Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Diagnostic Study On Pub Investment Management-2 Nov 2011
Diagnostic Study On Pub Investment Management-2 Nov 2011
31 October 2011
Contents
Abbreviations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Selected References
Official Documents and Reports consulted
Annex-1: Delegation of powers for project approval in India
_____________________________________________________________________
Component-4
Strengthening Public Expenditure Management Program (SPEMP)
Deepening Medium Term Budgeting Framework (MTBF) and
Strengthening Financial Accountability Project3
Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh
1
This draft report has been prepared by Tarun Das, Technical Expert (C3.4 and C4) under the
supervision of C4 Adviser Sadiq Ahmed. The diagnostic surveys were conducted jointly by Tarun Das
and the C3.4 National Consultants S. M. Shahjahan, M. A. Muktadir Mazumder and Nargis Islam, and
C4 National Consultants Selim Raihan, Sarwar Jahan, Bidisha Haque and Bazlul Haque Khondoker
under the strategic guidance and supervision of Sadiq Ahmed, Adviser (C4); Ahsan Mansur, Policy
Adviser and Paul Nankivel, Project Manager.
2
Authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the GED, Programming Division and Sector
Divisions of the Planning Commission, IMED and the Planning Wings of the Ministries of Agriculture,
Education, Primary and Mass education, Communications, Power, Energy and Mineral Resources for
participating in discussions and providing relevant data and information to our Questionnaires.
3
PDP Australia PTY Ltd., DMTBF Project Office, 6th Building, 21st Floor, Bangladesh
Secretariat, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
ABBREVIATIONS
ADB
ADP
ADPRC
BANBEIS
BCC
BMB
BMC
BMRC
BPR
BR
BWG
CAO
CGA
CAMPE
CPTU
DPEC
DMFAS
DPHE
DPP
DPR
DSHE
EAD
EC/ NEC
EFA
EMIS
ERD
FABA
FD
FM
FSMU
GAP
GED
GoB
HR
iBAS
ICT
IMED
IMF
IRD
KPI
LMs
M&E
MBF
MEW
MIS
MOE
MOF
MOPME
MOU
MTBF
NEC
NEP
NGO
NSAPR
NSD
P&T
PC
PD
PEC
PFF
PM
PW/C
PWD
RADP
RTPP
RHD
SAE
SBP
SD
SMP
SP
SPEMP
TA
TC
TDMW
TNA
TOR
TPP
TSA
TYRIP
Memorandum of Understanding
Medium Term Budget Framework
National Economic Council
National Education Policy
Nongovernment Organization
National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty reduction
National Savings Directorate
Posts & Telegraphs
Planning Commission
Programming Division
Program Evaluation Committee
Public Finance Foundation
Prime Minister
Planning Wing/ Cell
Public Works Department
Revised Annual Development Program
Revised Technical Assistance Project Proforma
Roads and Highways Department
Self Accounting Entities
Strategic Business Plan
Sector Division
Social Management Plan
Strategic Plan
Strengthening Public Expenditure Management Project
Technical Assistance
Technical Committee
Treasury and Debt Management Wing
Training Needs Analysis
Terms of Reference
Technical Assistance Project Proforma/ Proposal
Treasury Single Account
Three Year Rolling Investment Plan
Diagnostic Methodology for Business Process Design and Analysis, pp.1-12, prepared by Component
C5, DMTBF Project, Ministry of Finance, Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, December 2010.
5
Templates for Training Needs Assessment, pp.1-4, prepared by Component-9, DMTBF Project,
Ministry of Finance, Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, February 2011.
Different steps for the public investment management include the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Project conceptualization
Project design
Project preparation
Project approval
Project implementation
Project monitoring
Project evaluation
Project review
Result based monitoring and evaluation
According to the World Bank Policy Research Working Paper entitled A Diagnostic Framework for
Assessing Public Investment Management, prepared by A. Rajaram, T. M. Le, N. Biletska, and J.
