II. Donor/GOB Line Agency - Lead Agency Projects
In this approach, poverty alleviation projects are designed at least on paper by the GOB and selected Donor
agency. However in reality most of these projects have been the products of different mission reports
commissioned by the donor. In fact, on the whole, these projects are manifestations of the Donors' disbelief in
the capability of GOB agencies.Under this model a specific GOB line agency is formally assigned to run the
project while the Donors provide a Project Advisory Team. The Donors usually impose an elaborate project
specific institutional arrangements. The project is managed by an international project management firm with
highly salaried expatriate resident advisers and consultants.
There are many different variations in project design regarding the distribution of actual decision making and
management responsibilities between the donor appointed Chief Technical Advisor (CTA)/ Chief Project
Coordinator (CPC) and the Line agency appointed Project Director (PD). In most projects the final decision
making authority lied in the hand of the CTA/ CPC. Some projects have developed a system of "dual authority"
between the CTA/CPC and the PD (Raquib, 1992). The line between advisory and decision making functions in
this arrangement has created severe management crisis 6.
Noakhali Rural Development Project -II is one of such projects worked through a number of different line
agencies 7 as implementers of different components while BRDB acted as the lead agency. The combination of
BRDB as lead agency and other line agencies proved to be problematic. In the light of the operational
experiences and to make the project more responsive and effective, the donor at one point insisted on the
inclusion of the NGOs in the project. All participating agencies especially BRDB resisted the inclusion of the
NGOs. Consequently a review mission sponsored by the Donor recommended to remove BRDB as the lead
agency of the project (DANIDA,1989).
Like other RD-Projects, NRDP was highly staff intensive with a considerable TA 8 competent. Dualism of
authority, lack of motivation of the local staff and the salary differential between TA staff and GOB staff posed
serious problem to the project (Wood, 1988; Norby & Ali,1992). The NRDP was ultimately terminated resulting
in large-scale redundancies and the loss of valuable staff experienced in rural development, as the line agencies
could not absorb most of the additional staff who had been funded by the Project.
The original intention of this model as an integrated collaborative effort was not achieved. Neither at the level of
integration of function nor in terms of service delivery mechanisms the project could show any sign of success.
Various coordination committees at different levels intended to bring integration proved to be highly ineffective
(DANIDA, 1989). Management system sometimes was "chaotic" and "counter-productive". Thus the model of
management.
No comments:
Post a Comment