to the cabinet. The existing rules of business and regulations overrule the authority given to the state owned organisations by statutes or presidential orders at the time of formation. The state owned organisations, in practice, thus lost essential autonomy and semi-autonomy character. For instance, an organisation even cannot allow its official to go abroad for inspection, training or meeting with the counter part required for the project. It needs permission from the ministry concerned. The major part of development budget of the government is mainly implemented by these organisations. As a result the nation has been experiencing that every year a significant portion of the development budget could not be implemented. Full implementation of the development budget is very important for the prosperity of the nation. It is recurring fact that the present public administration could not spend the whole development budget in any financial year since independence. The field level development agencies of the government that are entrusted with the responsibility of project implementation are not enjoying the freedom to render their responsibility. For example, Bangladesh Agriculture Development Corporation (BADC), Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), Department of Fisheries, Rajdhani Unnaian Katripakkha (Rajuk), Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (TCB), Bangladesh Bridge Authority (BBA), and Power Grid Company of Bangladesh (PGCB) etcetera are the development agencies of the government. Even after approval of a project by the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) and incorporation in the ADP the agencies cannot make decision to award a contract to a contractor or to a consultant when a project exceeds a certain amount of money. The limit is so small that almost all national projects require approval of the Cabinet Purchase Committee (CPC) to select a contractor or a consultant. The very name the Cabinet Purchase Committee is ridiculous. Why should cabinet work as purchaser? In fact after observing formalities of open tender procedure when a proposal is sent to CPC via the ministry concerned for approval, usually it takes more than a year, some times two years to have consent, advice, and review or rejection decision. In addition to the problem mentioned usually the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs takes three or more months to deliver its vetting. And it is mandatory for any public project to obtain vetting of the Law Ministry. Without positive opinion of Law Ministry a contract cannot be awarded. This detrimental excess time consuming procedure is one of the major factors of delayed project implementation that cause unusual delay for any project. It could easily be overcome if the government brings some changes to its present project implementation procedure, that is, delegate authority to the development agencies. Once a project is approved by ECNEC and is incorporated in the ADP the implementing agency should have the authority to prepare bid conditions, invite bid, evaluate bids and make decision to select or reject consultant and contractor, as the case may be on the basis of bid terms, received bid, award contract, sign contract, execute contract and make necessary payment, impose penalty and so on. Most of the development agencies are enough matured to perform satisfactorily the mentioned jobs. Law Ministry also causes delay. In order to save time legal vetting could be sought from veteran lawyers. Only the procedural change, that is, delegating enough authority to the development agencies of the government can expedite project implementation. Before making such a decision government can perform a few case studies for finding out factors responsible for unusual delay. However, it can be stated with confidence that delegation of authority will bring a qualitative change in the arena of implementation of development projects. It would reduce more than one year to a large project that would cause cost reduction as well. Delegation of authority would enable the project to be commissioned and operational on time. Otherwise the project adopted by one government has to be commissioned by the next government. The elected government should consider these significant factors responsible for huge delay of project implementation. Only delegation of authority to field agencies, commensurate to their responsibility can change the scenario. The ministry concerned needs to visit the site, monitor the status of implementation of the projects from time to time; investigate if any irregularities are committed and arrange necessary punishment to offenders, if offence is detected. The writer can be reached at email: mah120cb@yahoo.com