Brumby (2010), there are eight distinct phases of a project starting with project design and ending with
project evaluation as indicated in the following flow chart:
Project Preparation, Processing, Approval and Revision Procedures for Public Sector, pp.1-90,
Planning Commission, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, 2008
Ministry/
Division/
Agencies
responsible
Investment Projects
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
Time limit
Planning Wing/
Cell of the
Executive
Agency
Executive
Agency (EA)
As directed by LM or
initiated by the
Executive Agency
Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
In 20 copies within 10
working days of the
receipt of DPP from
the EA
Relevant sector
division of the
PC
Within 15 working
days of the receipt of
DPP from SM/D
Sector Division
of PC
Within 15 working
days of the receipt of
DPP from LM/DIV
Within 10 working
days
Sector Division
of PC
As directed by LM
Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Sector Division
of PC
Within 15 working
days
Sector Division
of PC
Within 10 working
days
Within 10 working
days
Ministry/
Division/
Agencies
responsible
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
Executive
Agency (EA)
Planning Cell of
Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Time limit
Investment Size
Processing
Authority
Planning Wing
in the Line
Ministry
(i) TA Project
Up to TK 7 Cr.
(US$ 1.00 M)
(ii) Survey/
Feasibility Study
(i) TA Project
Up to TK 2 Cr.
(US$294,000)
Above TK 7 Cr.
(US$ 1.00M)
(ii) Survey/
Feasibility Study
Above TK 2 Cr.
(US$294,000)
(iii) Investment
Project
All Investment
projects
Up to TK 25 Cr.
Respective
Wing/ Sector
Division in the
Planning
Commission.
Level of
Approving
Authority
Minister, LM /
Division on the
basis of
recommendation
from DSPEC8
Planning
Minister on the
basis of sectoral
evaluation and
recommendation
from PEC9/
SPEC10.
Timeframe
30 working
days
30 working
days for the
Ministry; and
45 working
days for the
Planning
Commission
Above TK 25 Cr.
Departmental Special Project Evaluation Committee (DSPEC) chaired by the Secretary, Ministry/
Division comprises Joint Chief/ Deputy Chief of the concerned Ministry/ Division, Representatives of
Concerned Wing/ Sector-Division of PC, GED, Programming Division, FD, ERD, IMED, Ministries of
Establishment, Environment and Forest, Women and Children Affairs, Head of the concerned
Executing Agency as Members.
9
Project Evaluation Committee (PEC) chaired by the concerned Member of the PC comprises Chief
of the concerned Division of the PC, representatives from the GED and the Prog. Division in the PC,
FD and ERD of MOF, sponsoring LM, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED),
Ministries of Establishment, Environment and Forest, Women and Children Affairs, and Head of the
concerned Executive Agency as Members.
10
Departmental Project Evaluation Committee (DPEC) chaired by the Secretary of the concerned
Ministry/ Division comprises Joint Chief/ Deputy Chief of the concerned Ministry/ Division,
Representatives of Concerned Wing/ Sector-Division of PC, GED, Programming Division, FD, ERD,
IMED, Ministries of Establishment, Environment and Forest, Women and Children Affairs, Head of the
concerned Executing Agency as Members.
11
The Planning Commission (PC) prepares and circulates procedures and general
guidelines12 for preparation, appraisal and approval of projects. Line Ministries
and Divisions are required to submit project proposals in the prescribed format
of Development Project Proforma/ Proposal (DPP) and Revised DPP (RDPP)
for Development Projects, and Technical (Assistance delete) Project Proforma/
Proposal (TPP) and Revised TPP (RTPP) for Technical Assistance Projects
funded by the donors.
2.
Ideas and concept of project/ programme originate from many sources like the
LM, donors, on-going project manager, implementing division/agencies etc.
But, the main responsibility of preparation of programme/ project through DPP
and RDPP for Development Projects and TPP and RTPP for Technical
Assistance Projects remains with the implementing divisions/ agencies.
The Planning Wings/ Cells (PW/Cs) of the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies collect the
primary data and information and undertake the basic tasks of ex-ante and expost appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of projects. The concerned Sector
Division of the PC re-examines the project proposals for final submission to the
PEC/ ECNEC in the process of approval.
4.
