IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS
6.1 For realisation of the intended plan objectives, the quality of design and the manner of implementation of programmes/ projects are as important as the availability of resources. Our past experience has been that many programmes and projects, which have laudable objectives, have failed to deliver the results because of failures in implementation. Time and cost over-runs in infrastructure and investment projects have been widespread and substantial. Many development programmes have also not had the desired impact on the well-being of the poor because of inadequate administrative planning and implementation. An area of priority of' the Ninth Plan is to improve project implementation and delivery mechanisms and to ensure that intended benefits actually reach the people. No new Programmes or project should be launched without paying Sufficient attention to these aspects.
Review of past experience 6.2 A recent review of 110 major projects, each costing Rs.100 crore or more, in 9 major economic sectors by the Department of Program Implementation showed that the time over-run varied between 7 to 56 months. A study on a few major projects indicated that the cost over- run, for reasons other than inflation and changes in duty/exchange rate regimes, varied between 40% to 75% of original estimates. As a result, net accretion to capacities is not commensurate With the level of gross investment.
6.3 Among factors responsible for time and cost over-runs are :
- Poor project formulation due to inadequate field investigation lack of adequate data, inadequate analysis of environmental and rehabilitation implications, changes in prices and exchange rate regimes, etc.
- Delays in clearance from various regulatory agencies in land acquisition and in procurement of materials. Such delays are primarily due to poor project planning, as these Problems are not explicitly considered at the planning stage.
- Changes in design or scope of project midway through execution.
- Inability of the project management to take prompt decisions on cost increases even when the objective circumstances warrant such decisions.
115
- Management problems such as personnel, labour and contractor disputes, mis-match of equipment, etc.
- Inadequate and untimely release of funds.
- Unforeseeable factors such as adverse geo-mining conditions and natural calamities.
6.4 Project planning has to be more scientific and approval procedures more strict to ensure that avoidable time and cost over-runs are much less frequent. The approval procedure should be linked up with early completion of incomplete projects and sustainability of project output. Because of the less stringent approval procedure, there is a tendency to get too many projects cleared without the requisite financial resources in sight. At the same time, it is important to ensure that rigour in appraisal and planning itself does not become a cause of delay because of repetitive and multi-level examination of technical and economic data. Strict time-tables need to be laid down for completion of approval processes and preliminary work.
6.5 Implementation of projects will considerably improve if the planning and approval procedures become more scientific and rigorous. However, there is need for effective project Management to track the progress in implementation and take the necessary corrective actions, as the progress may be affected by unforeseen factors. Thus, monitoring and evaluation system must be strengthened and implementing agencies must be made accountable for non-adherence to the plan of work.
6.6 Sustainability of project output is an area which has received much less attention in the planning process. This is the primary reason for the deteriorating conditions of assets and low capacity utilisation. The project design Should include the parameters which bring out clearly as to how the project output. in the form of goods and services will be sustained during operation, how various assets will be maintained and quality ensured. This question is also linked with the issue of 'pricing, of project output. This also must be squarely addressed and project authorities should have complete freedom to price their output to recover legitimate costs and generate a reasonable surplus for further investments.
6.7 In the case of development programmes, factors affecting the performance can be broadly categorised into two, namely, those relating to diversion, non-utilisation and misuse of funds and those relating to programme formulation and implementation. A review of several development schemes shows that in many of these nonutilisation and diversion of funds to other purposes were quite significant. Since diversion of funds leads to sub-
116
optimal performance of programmes and denial of benefits to beneficiary groups, it is essential that this problem be addressed jointly by the Centre and States in all poverty alleviation schemes in the spirit of cooperative federalism.
6.8 Evaluation studies conducted by the Planning commission also suggest that the poor performance of development programmes/projects is primarily due to deficiencies in planning and implementation. Adequate attention is seldom paid to assessment of beneficiary needs, fixation of criteria for selection of target groups, choice Of implementation methods and delivery systems, adequacy of physical and financial inputs, choice of indicators to be monitored and sustainability of programme benefits. Rigid guidelines for implementation of programmes, high operational costs, improper targetting leading to leakage of benefits to areas/people not targetted, extending the coverage of a programme to a larger (than desired) area/population to avoid the risk of "exclusion", inadequacy of the delivery systems of most programmes etc. are all reflections of inadequate planning of programmes before implementation.
