KATHMANDU, SEP 10 -

The 10th Nepal Portfolio Performance Review (NPPR) that kicked off on Thursday witnessed both agreements and disagreements between government representatives and donors when it came to assessing the performance of development projects.

The two sides—government and the donors—had opposing views on some issues but had a common understanding on most of the issues affecting the progress of development programmes.

The donors’ main concerns were excessive politicisation of the bureaucracy that has resulted in frequent transfer of government employees, delay in appointments of chiefs of constitutional bodies and local bodies and less political attention on development planning.

Government officials, however, complained that the donors’ strict terms and conditions were major reasons for the low spending from the donors’ resources. They highlighted progress made in two projects—Mid-Hill Highway and Sikta Irrigation Project—stating that fewer conditions in the government-funded projects were key to the projects that witnessed faster progress. “These projects have made very good progress,” said Finance Secretary Rameshwor Khanal reviewing last year’s budget. “But there hasn’t been desired progress in the donor-funded projects.”

Finance Ministry officials said projects like the Rural Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project aimed at carrying forward post-conflict reconstruction, Flood Rehabilitation Project aimed at rehabilitating victims of Koshi floods and construction of bridge over the Koshi river in Chatara—has failed to move forward due to donors’ strict conditions.

The government officials suggested comparative analysis of donor-funded and government-funded projects to draw a workable strategy for future project implementation. “Let us bring up a comparative chart of government-funded and donor-funded projects to see the results,” said Jagadish Chandra Pokhrel, vice-chairman of National Planning Commission.

The issue of timely reimbursement from donors on projects in which they have pledged support was also raised by the government side. Finance Minister Pandey himself urged the donors to ensure that reimbursements are made. “Reimbursement is far from satisfying so I would like to seek development partners’ sincere efforts on this,” he said. 

Donors sought full development of the next development plan with a robust and transparent result framework. They also sought commitment from the government for a genuine dialogue with donors that is open and transparent. “Stronger leadership from the government: to drive forward national programmes and change in critical areas such as in the renewable energy sector,” said Sarah Sanyahumbi, chief of the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). “Central to our considerations would be the progress made in lasting and inclusive political settlement.”

However, both sides agreed on most of the issues related to four topics—human resource development, public procurement, public financial management and monitoring and evaluation—being discussed in the NPPR.

On the donors’ grudge of frequent transfer of government employees, the government officials could not defend themselves because the government has been failing to ensure a two-year stay of government staff at a place as per the Civil Service Act. Data at the Ministry of General Administration (MoGA) also illustrate why donors are complaining about frequent staff transfer. According to the MoGA, in an average, 97 percent of transfers in Special Class position have been done in less than 24 months of office holding and 75 percent transfer cases fall below two years in case of first class officers.

Susan Goldmark, country director of World Bank questioned the size and quality of staff of the government. Stating that only 15 percent fall in the gazetted class (professional staff), Goldmark said, “43 percent of professional staff and 26 percent of total staff are concentrated in Kathmandu.”

She pointed out the crunch of technical staff stating that there is lack of skilled manpower in public finance management, procurement and monitoring. The World Bank suggested ensuring compliance of non-transfer for two years and considering increasing the term for 3-5 years.

As in the last NPPR, the donors’ major concerns in public procurement were collusion, coercion and intimidation during bid submission and weak procurement capacity of local bodies. Lauding the e-bidding started by the government last year, Asian Development Bank (ADB)’s country director Barry Hitchcock urged the government to implement phased e-bidding. Hitchcock, however, asked the government to enhance the capacity of Public Procurement Monitoring Office. To ensure transparent and fair outcomes, Hitchcock suggested possible role of third parties in the monitoring. “We could think of a possible role of third parties—perhaps NGOs—in the monitoring of contracts awarded,” said Hitchcock.

There was a common concern over the current budget and planning system and delay in budget implementation. The NPPR report prepared by the government has admitted that budget execution is being delayed due to complex processes. “The pace of expenditure is uneven with 60 percent of spending taking place in the last two months of the fiscal year, especially capital budget,” the report said.

The government also admitted that most of the monitoring and evaluation units in the ministries are under-funded, and under-staffed and lack capable human resources. The government has, however, said that it has started providing separate resources for this.

Government

    Donors’ conditions posed problems

    Delay in reimbursement in donor-funded projects

    Government-funded projects faring better

Donors

    Corruption is on the rise

    Frequent transfer of staff

    Lack of skilled manpower

 

Posted on: 2010-09-10 09:12

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.