The responsibility of basic project appraisal was transferred from the PC to the
respective Divisions/ Agencies long ago resulting enhanced responsibilities of
the LMs/Divisions/ Departments/ Agencies for initial project appraisal. This
required intensive training of the PW/C officials on project/ programme
conceptualization, preparation, appraisal, review, monitoring and evaluation in
order to enable them to perform professionally and independently, but the
desired capacity building has not happened over the years until date.
Consequently, the actual techno-economic-financial-environmental appraisal of
the projects/ programmes is mostly done by the consultants. Project preparation
and appraisal are done by the in-house experts in only a few technical Agencies.
5.
6.
Too many projects are received from the Line Ministries/ Division for
processing by the Sector Division which does not have sufficient staff and time
to make rigorous cross-check, recheck and scrutiny of project proposals and
appraisals. Some rationalization is required on the number of project proposals
12
Project Preparation, Processing, Approval and Revision Procedures for Public Sector, pp.1-90,
Planning Commission, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, 2008
10
8.
9.
LM/ Division has to send the project proposals for approval to in PC ( PEC
delete ) after recommendations ( approval delete ) by the DPEC. LM Secretary
is the Chairman of the DPEC, and the other representation in the DPEC is
almost the same as that of the PEC. But the DPEC or the LM Minister does not
have any power for approval of any development projects / programmes.
10.
In the case of TPP (TAPP delete ), the minister for planning can approve
project/programme without any investment limit while LM minister has the
authority to approve proposal up to TK 70 million. Delegation powers 13,
investment limits and procedures need to be examined and reviewed to reduce
time taken for project appraisal and to reduce project costs due to time overruns.
In India, even the Secretaries and the Ministers of the Line Ministries /
Departments14 can approve public investment projects up to a certain financial
limit prescribed by the government and only mega projects go to the Public
Investment Board (PIB) for approval.
13
It is understood that the NEC has already approved higher delegation limits for project appraisal by
the LMs and PEC and the revised circular is in the process of preparation.
14
Departments in India are equivalent to Divisions in Bangladesh. For delegation of powers for project
appraisal in India, see Annex-1.
11
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
(10)
Member
Secretary
The Steering Committee may co-opt any other member, if and when necessary, and has
the following Terms of Reference (TOR):
(a) To review the progress of the project
(b) To give decision on matters which PIC cannot resolve
(c) To advice on policy issues and technical matter
12
For example, the compositions of two Project Steering Committees are indicated below:
(a) Composition of the Project Steering Committee for Construction of KhulnaMongla Port Rail Line proposed to be executed by Bangladesh Railways
(1) Secretary, Roads and Railway Division, MOC
(2) Representative from Indian High Commission
(3) Additional Secretary, ERD
(4) Additional Secretary, FD, MOF
(5) Division Chief (Physical Infrastructure), PC
(6) Director General, BR
(7) Chief Engineer, Roads and Highways
(8) Chief Engineer, Bridge Authority
(9) Project Director, Padma Bridge Construction Project
(10)
Joint Chief, Roads & Railway Division, MOC
(11)
Project Director (ENC/P)
? No representative from IMED
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Secretary
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Secretary
Chairman/Convener
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Secretary
PIC can co-opt any other member as and when needed and has the following TOR:
(a) To monitor and supervise the progress for smooth implementation of the
project
(b) To solve problems faced at the time of implementation
13
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Secretary
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Secretary
14
15
In February 2011, the Planning Minister launched the software and said "The long-practiced manual
process of getting and publishing monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annual reports of different
ministries and departments will come to an end through the introduction of the software. It will also help
to get the project development reports by the third day of every month." Addressing the programme,
16
Comparison of
Planned/ Budgeted
Planned/Budgeted inputs
With Actual
Actual inputs
Efficiency
Planned outputs
Actual outputs
Effectiveness
Planned outcomes
Actual outcomes
The result based M&E system moves beyond the traditional input based M&E and can
help policy makers analyze outcomes and impacts. It is a powerful public management
tool that can be used by the governments to demonstrate accountability, transparency and
results. Result-based monitoring and evaluation provides solid knowledge base for
formulation of future development projects. The system can also bring about major
political and cultural changes in the public operations and organizations leading to
improved performance, increased accountability, transparency, learning and knowledge.
