DRAFT

31 October 2011

Public Investment Management in BangladeshProcedures, Systems, Methodology and Processes

And Suggestions for Improvement1,2

Contents
Abbreviations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Scope and Methodology

Public Investment Management Cycle
Project Design, Appraisal and Approval Procedures
Project Implementation System
Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Implementation
Result Based Monitoring and Evaluation
Annual Development Programme
Recommendations
8.1 Project Design, Appraisal and Approval Procedures
8.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Implementation
8.3 Result Based Monitoring and Evaluation
8.4 Annual Development Programme

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

Asian Development Bank

Annual Development Program
ADP Review Committee
Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics
Budget Circular
Budget Management Branch
Budget Management Committee
Budget Monitoring and Resource Committee
Business Process Review
Bangladesh Railways
Budget Working Group
Chief Accounts Officer
Controller General of Accounts
Campaign for Popular Education
Central Procurement Technical Unit
Departmental Project Evaluation Committee
Debt Management and Financial Analysis System
Department of Public Health Engineering
Development Project Proforma/ Proposal
Detailed Project Report
Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education
External Affairs Division
Executive Committee of the National Economic Council
Education for All
Education Management Information System
Economic Relations Division
Foreign Aid Budget Accounts
Finance Division
Financial Minister
Financial Systems Management Unit
Gap Analysis Program
General Economics Division
Government of Bangladesh
Human Resources
Integrated Budget and Accounting System
Information and Communication Technology
Implementation, Monitoring & Evaluation Division
International Monetary Fund
Internal Resource Division
Key Performance Indicators
Line Ministries
Monitoring & Evaluation
Ministry Budget Frameworks
Macroeconomic Wing
Management Information System
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Primary and Mass Education

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

1. Scope and Methodology

The basic purpose of this report is to make a critical study of the system, procedures,
process and methodology for the public investment management in Bangladesh and to
suggest measures for improvement in the system. The report is based on a diagnostic
study of the selected Divisions of the Planning Commission and the Planning Wings
of selected Line Ministries (LMs). Initially the International Technical Expert and
National Consultants prepared detailed background notes and a questionnaire for the
Business Process Review (BPR) and Training Needs Assessment (TNA) of the
Planning Commission and LMs for the Public Investment Management (PIM) in
Bangladesh. The BPR was conducted by adopting the methodology designed by the
Component-54 and the TNA was conducted by the Template designed by Component95 of the DMTBF Project.
Diagnostic studies for five selected LMs (viz. Agriculture; Communication;
Education; Primary & Mass Education; Power, Energy and Mineral Resources) and
17 planning wings under the five LMs/ Divisions and Agencies were completed in
March 2011. A detailed diagnostic report was prepared on the planning wing issues
and provided a work plan for integrating medium term planning with medium term
budgeting and Public Investment Management (PIM). A series of additional
diagnostic studies that examined the major components of the Annual Development
Programme (ADP) were concluded in May 2011. In June 2011 a report described
training outlines for preparing medium term strategic business plans, project
feasibility reports and financial-economic-social cost benefit analysis and a
methodology for results based monitoring.
Studies indicate that considerable progress has been made in Bangladesh since Fiscal
Year 2005-2006 to link medium term planning with budgeting and to establish a link
between budget allocation and policies and priorities of the Government and between
budget and results. However, the existing links between planning, budgets and results
are weak and need to be strengthened. The capacities of the planning wings/ cells of
the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies also need to be improved for performing their
respective tasks under the ongoing DMTBF Project and for Public Investment
Management (PIM).
The Ministry Budget Framework (MBF), the Annual Development Programme (ADP)
and the Public Investment Management encompassing project preparation, approval,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation are the important vehicles for linking
planning with budgeting. Planning wings have the responsibility of assisting the line
ministry for all these diverse activities, but responses to our questionnaires indicated
that they lack adequate manpower, technical skill and availability of desirable
information and communications technology (ICT) for conducting these activities.
2. Public Investment Management Cycle6
4