6.9 Effective programme formulation calls for a detailed analysis of available information on the socioeconomic and cultural profiles of the target population across States, regions and districts, and of the ways in which the project is likely to affect or be affected by the social, economic and political environment in which it operates. This would enable the concerned agencies to assess the relative effectiveness of different implementation methods, their Cost implications arid the likely impact of the project on target groups. However, a detailed analysis of this type is not always possible for various reasons,, viz.; non-availability of the required data base, time and resource Constraints, complex and ever-changing inter-action between the project and its environment, unusual variations local conditions and the like.
6.10 A more practical approach to programme formulation, Particularly for social sector Programmes, is to put the lessons: learned from the experience to practice. The Planning Commission alone has, till date, evaluated nearly 170 programmes. Governments, at both the Centre and state levels, can save considerable time and resources if the findings of evaluation studies are put into practice to select socially acceptable and operationally practical implementation methods. This will avoid inappropriate assumptions about the needs or forms of cooperation of the target population and help select appropriate implementing agencies.
6.11 The lessons learnt from the experience of development schemes during the, last forty years can be briefly summarised as follows:
117
(i) There is inadequate analysis of available information during programme formulation. This happens primarily because there is no established mechanism through which programme agencies can have ready access to the relevant information regarding target groups/areas or the findings of evaluation studies. As a result, avoidable errors at the planning stage creep in. For example, in a programme designed for empowerment of rural women, the basic and well known fact that most women in India are illiterate was not explicitly considered to formulate the operational rules and to design the delivery system. In one rural employment generating programme there was no correspondence between the seasonal variations in labour supply and the release of money for undertaking employment generating schemes. The installation of piped water supply schemes in areas with erratic electricity supply without the provision of adequate electricity is another example. Some rudimentary analysis of available information and logical framework analysis would have helped avoid such- errors that lead to wastage of resources and sub-optimal programme impact.
(ii) Formulation of multiplicity of programmes in a narrow area of social concern without any specific thrusts can lead to several problems. Available resources are spread too thinly across a large number of projects Leading to sub- optimal project outcome. For the out-of-school girl children, for example, a number of programmes are currently in operation. In the formal system itself, special incentives for girls are provided in most States and some of these schemes (as in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra) have improved the retention rate of girl children. The girl centres under Non Formal Education (NFE), Scheme for Adolescent Girls in Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), National open schools, Ashram schools in tribal areas and some special component plans are also trying to reach the same target group. Many such centres in the non-formal sector do not attract adequate response. As a result, grassroot level education centres turn out to be nonviable and ineffective.
(iii) The general approach in implementation is top-down, and 'target-oriented'. Some physical and financial targets are sought to be achieved in most programmes. However, evaluation studies by Planning Commission reveal that fulfillment of these targets does not necessarily ensure that the programme objectives are being met. In many antipoverty programmes, though the targetted number of families/ beneficiaries /districts/villages have been
118
covered and the allotted money spent, such programmes have failed in making the desired impact on the well being of the beneficiaries. The implementing agencies are often more concerned with the fulfillment of targets assigned to them than with the actual flow of benefits to the target groups.
(iv) For some programmes (like Desert Development, Integrated Tribal Development and District Industries Centres) separate implementing agencies are created, whereas these are actually implemented by the existing line departments, who work independently for different components of a programme. This leads to lack of focus on target groups, wastage of resources and lack of coordination among the line departments. The creation of such agencies without the necessary institutional changes makes these agencies redundant and affects the implementation and operation of programmes.
(v) Monitoring and Evaluation (M/E) of programmes are undertaken to introduce the necessary correctives in programme formulation and implementation. In spite of the existence of an elaborate M/E system in the country, the findings of M/E are not put to use for a variety of reasons. First, the physical and financial indicators regularly monitored often do not reflect on the actual impact of the programmes and are, therefore, of little use in diagnosing the problems in implementation. In an area development programme, for example, it was found that, while at the aggregate level the targets with regard to areas under forestry, irrigation and soil conservation were achieved, the primary objective of the scheme, viz. ; integrated watershed development was no' achieved, as these activities were not integrated at the watershed level. Second, whatever information is generated through the M/E system, these are not analysed with problem-solving perspective to aid the implementing agencies to reassess the original schedule of work. Third, there is no mechanism through which the planners and implementing agencies can have ready access to information in a format that is useful to them. Publicity and systematisation of available information in a user- friendly format is needed to ensure their use in decision making.
