Country programme evaluation

Three insights

This Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) is an understanding among core partners in the Country Programme Evaluation to adopt and use the insights and recommendations from the evaluation in the preparation of IFAD's Country Strategy and Opportunities Paper (COSOP) for Sri Lanka and in designing new activities aimed at rural poverty alleviation, as well as in ongoing operations. The core partners included: the Government of Sri Lanka (represented by the Ministries of Finance and Planning, Plan Implementation, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, Women's Affairs and Samurdhi), the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the concerned (Central, North Central, North Western and Uva) Provincial Authorities, the IFAD-supported projects, NGO SEEDs, NGO Federations of Matale and Badulla, and IFAD (represented by the Asia and Pacific Division and the Office of Evaluation and Studies).

---

Proposal for grant-funded technical assistance for establishing an autonomous support mechanism for mobilising and promoting participation of the poor

The CPE observed that the approach adopted in IFAD-assisted projects for mobilising and promoting the participation of the rural poor was constrained in several ways, some of which were first pointed out in IFAD's 1993 Sri Lanka: Strategy Report. The most important areas are that:

• The government agencies engaged in project implementation are aimed at service delivery rather than empowering the poor. As a result, people's participation is sought for mainly meeting physical and financial targets rather than for harnessing their potential for poverty alleviation. And, while social capital is generally associated with voluntary association in civil society, in IFAD-assisted projects community organisations are used, in essence, as the lowest tiers of development administration.
• By virtue of its mandate and design, each government agency that is engaged in project implementation is limited to specific sectors and interventions, each working independently from others. By definition, therefore, a project being implemented by a number of agencies offers only a limited set of interventions to the poor, that are not co-ordinated nor complementary, thus not allowing for the required synergies to be created. The needs and sources of livelihood of the poor, on the other hand, represent a far greater range of activities than any one project has been able to address so far. While working with the poor requires a holistic approach, working primarily through the government leads to something considerably less.

• For purposes of budgeting and performance measurement, every agency included in a project requires a target that is defined strictly in terms of its sectoral mandate. Understandably, every agency strives to meet its own target but has no incentive to work in the same set of villages as another agency. Community development, on the other hand, often requires complementarity of effort across sectors in order to develop synergies between one investment and another.
• The undertaking of social mobilisation is not a core activity of government agencies. As for projects, when NGOs are engaged to undertake social mobilisation work, this is primarily perceived as an added activity rather than as a means to achieving empowerment of the poor. That is, NGOs are treated as contractors who are required to perform specific activities, rather than as partners in the development process. In addition, NGOs normally have expertise in specific sectors only and may not also be the best alternative for undertaking social mobilisation and building community participation that is required in the IFAD-type of multi-disciplinary interventions.

In searching for a solution to these problems, the CPE took note of several points made in the Sri Lanka Framework for Poverty Reduction that has been developed by the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) with the participation of development partners, the private sector and civil society organisations. In particular, the Framework speaks of the need for empowerment activities to shift to a "collaborative" approach to community-led development, one in which alliances would be formed between the poor and those who generate opportunities for development, including local government, the private sector and NGOs. The CPE noted the experience from socially stratified communities that the alliances into which the poor enter on their own turn out often to be unequal alliances. The poor are more likely to benefit, however, if the alliances they form with politicians, administrators, businesses and others are secured through the involvement of a credible "honest broker" committed to organising the poor, linking them to outsiders and securing their interest.

In view of this analysis, the CPE recommended the establishment, on a pilot basis in one province, of a self-governing non-profit body-an "honest broker"-for undertaking social mobilisation and community participation and promoting a holistic approach to poverty alleviation. Such a body would be formed on the basis of a strategic partnership, with representatives from the public and private sectors as well as those from civil society and other relevant development workers. Its management structure and operations would be strictly professional. It is believed that this type of organisation would contribute, in a more cost-efficient and effective manner, to promoting greater involvement of the rural poor in key stages of the development process.

