Editorial
ADP fund utilisation chaos
Call it a non-development plan!
With almost religious regularity, annual development programmes (ADPs) are shot in their feet. They have been non-starters in most parts and almost invariably very poor finishers. The way their anomalies and contradictions are coming to light, both through official and unofficial analytical studies, leaves us wondering whether an ADP is a development blueprint or an engine of non-development!The parliamentary standing committee on planning ministry has confirmed some long held impressions among experts. Scrutinising the spending pattern of the ADP, FY 2003-04 it has found out that the last quarter of a financial year is marked by a flurry of development activism. As many as 23 ministries spent 40-77 percent of their respective allocations in the last quarter, the remainder being thinly distributed over the previous nine months of a year. Such delayed and concentric expenditure of money in bulk over an unwieldy set of projects can only open the door to corruption and misuse of funds. The quality of projects is suspect and while financial targets may have been shown as implemented, physical targets are far from fulfilled. What is also tragic is that as many as 11 ministries failed to utilise 29 to 79 percent of their allocations. The misuse of funds and their non-utilisation make a sad commentary on the state of affairs we have allowed to continue by way of ADP mismanagement. The procedures remain, or shall we say are kept, cluttered. As for the hectic pace of utilisation in the last quarter, the planning ministry's explanation is a study in deliberate nonchalance. The funds were not released in the first quarter and the second quarter was taken up by preparatory process leaving the last three years for the mad horse of project spendings to gallop. An interesting footnote to the strange tale is this: Since the bills got paid in the last quarter development activism perforce heavily concentrated in that period! Is this a plan? We have so far known political influence-peddling behind project selection and siting, revision of projects, complicated procurement procedures, slow pace of donor fund release to be reasons for under implementation of ADPs. But now it seems that there are organic deficiencies, rather fundamental structural drawbaks. The ministries hardly have any implementation machinery and the planning ministry's supervision has been sloppy. We can suggest two anti-dotes : first, the procedures will have to be streamlined across the board by a task force of planners and experts. Secondly, each ministry should have a designated implementation apparatus. Thirdly, the Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) of the planning commission which currently supervises 10 percent of the total number of projects should be well-manned and activated so as to monitor and evaluate the whole lot of projects on an ADP.
|
|