(vi) Lack of accountability of the implementing agencies either to the Government or to the people has been the single major cause for misappropriation of funds In development programmes. It is well known that implementing agencies and programme managers can get away easily with time and- cost over-runs or nonfulfillment of' targets by attributing these to factors beyond their control. In many cases they are
119
indeed justified, as most programmes leave too many loose ends at the planning stage. Nevertheless, several cases of misappropriation of funds meant for -anti-poverty programmes have also come to light. In one of the employment generating schemes, it was found that the muster rolls were not maintained at the grass root level. A Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) has unearthed several cases of large scale misappropriation of funds in rural development programmes in four districts of one State. This happened primarily because of lack of people's participation in the implementation of programmes, the lack of transperancy in the operation of schemes and inadequacy of the monitoring mechanism. Suitable institutional reforms , involvement of the people and grassroot level nongovernment agencies in formulation and implementation are needed to overcome this problem.
(vii) The operational cost of some programmes tends to be abnormally high partly because of redundant and ineffective administration, and partly due to other inadequacies in planning and implementation. In a programme for rural women, it was observed that the unit delivery cost was nearly four times the benefit received by a beneficiary.
(viii) Several social sector programmes are formulated without addressing the question of sustainability of benefits. The primary objective of such programmes Should be to build the capability of the vulnerable groups to be self- reliant. In reality, most programmes run with ever expanding government budgets and thus preempt resources which could find better alternative uses. It is possible to recover the full or a part of the operations and maintenance costs of many programmes if delivery of services in Programmes is improved and if people are involved in the formulation, implementation and operation of schemes.
Pre-conditions for Success 6.12 The general weakness in programme formulation and implementation notwithstanding, there have also been several cases of success. The success stories of Mahila Samriddhi Yojana and Accelerated Rural Water Supply in some districts, Mahila Samakhya in Andhra Pradesh and Rashtriya Mahila Kosh in the southern States are among such examples. Some programmes have also made perceptible impact on the well. being of beneficiaries. The impact of (a) the scheme for Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA) on rural women of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Nagaland and Tripura; (b) the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) on the rural poor of Maharashtra; and (c) the Self- Employed Women's
120
Association (SEWA) on self-reliance and employment of women, has been encouraging. Such success stories have generally come about where different models of participation by people's institutions are functioning or dedicated government officials took keen interest in implementation of programmes. Studies show that these institutions have the following essential ingredients:
- they are owned and managed by users/stakeholders, producers or beneficiaries.
- they are accountable to the community.
- they have the capacity to be self-reliant over a period of time.
- they have the capacity to diagnose the needs of areas, interact with Government agencies in order to draw needbased local level plans and to implement these in close Cooperation with the administration.
- they tend to bring about the integration of various segments of the society for achievement of common goals of development. The involvement of these institutions has contributed to better planning and implementation as programme are then identified, selected and designed keeping in view the local conditions. Awareness generation among beneficiaries, which is critical to their participation in implementation, takes place automatically in this process of identification and selection of programmes.
Strategy for the Ninth Plan 6.13 In view of the above lessons from experience and also because of the increasing financial and competitive pressures in which the Government has to operate, it has become necessary to introduce the necessary correctives to reverse many of the unsustainable trends in programme/project formulation and implementation. This be a central priority of the Ninth Plan.
6.14 For infrestructure and investment projects', emphasis will be laid on maintenance and better utilisation existing assets/capacities on the one hand, and early Completion of incomplete projects, on the other, so that productivity of existing assets improves and benefits are realised early. Formulation and implementation of programmes similar to the Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Program must be given priority. In fact, the Commission has already issued some guidelines in this regard. The salient features of these guidelines are:
- projects due for completion in the Eighth Plan and in which less than 10% of approved outlay has been spent
121
should be considered for discontinuation/shelving;
- projects which were nearing completion in the Eighth Plan should be taken up for accelerated completion with revised time and cost estimates;