Results Matter September 2008
Enabling Environment of MfDR in Sri Lanka
By Richard Vokes, Country Director for Sri Lanka, ADB
The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of projects, programs, and development
initiatives of the government is not a new phenomenon in Sri Lanka. Efforts
to improve plan and project implementation have been a feature of development
efforts since the early 1970s. In 2005, the newly elected government decided
to establish a separate Ministry of Plan Implementation (MPI) charged with “Directing
and guiding all ministries and agencies at national and sub-national level to
implement development projects in an efficient, effective and result-oriented
manner to achieve the priority national development policies and programs.”
Separate planning staff engaged in M&E are stationed both at the center
and divisional secretariat offices covering the entire country. The introduction
of managing for development results (MfDR) has started with the MPI itself,
driven by a commitment and awareness of its top officials on MfDR and related
best management practices.
Figure 1: Enabling Environment of MfDR in Sri Lanka
Top-Level Commitment
One key feature of the Sri Lankan situation is the top level commitment. This
is evident from the demands of the Ministry of Finance and the MPI and senior
political leaders, not least, the President, for results. M&E reports need
to be sent to the cabinet quarterly and action plans formulated for underperformed
projects and programs. Also, there had been instances where funds allocated
for projects were reallocated to high-performing or new projects from projects
that are underperforming.
The government and development partners are also focusing on implementing the
initiatives of the Paris Declaration in Sri Lanka. The government has conducted
many awareness programs on Paris Declaration in the recent past. Both the government
and development partners have taken steps to implement its guidelines and to
ensure alignment of development activities and ownership of initiatives, enhance
accountability and effective management of resources, and improve decision making
for results, with regard to externally funded projects and programs. These activities
had also complemented and strengthened the efforts of the government in institutionalising
MfDR within government.
Pilot Institutions
Per the mandate, the MPI has started working with a few selected ministries
and one agency (National Water Supply and Drainage Board–NWSDB) on implementation
of MfDR under a pilot program and implementing a range of related initiatives,
such as awareness programs, formulation of vision, mission and results frameworks,
conduct of training programs, preparation of action plans, and monitoring the
implementation of MfDR action plans. These initiatives and activities appear
to be going well. This may reflect the fact that selection for the pilot included
those organizations that have in turn shown interest in the reforms and are
supportive of change initiatives. MPI is also introducing MfDR itself; therefore
the MPI is also a participatory organization under the ongoing pilot.
Enabling Factors
The factors discussed above provide a positive enabling environment
to effectively implement MfDR. Many positive factors, such as overarching policy,
information flow to departments, input flow to the departments, change management,
and MPI leadership and guidance, are present within the government system in
Sri Lanka. However, it is also essential to address other factors such as accountability,
manager’s freedom to manage, performance incentives, and use of performance
information, stakeholder participation and demand for results and external force
for change, favorable so that the impact of the initiatives will be greater
and sustainable. A large number of ministries formed in the system could also
create difficulties in coordinating and information creation and sharing. (See
Figure 2 for our assessment of readiness with regard to these factors.)
Figure 2
Implementation Challenges
There are some common challenges in instituting systems and processes for the
effective application of MfDR. These challenges include
- difficulty in changing attitudes,
- inadequate capacity in government agencies to effectively manage for results,
- difficulty in aligning organization culture and work patterns for results,
- difficulty in adopting better planning and budgetary systems that are supportive
of results-based development plans and country project portfolios,
- the need to implement systems that are closely monitored with the intention
of learning lessons, improving future plans, and altering behavior at work
for improving results. There is also a need to enhance project quality at
entry, reduce implementation delays, and improve portfolio management and
operational capacity and collecting, processing, interpreting and using statistical
inferences that can be used to inform decisions and support development agenda.
Therefore, it is critical that implementers address these issues to the fullest
extent possible so that a solid foundation for mainstreaming MfDR in government
will be laid. However, fully institutionalizing MfDR in government could take
up to 10 years.
View entire document
| Newsletter
archives | Subscribe
Topics 
Top of page