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

Efficient management of public investment with better designing, prioritization,

implementation and monitoring is very important for sustaining growth and achieving
the objectives of poverty reduction. International experiences indicate that reforming
public investment management (PIM) systems is very challenging and require
efficient organization. Managing sophisticated investment projects in infrastructure,
including public-private partnerships (PPPs), with their wide spread financial,
economic, social and environmental impact is not only institutionally complex, but
also politically challenging.
Project approval and review form an integral part for the preparation of the Annual
Development Program (ADP) by the Planning Commission (PC), on the basis of
which development budget is prepared. In the following sections, we review critically
the systems and procedures adopted in Bangladesh for each of these activities viz.
project design, preparation, approval, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and
review.

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:

Flow-Chart-1: The eight must-have features of an efficient PIM system

(Ref: A. Rajaram et. all (2010), WB)

3. Project Design, Appraisal and Approval Procedures

Institutional arrangements for project preparation, appraisal and approval
In general there are two categories of development projects viz. Investment Projects
and Technical Assistance Projects (EA). After identification of project, its preparation
is initiated by the concerned agency in consultation with the Planning Wing of the
Line Ministry/ Division. There are detailed operational and procedural guidelines and
formats issued by the Planning Commission 7 for submission of project proposals for
subsequent processing, appraisal and approval by the Line Ministries, Planning
Commission and the Executive Committee to the National Economic Council
(ECNEC) depending on the size of the project.
For preparation of the development budget, the Programming Division (PD) of the
Planning Commission prepares an Annual Development Programme (ADP). Project
proposals approved by the line ministry and submitted to the Planning Commission
are considered for inclusion in the Annual Development Programme (ADP).
Classification of Projects, selection and role of project directors.
There is no general classification of the development projects as such except that the
ADP includes separate lists of approved, unapproved, revised unapproved and new
projects. Broadly, as mentioned above, the projects are classified as Investment,( and
delete) Technical Assistance (TA) and Self Financed Projects. However, for the
purpose of inclusion in the ADP the Planning Commission sets out a number of
criteria which are mentioned in the ADP Circular issued by the Programming Division
to line ministries in the month of April every year.
The role of the Project Directors (PD) is very important for the implementation of a
Project. There is no general guideline for selection and appointment of Project
Director. In fact the qualification and experience of a PD varies from project to
project and mentioned in the DPP. In practice, this is not strictly followed. In general,
a senior officer of the EA is appointed as a full time Project Director for proper
implementation of the project. Appointment of the PD is the prerogative of the Line
Ministry. For highly complex, big and aided projects in some cases the development
partners unofficially intervenes in the selection of PD.
Procedures and Time Schedules for Project Preparation, Appraisal and Approval
Procedures for project design, preparation and approval for Investment Projects and
Technical Assistance (TA) Projects are summarized in Tables 3A and 3B respectively.
Approval authorities of development projects/ programmes depending on their sizes
are summarized in Table-3C.

Project Preparation, Processing, Approval and Revision Procedures for Public Sector, pp.1-90,
Planning Commission, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, 2008

Table-3A-Summary of Approval Procedures for Investment Projects

Actions

Ministry/
Division/
Agencies
responsible

Investment Projects

A.1

Project conceptualization and

project design

A.2

Preparation of the detailed technoeconomic-financial appraisal report

for a project and submission to the
Sponsoring Ministry/ Division in
DPP format
Submission to the relevant Sector
Division of the Planning
Commission after necessary
examination, modifications and
corrections
Return of DPP to the Sponsoring
Ministry/ Division, if it is
incomplete or grossly lacks vital
information
Processing of DPP by PC and
submission to PEC after necessary
appraisal
Issue of PEC meeting minutes/
decisions

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

Submission of recast DPP on the

basis of PEC recommendations/
comments to the PC
Submission of DPP up to TK 25
crore to ( PC delete ) the Planning
Minister for approval

Sponsoring
Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Sector Division
of PC