In the specific context of Vision 2021 and the Sixth Five Year Plan, a results-based M&E
will be critical to helping the Government track and monitor progress with
implementation of the respective targets and take corrective actions in time. Accordingly,
draft the Sixth Plan has proposed specific steps to move towards a results-based M&E.
IMED secretary Mohammad Habib Ullah Majumder said that all the government offices would now send
their reports to the IMED through internet and it would publish those online.
16
Outputs mean the actual deliverables i.e. the final goods and services provided to external clients
(the community or a section of the community) from the activities, programmes and projects carried
out by departments/agencies.
17
Outcomes of a project/ program mean short to medium term concrete benefits provided to the
community or clients, after the project implementation.
17
Purpose and power of M&E in economic planning and political economy can be
easily perceived from Box 1.1.
Box 1.1: The Power of Measuring Results
If you do not measure results, you cannot tell success from failure.
If you cannot see success, you cannot reward it.
If you cannot reward success, you are probably rewarding failure.
If you cannot see success, you cannot learn from it.
If you cannot recognize failure, you cannot correct it.
If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.
Source: Reinventing Government by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, AddisonWesley Publication Co., 1992, 427 pages.
The World Bank Handbook on Result-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System has
proposed adoption of a 10-step model as presented in the above Figure. These steps
include the following:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
18
IMED has been strengthened significantly under this project. IMED has prepared a
Five Year Strategic Plan (2008-2013) with Vision, Mission, Strategic Goals and
Objectives, Organizational Change Management, and concrete action plans until the
end of 2013. Citizens Charter has been prepared and put on the IMED website for
transparency and information of all stakeholders. Standard Formats have been
developed for preparation of monthly, quarterly, annual and terminal implementation
reports for the ongoing projects. There are separate detailed progress reports for top
ten Ministries.
Despite these progresses on monitoring and evaluation by IMED, our diagnostic study
indicates that the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies need further strengthening of their
information and communications technology (ICT) and training on Project Monitoring
and Evaluation of Project Implementation. The result-based monitoring and evaluation
system is absent for practical purpose in the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies. Although there
are detailed formats for monitoring and evaluation of the ongoing projects and to prepare
the terminal reports after the completion of a project, there are no detailed guidelines and
manuals on result based monitoring and evaluation.
19
including the Finance Ministry, all sector Divisions of the Planning Commission, and
projects implementing Ministries, Divisions, Agencies are engaged in consultation
process for the formulation of ADP.
Full utilization of limited resources is an absolute necessity for economic
development. Proper formulation of projects and timely implementation of them is
crucial for this. There are elaborate procedures for preparation of ADP and allocation
of resources among the development projects by the programming Division on the
basis of information provided by the Planning Wings of the LMs/ Divisions/
Agencies, sector Divisions of the PC, IMED, ERD, FD
Poverty reduction, employment creation, food security, Human Resource
Development (HRD) and development of poor/backward areas are given priority in
the ADP. For rural development, agriculture and non-agriculture self-employing
livelihood projects, SME (Small & Medium Enterprise) and rural infrastructure
projects are given priority. In power and energy sector, gas and coal based electricity
generation, renewable energy like solar, biogas and wind power are given priority. In
transport and communication railway, waterway and road network development and
ICT (Information and Communication Technology) projects are given priority.
Issues on the preparation of the Annual Development Programme (ADP)
(1) Guidelines issued by the Programming Division to the LMs for preparation of
ADP and allocation of funds are not only very brief but also contradictory to
some extent and need to be reviewed; and detailed Manual needs to be
prepared.
(2) Programming Division of PC finalizes ADP and puts up for consideration and
approval of NEC in April-May. Subsequently, a Revised ADP is prepared for
investment projects, technical assistance projects and JDCF projects.
(3) After ADP is finalized in May, FD has the responsibility of combining both
development budget and non-development budget and reclassifying
expenditure under capital and revenue. FD faces time constraint for this
responsibility.
(4) ADP Formats require allocated expenditure (decomposed into capital and
revenue) for the current year (2010-2011) and the forthcoming budget year
(2011-2012) for all projects. But, such information is not provided for 4
forward years. Therefore, ADP information is not sufficient to prepare MTB.
