ISLAMABAD, Nov 11: The Asian Development Bank-funded $1.8 billion governance-related reform programme is failing to meet its objectives owing to the government’s waning interest. But the nation will continue to pay the price for its failure, according to an internal ADB assessment.

The assessment completed by ADB’s Operation Evaluation Department says that corruption has devolved with the devolution programme and the government priorities towards major governance projects like access to justice, decentralisation support and province-level resource management “now are less clear”.

The final outcome of the reform programme may not be different from the poor results of the Social Action Programme of the 90s, says the assessment.

“When ADB approved the funds, the government strongly needed them to address a fiscal crisis. This is no longer the case,” because the aftermath of the 9/11 resulted in a major increase in funding to Pakistan, said the assessment, adding that technical assistance loans “attached to these programmes generally have failed”. The OED’s final view, however, rated ADB’s own operations in the governance sector between modest and substantial.

Ironically, reasons for failure of technical loans are not clear and appeared to reflect “lack of ownership by executing agencies. Since these technical loans were designed to produce outputs essential for the achievement of outcomes, this is a concern. Essentially, such loans were accepted by the government as necessary condition for gaining access to the much larger policy-based loan funds”.

Even where the assessment noted some successes, it was noted “a decisive influence of a few individuals with a vision derived from a theoretical base, good analytical work and effective communication and advocacy skills”.

“That a few key individuals could be so influential is instructive in terms of the importance to ADB and its staff. However, reliance on a few key individuals poses risks – if these individuals depart and are not replaced by those with similar skills, the programme quickly can lose its direction and effectiveness”.

The bank said that Pakistan had been a subject of unavoidable complex consequences of a coherent and interrelated strategy.

The establishment of a governance unit in ADB’s resident mission to support the access to justice programme and decentralisation support programme, but not the resource management programmes, was a positive move in terms of committing resources, although the structural separation from the unit responsible for the administration of delegated projects is questionable, said the report.

Another potential risk, according to the bank, is that ADB could outpace the government’s commitment, turning a government-led programme into an ADB-led one.

The experience of the Social Action Programme in the 1990s is instructive. “Some evidence suggest that history is repeating itself – namely, that client interest and demand has waned and the development partners have started to ‘own’ and lead what was a government programme.”

The bank said that a paradox of the decentralization support programme is that, as vertical project – managed at the federal level with provincial programme management units – its management structure was not consistent with its purpose i.e. support to the local governments.

According to the bank, one real problem with the situation is that it is not clear what follows the access to justice or decentralization programme have never been widely shared. Devolved social services programme and resource management programme have been replicated in all provinces but again the longer-term strategic direction is unclear, even in broad conceptual form.

The assessment says that much of ADB’s programme and those of other funding agencies has continued to circumvent the principal means designed for channelling resources to local governments – the provincial finance commissions. This has two dimensions: the special grants that bypass the provincial finance commissions and vertical projects.

Likewise, the federal programmes like Access to Justice and decentralisation support have suffered because of variable performances of provinces. Poorly performing provinces have held up tranche releases, thereby penalising the better performers.