SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM

EMERGENCY NORTHERN RECOVERY PROJECT

S.S.JanenCIC Seed and Horticulture Farm, Research and Facilitation, CIC Agri Business (Pvt) Ltd

S.S.Sivakumar Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Jaffna

The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to support for rapidly resettle the IDPs in the Northern Province

Project Profile

1. Component A - Emergency Assistance to IDPs – US $ 2 m

2. Component B - Work-fare Program (Cash for work) US $ 10.5 m – Co financed by Aus AID.

3. Component C - Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Essential Public and Economic Infrastructure - US $ 60 m

4. Component D - Project Management Support – US $ 3 m

Project Period : 2010 – 2013 (4 years)

Project Fund : US $ 75.5 Mn

Target beneficiaries : 45,000 families

Component wise project allocation

Com A 248,3%

Com B1170,14%

Com C6897 79%

Com D, 3784%

Com A Com B Com C Com D

Component Total Allocation

Com A 248

Com B 1170

Com C 6,897

Com D 378

Total 8,693

Introduction to ENReP

• Scope of the project is to supporting the IDPs in the Northern Province to resettle in their place of origin to start their lively hood after the announcement of victory against the long lasted civil war in the Northern and Eastern regions of Sri Lankan

• The initial Project Management team had huge challenge in selection and prioritization of works

Parties tried to manipulate selection

– Government of Srilanka– Local and National politician and their so-called

supporters– Government Officers – Sri Lankan Army – NGOs – Community

At this junction generalized criteria for the selection process which justified the selection in the sustainable manner was implemented by the project management in selection and prioritization of the sub project

Objective of the Study

• Development Objective • To recommend a generalize selection and prioritization criteria

for sustainable infrastructure project identification

• Specific Objective – To review the implementation achievement of the selected sub

projects of ENReP – To identify the problems faced in carrying out the selection

criteria– To modify the selection criteria to avoid the problem faced

during the implementation and to recommend generalized selection criteria for sup project selection

Methodology Used

• Mathematical and graphical approach used to review the implementation achievement of ENReP. – Allocation over Expenditure– Target over Achievement– Sector vice allocation and fund utilization – Committed over Completed sup projects

Focus Group Discussion

• ENReP Managerial Level Staff • ENReP Field Level Staff• Government Officers• Community Leaders• Local Politicians

Based on the Focus Group Discussion’s finding and the suggestion made by the officers generalized selection criteria was modified and generalize selection criteria for the sup project selection was made-up.

Component wise Allocation Vs Expenditure as at 30.11.2013

Com A Com B Com C Com D0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

248.00

1,170

6,897

378.00245.00

1,170

6,417

374.00

Allocation Expenditure

Component A Component B Component C Component D 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Allocation 2010-2013 Cumulative Expenditure 2010-2013 Allocation 2010-2012 Cumulative Expenditure 2010-2013

Component vice allocation and disbursement

Target and Cumulative Expenditure as at 30.09.2013

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

1st Qtr

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

500750

1200

1800

2350

3000

3758

4628

5350

60006500

69057390

78908140 8308

8693

10475

1207

17662251

2831

3730

4549

51895546

6338

6860

73377827

8069

TargetRs. Mn

ExpenditureRs. Mn

Roads Irrigation Buildings Water Supply0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

No. of works committed No. of works completed

Target Vs Completed Detail of Component C Sub Components

Problems Faced During the Implementation

• Even though the 75% of the contract were National Competitive Bidding (NCB) national level politician try to make a way to involve in the process.

• This was modestly omitted because of the transparency of the process which created a competition among the contractors in the initial period (2010-2011).

• To achieve their willingness in the contractual performance: the top most level staffs created this system were removed from the project to make the project bias for National Politics.

• Fortunately this was not achieved as expected because around 80% of the selections have been completed and works have been awarded during the period of 2010-2011.

• After that around 65 % of the contracts have been given as Direct Contract, Which created miss handling money and unwanted political base expenses

• This project becomes very popular and successful because of the early commitment of prioritized works.

• The trend of the project in the later phase emphasizes that, if early commitment was not done the miss handling of money and also the shifting of sup project for politically beneficial location may increase drastically.

• Social related problems also have been identified during the implementation of the programme.

• powered group try to penetrate in to the setup and get maximum out of the whole.

• But this was tactically handled by the environmental and social division of the ENReP project and the screening process and community awareness programme was made the whole community empowered.

• Interference of Sri Lankan army also observed during the selection process.

• They have participated in all community based programmes as un-invited gust and they try to insert their way of thought.

Selection Criteria Implemented

• Initially most wanted infrastructure such as bus stand, market, post office, DS office have been decided by the officers

• In the mean time community mobilization have been carried out and the community was empowered to identify their own needs at the latter stage.

• Community indentified need from the village level and prioritize by officers

• Officers will send the needs to the PMU with the justification

• Final decision by the PMU

Selection Criteria and Modification Based on the Experience

• District Project Management Units have been involve in the selection criteria.

• They have facilitated the process and help the community to end up with the most suitable and sustainable need assessment for their present and future need.

• Then it has been reviewed by the officers and they will modify it and send to DPMU and they will recommend and give their comments and send to PMU.

• PMU will analyze the sustainability, feasibility and the environmental aspects and approve the sub project and will continue the contractual process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

• Staff of Emergency Northern Recovery Project, Ministry of Economic Development

• World Bank• Government Officers• Community Leaders

REFERENCE • Environmental and Social Assessment and Management Framework,

Emergency Northern Recovery Project, Ministry of Economic Development. 2009

• World Bank & Government of Sri Lanka, 2009. Project Paper, Emergency Northern Recovery Project.

• British Red Cross, 2005. Cash for Work Workbook Sri Lanka Red Cross • Thatcher Cook, Shirine Bakhat and Jason Sangster, 2007. Guide to Cash-for-

Work Programming, Mercy Crop. • Sivakumar, S.S.2013. Post Conflict Socio-Economic Recovery of a disaster

Affected Society by Engineering intervention of restoration of blasted Kalmadu Irrigation scheme with Environmental mitigation methods. RJSITM.

• Sivakumar, S.S. 2013. Investigation of Emergency Northern recovery Project (ENReP) in conflict affected north Sri Lanka. International Journal of Science and It Management

Giants Tank Thank you