(5) ADP classification into sectors/ sub-sectors is not the same as the FD sector
classifications. Lack of uniformity of classifications creates problems for
effective monitoring and evaluation of outputs of various sectors and subsectors. These classifications need to be aligned with each other (if not made
uniform) for effective integration of development and non-development
budgets into total budget.
(6) There are too many projects included in the ADP which creates problems for
implementation monitoring and evaluation (see Tables 7.1 and 7.2). Some
20
SL. NO.
Investment
a
b
c
d
e
Technical
a
b
c
d
e
JDCF
a
b
c
d
e
Classification of Projects
Up to one year
1+ to 2 years
2+ to 3 years
3+ to 5 years
More than 5 years
Up to one year
1+ to 2 years
2+ to 3 years
3+ to 5 years
More than 5 years
Up to one year
1+ to 2 years
2+ to 3 years
3+ to 5 years
More than 5 years
Total :
Number of Projects
69
24
22
21
2
7
3
3
1
1
1
77
Total Cost)
20939
5951
4907
8751
1331
148
34
12
2
13
13
21100
(7)
(8)
Table-7.2 Life span and size of old Projects included in ADP for FY2011-12
Classification of Projects
SL. NO.
Investment
f
Up to two year
g
2+ to 3 years
h
3+ to 5 years
i
More than 5 years
Sub-Total :
Technical
f
Up to two year
g
2+ to 3 years
h
3+ to 5 years
i
More than 5 years
Sub-Total :
JDCF
f
Up to two year
g
2+ to 3 years
h
3+ to 5 years
i
More than 5 years
Sub-Total :
Total :
Number of Projects
21
(Taka in Crore)
Total Cost
196
197
220
152
765
32459
40734
66856
75734
215783
26
20
70
20
136
612
373
3128
4741
8854
13
29
15
4
61
962
454
3326
1167
2626
7574
232211
8. Major Recommendations
On the basis of above discussions major recommendations for improving the Public
Investment Management in Bangladesh are summarized below:
8.1 Project Design, Appraisal and Approval Procedures
(1) At present, too much emphasis is placed on procedural matter during project
appraisal. Although there are detailed procedural and operational Manuals and
Guidelines for the PIM, there are no detailed methodological Manuals and
Guidelines on project preparation and approval. There is need to prepare
detailed Manual and guidelines for methodology for economic-financial-social
cost benefit analysis with bench marks for inflation, discount rate, internal rate
of return (IRR) and shadow prices for energy, foreign exchange, skilled and
un-skilled labor.
(2) All the Divisions of the Planning Commission and the Planning Wings/Cells
of the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies expressed shortage of officers, skilled
manpower and the facilities for Information and Communications Technology
(ICT). The concerned administrative Ministries/ Divisions may conduct
detailed studies on the Human Resource Development and needs for computer
hardware and software and technical manpower. However, this aspect does not
fall under the purview of the present DMTBF Project.
(3) Planning Wings/Cells of the LM/divisions/Agencies and Sector Divisions of
the Planning Commission need to be given desired training on all aspects
relating to the Public Investment Management. These include project
conceptualization, project design, feasibility studies, detailed project appraisal
reports, economic/ financial cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact
analysis. For technical divisions/ agencies such as Petrobangla and Power
Division, there will be additional needs for technical training relating to their
specific fields. A separate report18 has been produced on the Training Needs
Assessment (TNA) of the pilot LMs/Divisions/ Agencies.
(4) DPEC/PEC is the basic step/level where decisions for approval/rejection of
investment proposals are taken on the basis of ex-ante techno-economicfinancial appraisal by the concerned Agencies/ Divisions. Quality of project
proposals put up for consideration of the ECNEC can be ensured at the level
of DPEC/PEC. Almost the same functional units participate at the meetings of
the DPEC and PEC chaired by the Secretary (LM) and Member of the
concerned Division of the PC, respectively. However, investment size and
participation of officials level and quality at PEC/DPEC have been changing
in the inverse order since long. This is an important operational area that needs
to be critically examined in more details for suitable reforms in the PIM.