Participants at the CPE Workshop held in July 2001 agreed that the organisation of the poor into voluntary people's organisations is important for rural poverty alleviation. The workshop recommended that the support mechanism proposed for facilitating the organisation of the poor on a large scale should be established through a process of dialogue with GOSL and other partners. It is also proposed that IFAD actively participates in establishing the governance structure, organisational framework and operational policies for the proposed entity, with particular attention to the following steps:

i) Identify potential "champions" among the political leadership and others in Sri Lanka who are willing to look at the best relevant examples in Sri Lanka and neighbouring countries and champion the establishment of the proposed organisation in at least one poor province.

ii) Through documentation and exchange visits, demonstrate the value of such a mechanism to relevant decision-makers, particularly demonstrating its neutrality, continuity, flexibility, responsiveness, scale, and ability to forge partnerships and linkages.

iii) With the help of the "champions" mobilise support from decision-makers, civil society, donors, academia, private sector, etc.

iv) Obtain agreement to proceed from relevant decision-makers.

v) Establish a non-partisan and credible governance structure.

vi) Develop a professional organisational framework and operational policies for the new entity that would elicit support from government, donors and civil society.

Inputs that would help undertake this process would include:

• IFAD's support and facilitation role in order to internalise, as appropriate, this proposal within the framework of the Sri Lanka Country Strategy and Opportunities Paper (COSOP);
• A suitable national or international group (NGO, international agency or consultants) that would organise and facilitate the process outlined above for IFAD and GOSL, and that would be provided with:
• Resources for preparing documentation on the best relevant IFAD-assisted and non-IFAD organisations in neighbouring countries, conducting "champions" to these organisations, holding stakeholder workshops in Sri Lanka, incorporating the proposed support mechanism, developing its operational policies and initiating its recruitment.

Proposal for an advisory (or thematic) study on decentralised development administration that is responsive to the poor

An autonomous support mechanism of the kind proposed above is one of the building blocks for pro-poor development recommended by the CPE and consistent with the Framework for Poverty Reduction. It is not, however, an institution that can replace the administrative and elected institutions whose decisions and resources play such an important part in the lives of the rural poor. Administrative institutions (including the line agencies) do not excel at social mobilisation, but they are the biggest repository of technical expertise and financial resources, particularly for public goods and services. Representative institutions do not organise households for broad-based participation in development, but they provide leadership in governance and thus have a strong impact on income generation and social development.

The CPE concluded that decision making by administrative and representative institutions need to function in an integrated and decentralised approach that could meet the needs of the poor, including the needs for participatory bottom-up planning, timely response and holistic development. Therefore, the CPE supports the Government's recommendation in its Framework for Poverty Reduction for local government to adopt transparent and participatory planning, resource allocation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation processes at the local level, and disseminate information to the public on local government revenues and expenditures. The CPE Workshop held in July 2001 emphasised that:

• Decentralisation will only be meaningful if the poor get organised and form coalitions and when empowered.
• The rural poor must play a central role in decentralisation, for which grassroots institution building and training is essential.
• Decentralisation is ideal if the poor can become decision-makers in the system.

Some of the requirements for meaningful decentralisation that follow from these points, particularly those dealing with the organisation of the poor, are best approached through the autonomous support mechanism proposed above. These are requirements that focus on the organisation and voice of the beneficiaries, the rural poor. There are, however, other aspects of pro-poor decision-making for which changes may be required in the way administrative and representative institutions work. The lack of a pro-poor orientation in the work of these institutions has been pointed out anecdotally in a number of formal and informal reports reviewed during the CPE. What is needed, however, is a systematic study that advises decision-makers in IFAD and GOSL of how particular processes work against the poor, and what could be done to make them pro-poor. The proposed study would review and build upon the recent work of the Asian Development Bank and the Finance Commission on provincial budgeting, planning and programme execution. With specific reference to the operational requirements of IFAD-supported activities in Sri Lanka, the proposed study will:

i) Focus on three selected provinces where IFAD-supported projects are currently under implementation, though relevant information from other provinces, projects and neighbouring countries would also be used for validation of findings and recommendations;

ii) Describe the planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes followed by the Central and Provincial Governments for development activities at the local level in the context of the three selected IFAD-supported projects;

iii) In each process, identify the role of various actors in decision making, the criteria employed for arriving at resource allocation decisions (during planning, budgeting and implementation), and the importance given directly or indirectly to the voice of the poor;

iv) Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the above-mentioned processes in relation to the interests of the poor and propose operational changes that would increase the participation of the poor in decision making and the benefits they obtain from public funds; and

v) Be undertaken at the latest by June 2003.

Inputs that would help the conduct of this study are expected to include:

• Staff and financial resources from IFAD and GOSL to enhance the relevance and ownership of the study.
• A suitable international-cum-national team that would carry out the study, and that would be provided with:
• Resources for operational and comparative analysis of pro-poor decentralisation initiatives based largely on review of literature, field work and stakeholder workshops at IFAD and in Sri Lanka.

Ideas for developing a consistent framework for pro-poor project management

The CPE observed that selected IFAD interventions have not always benefited the poorest, in part due to the nature of project design, some of which tended to exclude the poorest from participating in development activities. For example, in some projects, the Fund promoted the development of large agro-wells requiring an initial contribution from the beneficiaries for them to benefit from the intervention. The CPE noted that the poorest have often been bypassed in such development activities, as they have not been able to muster the necessary initial contribution. In other cases, projects rehabilitated irrigation schemes in areas where the poorest were not in possession of land. Likewise, the emphasis on women has been limited. In general, the participation of the underprivileged in planning, implementation and M&E needs strengthening.

In addition to the above, discussions at the CPE workshop in Colombo in July 2001 highlighted the need for IFAD and Government to work in partnership to jointly create assets for the landless and the poor. In this regard, Workshop participants suggested for IFAD to devote attention to estate workers and reflect on the possibilities of intervening in the conflict areas.

These and similar conclusions brought out in the CPE draw attention to the need for including the poor at various stages of the project cycle. It is recommended, therefore, that GOSL and IFAD work in partnership to strengthen the pro-poor orientation of IFAD-funded projects. In this regard, they would, identify investment opportunities that aim at creating assets to the benefit of estate workers and other landless households. In addition, GOSL and IFAD would work towards identifying suitable development opportunities for interventions in the conflict and in upland settlement (e.g., Mahaweli) areas. In both instances, particular attention would be given to three areas highlighted by the CPE, namely, better targeting of the poor, design of pro-poor interventions and monitoring the participation of and the impact on the poor. These three aspects of project management are highly inter-dependent and require, therefore, to be addressed within a single, internally consistent framework. The development of such a framework would be reflected in the Sri Lanka COSOP and initiated during a future project formulation exercise and completed in the early stages of implementation. It is expected that an improved (more pro-poor) framework would include the following elements:

• A methodology for identifying poor households in a community during project implementation. Cost-effective approaches employed for this purpose in Sri Lanka and neighbouring countries include wealth ranking and poverty assessments that involve villagers in identifying households that are destitute, very poor, poor, well-to-do and better off according to location-specific criteria.
• A participatory planning process for developing pro-poor interventions and ensuring the participation of the poor in a holistic manner, taking into account their integrated requirements at household, group and village levels.
• A methodology for monitoring the inclusion of identifiable groups of poor, during implementation, in the range of activities illustrated in the table given above and evaluating the impact on the poor at project mid-term and completion. In addition to cost-effective participatory approaches such as wealth ranking, the methodology should include sample surveys at the beginning, mid-point and conclusion of a project for assessing the poverty situation and impact in the project area.

It is expected that the conceptual basis of the framework would be elaborated during a future project formulation exercise and resources for implementation allocated at that time.