18
Summary Results of Diagnostic Survey on Business Process Review And Training Needs
Assessment (TNA) of Line Ministry (LM)/Division/Agency Planning Wings for Strategic Planning and
Integrating Planning with MTB, pp.1-103, Component 3, DMTBF Project, Ministry of Finance,
Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, March 2011.
22
(5) Delegation of financial limits on investment size and procedures for project
approval at different levels (starting with the DPEC/LM and going up to the
PEC/ ECNEC/ NEC) need to be examined and reviewed to reduce time taken
for project appraisal and to reduce project costs due to time overruns.
8.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Implementation
(1) Despite significant progresses on project/program implementation monitoring
and evaluation in recent years, our diagnostic study indicates that the IMED,
Sector Divisions of the planning Commission, and the Planning Wings/ Cells
of the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies need further strengthening of their
information and communications technology (ICT) and training on techniques
on Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Implementation. The result-based
monitoring and evaluation system is absent for practical purpose in the IMED/
Planning Commission/ LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies. Although there are detailed
formats for monitoring and evaluation of the ongoing projects and to prepare
the terminal reports after the completion of a development project, there are no
detailed guidelines and manuals on result based monitoring and evaluation.
(2) Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Reports and Terminal
Project Implementation Reports are considerably delayed for many projects
due to existence of too many ongoing projects/ programs. There is need to
reduce the delay in preparation and submission of these reports to make them
more effective.
(3) There are too many projects under implementation creating problems for
producing monitoring and evaluation reports in time for effective monitoring
of projects. Multiple projects with similar strategic objectives may be
integrated/ consolidated/ combined under single Program, if feasible, for better
implementation and coordination. This needs introduction of Performance
Based Program Budgeting (PBPB) in Line Ministries/ Divisions.
(4) As planned by IMED, the process of development of online monitoring
software and website need to be completed, put in place for public use and
brought to logical end on time. This would reduce time lag considerably and
the monitoring reports would be more effective, productive and transparent.
(5) Programming and Sector Divisions of the planning Commission, and the
Planning Wing/Cells have diverse functions and responsibilities in public
investment management starting with project conceptualization and ending
with project monitoring and evaluation. In fact they have major roles in the
complete cycles of public financial management reforms. All the Divisions of
the Planning Commission and the Planning Wings of the LMs/ Divisions have
expressed shortage of personnel, desired skill and ICT system to conduct their
works more efficiently and within specified time limits. Capacity building of
human resources and upgrading of the ICT system may be given priority in the
reforms process to bring reforms to their logical ends.
23
(6)
All the Divisions of the Planning Commission, IMED and the Planning
Wings/Cells need to be strengthened in terms of manpower, skill and
provisions of ICT. They need to be manned by technical and professional
cadre and be trained in all aspects relating to project preparation, appraisal,
implementation and Result-Based M&E.
8.3 Result Based Monitoring and Evaluation
(a) GED in the PC in collaboration with the IMED may take the lead responsibility to
institutionalize result-based M&E system.
(b) It is recommended that a specialized unit may be set up within the GED of the PC
to conduct these activities.
(c) The Planning Cells in the Divisions/ Agencies, and the sector divisions in the PC
may be given necessary training to collect basic data and information and to
support the specialized unit in the GED/PC.
(d) The capacities of the GED, IMED, PWs in LMs/Agencies will need to be
strengthened with better staffing, technology and training.
(e) Good practice results-based M&E from international experiences from similar
countries need to be studied and adapted.
(f) The capacity of BBS will be further strengthened to generate required data for M&E.
This could entail special-purpose surveys
(g) Strong results-based M&E will require collaboration with the LMs, research
institutions, and civil society.
(h) ICT needs to be improved and workshops need to be organized for wider
dissemination of M&E results.
(i) Detailed guidelines and manuals need to be prepared before initiating pilot studies.
24
Selected References
Brendon Goudry (2011) C3-Diagnostic Methodology, February 2011, DMTBF
Project.
Das, Tarun (2011a) Background Note and Questionnaire for Diagnostic Assessment
of Line Ministries Capacity for Planning, Project Preparation, Appraisal, Monitoring
and Evaluation And Integrating Planning with Budgeting and MTBF, Feb 2011,
DMTBF Project.
Das, Tarun (2011b) Background Note and Questionnaire for Diagnostic Study on
Business Process Review and Training Needs Assessment of the General Economics
Division (GED) and the Programming Division (PD) of the Planning Commission,
June 2011, DMTBF Project.
Das, Tarun (2007a) Preparation of Strategic Business Plans- Structural Framework
and Guidelines to Line Ministries, pp.1-74, ADB Capacity Building Project on
Governance Reforms, MOF, Mongolia, Sep 2007.
________(2007b) Interlinkages between UN MDGs, National Development Plans
and Poverty Reduction Growth Strategy - Selected Country Experiences from
ESCAP, Part-1, pp.1-84, Part-2, pp.1-78, UN-ESCAP, Bangkok, Oct 2007.
Das, Tarun (2008a) Manual of Procedures and Guidelines for Medium Term
Budgeting and Program Budgeting for Line Ministries in Mongolia, pp.1-47, ADB
Capacity Building Project on Governance Reforms, MOF, Mongolia, Jan 2008.
________(2008b) Budget Performance Evaluation- Methodology, Systems and
Management, pp.1-53, ADB Capacity Building Project on Governance Reforms,
MOF, Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, April 2008.
________2008c) Program Budgeting, Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and
Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), pp.1-51, ADB Capacity
Building Project on Governance Reforms, MOF, Mongolia, May 2008.
Das, Tarun (2010a) Relation between PFM Reforms, Macroeconomic Reforms and
Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (PRGF)- AfDB Institutional Support
Project for Economic and Financial Governance, MOF, the Gambia, April 2010.
________(2010b) Relation between Public Financial Management (PFM) Reforms,
Macroeconomic Policies, and Monetary and Fiscal Policies, AfDB-ISPEFG,
Ministry of Finance, the Gambia, Banjul, April 2010.
Dorotinsky, Bill (2007) From Line-item to Program Budgeting Opening the 'blackbox' of spending, pp.1-3, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF Website. www.imf.org
Finance Division, Ministry of Finance (2005) Public Expenditure Management
Manual, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
25
Halan, Steeve (2010) Diagnostic Methodology for Business Process Design and
Analysis, prepared by C5, DMTBF Project.
Kim, John M. (2007) edited. From Line-item to Program Budgeting- Global Lessons
and the Korean Case, pp.1-281, Korea Institute of Public Finance and the World
Bank, Seoul, Korea.
http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/bookprogrambudget.pdf
Kusek, Jody Zall and Ray C. Rist (2004) Ten Steps to a Result-based Monitoring
and Evaluation- A Handbook for Development Practitioners, pp.1-268, World Bank.
Mercer, John (1993) The Model Performance Budgeting System, John Mercer
website www.john-mercer.com
Muktadir Majumder (2011) Current Budget Preparation and Implementation
Procedure for Sectoral Projects A Case Study for the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare (MOHFW), DMTBF Project.
Office of Management and Budget (2007) Program Assessment Rating Tool
Guidance No.2007-02, vii+pp.1-82, Executive Office of the President, United States
of America, Washington D.C. 20503, January 29, 2007.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb
Paniec, Bill (2011) Discussion Paper on Economic and Functional Classifications of
Budget Receipts and Expenditure.
Quang, Paulette (2011) Diagnostic Study Report prepared for C1.2, DMTBF Project.
And PPP on MTBF in Bangladesh- Summary of Key Diagnostic Findings on Budget
Planning and Preparation, Diagnostic Study Report prepared for C1.2, DMTBF
Project.
Rajaram, A.; T.M. Le, N. Biletska, & J. Brumby (2010) A Diagnostic Framework
For Assessing Public Investment Management, World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper No.WPS5397, Washington D.C.
Shahjahan. S.M. (2010) PC and the LM Planning Wings/Cells Diagnostic Study of
planning and development budget.
Smith, Jonathan (2011) Templates for Training Needs Assessment, DMTBF Project.
Tareque, Mahammed (2006) Linking Budgeting and Planning- Bangladesh
Experience, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh and Asia Pacific Community of Practice
on Managing for Development Results, July 2006, www.cop-mfdr.adb.org
26
27
28
29
Annex-1
Role of Indian Planning Commission for Project Appraisal and Approval
Project Appraisal & Management Division (PAMD) of the Indian Planning
Commission is mainly responsible to undertake techno-economic-financialenvironmental appraisal of all plan project /schemes of Ministries/ Departments of the
Government of India to facilitate investment decision by the Expenditure Finance
Committee (EFC)19/ Standing Finance Committee (SFC20)/ Public Investment Board
(PIB)21. The Investment proposals of Ministry of Defense, Department of Atomic
Energy and Space are out of purview of appraisal by EFC/ PIB. Besides, PAMD
develops formats, methodology and guidelines for the submission of proposals for
projects / programs and for their techno- economic-financial-environmental
evaluation.
As a part of techno-economic-financial appraisal, PAMD presently appraises Central
Sector/ Centrally Sponsored schemes/ projects costing Rs.50 crore and above, and
prepares Appraisal Notes in consultation with the Sector Division of the Planning
Commission before submission to the Public Investment Board (PIB), Expenditure
Finance Committee (EFC), Committee of Public Investment Board (CPIB) and
Expanded Board of Railways (EBR), depending upon the nature and size of the
proposal. The outer limit for issue of appraisal note by the PAMD has been fixed at
six weeks from the date of receipt of PIB/EFC proposal. The delegation of powers for
appraisal and approval of Plan Projects/ Programs are indicated in Table-1:
Table-1: Delegation of powers for Appraisal and Approval of plan
Projects/Programs
Investment
Limits
(Rupees crore)
Less than 25
=25 but <50
=50 but <100
Initial TechnoEconomic
Appraisal
Planning Wing of
Administrative
Ministry
Planning Wing of
Administrative
Ministry
PAMD with
support of Sector
Final Appraisal
Forum
Final Approval
Forum
Secretary of the
Administrative
Ministry/Department
Standing Finance
Committee (SFC)
Secretary of the
Administrative
Ministry/Department
Minister in charge of
the Administrative
Ministry
Minister in charge of
the Administrative
Standing Finance
Committee (SFC)
19
Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) is chaired by the Secretary of the administrative Ministry and
consists of Secretary (Planning Commission) and Secretary (Expenditure) or their representatives as
Members, and Financial Adviser as the Member Secretary.
20
Standing Finance Committee (SFC) is chaired by the Secretary (Administrative Ministry) and
consists of Financial Adviser (FA) and JS/ Director (concerned Division) as Members. Chairman or FA
may invite representatives of PC, Dept of Expenditure or any other Department, if necessary.
21
Public Investment Board (PIB) is chaired by the Secretary (Expenditure) and consists of secretaries
of Economic Affairs, Planning Commission, Public Enterprises, Program implementation, Environment
and Forests, agriculture, Social justice and empowerment, concerned Ministry, Chairman of the Central
Electricity Authority and Chairman of the Central Water commission as Members.
30
Investment
Limits
(Rupees crore)
Initial TechnoEconomic
Appraisal
Division of PC
Final Appraisal
Forum
PAMD with
support of Sector
Division of PC
PAMD with
support of Sector
Division of PC
PAMD with
support of Sector
Division of PC
EFC chaired by
Secretary of the
Administrative
Ministry
EFC chaired by
Secretary of the
Administrative
Ministry
Public Investment
Board (PIB)
Final Approval
Forum
Ministry
Minister in charge of
the Administrative
Ministry/Department
Jointly by the
Finance Minister and
the concerned
Minister
Cabinet/ Cabinet
Committee of
Economic Affairs
(CCEA22)
22
CCEA is charmed by the Prime Minister and consists of Ministers for Finance; Defense; Agriculture;
Food & Civil Supplies; Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution; Railways; Chemicals and Fertilizers;
Steel; Road Transport & Highways; Shipping; Commerce & Industry; Power; Rural Development;
Communications & IT and the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission as a Special Invitee
31