Within 15 working
days

Submission of DPP above TK 25

crore to ECNEC for consideration
and approval

Sector Division
of PC

Within 10 working
days

Within 10 working
days

Table-3B Summary of Approval Procedures for Technical Assistance Projects

Actions

Ministry/
Division/
Agencies
responsible

TA Project Approval Process

B.1

Preparation of the project

proposal in Pre-PP Format and
submission to the Planning Cell
of the Sponsoring Ministry/
Division (SM/D)
Examination and finalization of
the project proposal

B.2

B.3

B.4
B.5

B.6

B.7

Circulation of the proposal to

PC, IMED, FD, ERD and other
concerned agencies for
comments and review
Inter-Agency Committee
meeting under the Sec (SM/D)

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)

Submission for approval to the

Minister of the SM/D for
projects up to US$1.00 ( 1.29
delete) million as development
partners contribution
Submission for approval to the
planning Minister for projects
above US$1.00 ( 1.29 delete )
million as development
partners contribution
Total processing period:
(a) In the Sponsoring
Ministry/ Division
(b) In the Planning
Commission

Time limit

Within 14 working days

Within 14 working days

(a) 30 working days

(b) 45 working days

Table-3C: Approval Authority of the Development Projects/ Programmes

Category

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.

Planning Wing Executive

As indicated
in the Line
Committee of
in Tables 3A
Ministry/
the National
and 3B
Division;
Economic
Concerned
Council
Wing/ Sector
(ECNEC11)
Division of
the Planning
Commission
Source: GOB Project Approval Process- A Scoping Study, Aid effectiveness Unit, Economic
Relations Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.

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

Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) comprises PM as

Chairperson, FM as Alternate Chairman, and Ministers of Planning, Agriculture, Labor and
Employment, Water Resources, Commerce, Shipping, Communication, and Minister/State minister of
the concerned Ministry as the Members. It is supported by the Cabinet Secretary, Principal Secretary
and Secretaries of the PMO, ERD, FD, IMED, Planning Division, Programming Division, GED and
the concerned LM/Division. The functions of the ECNEC, amongst others, include: (a) to consider and
approve project concept papers for all investment projects, public sector projects having investment
above Tk. 250 million and investment companies as private, joint ventures with foreign participation.
At present, the meetings of ECNEC are held almost every week.

(A) Project Conceptualization, Design and Preparation

1.

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.

(B) Project Appraisal

3.

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.

The planning officials working in the Sector Divisions of the Planning

Commission and in the LMs/ Divisions/ Agencies are generally involved in
routine type functions and procedural matter relating to the preparation and
analysis of the DPP/RDPP and TPP/RTPP for submission to the higher
authorities in LMs/ PC for approval of projects. They are involved in basic
techno-economic-financial-social appraisal of projects/Programmes.

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

by the LMs/Division/Agencies which need to have much longer vision and

consolidated strategic objectives.
(C) Project Approval Process
7.

Approval process involves divisions/agencies at the bottom to PEC/ ECNEC at

the highest level via LM and PC. As mentioned earlier, data/information for
DPP/TPP (TAPP delete) are collected and estimated mostly at the Divisions
level through its functioning Cells and other internal and external sources.
Departments/agencies prepare the DPP/TPP (TAPP delete) and send it to the
concerned LM for examination in the PW/C. The LM PW/C examines the
proposals and secures the approval of the Secretary/Minister and sends the
DPP/TPP ( TAPP delete) to the concerned Sector Division of the Planning
Commission. The PC examines the proposal and initiates approval process
through Project Evaluation Committee (PEC); first step in approval process.
After recommendations (approval delete ) by the PEC, the proposal is sent to
ECNEC Secretariat in the PC for processing for submission to ECNEC ( /NEC
delete ) for consideration and approval.

8.

Sometimes, formal/informal discussions/meetings, if required are held among

concerned officials of LM, PC, ERD, MOF, IMED etc to sort out issues.
Programme/Project proposal, if needed are sent back to its source for correction,
revision, changes etc at any level of approval process. Approval process has
some element of decentralization in approval procedures as described in Table3C. For example, Minister for Planning has the authority to approve investment
project/programme up to cost of TK 250 million and LM Minister can approve
up to cost of TK 70 million for Technical Assistance Project and up to TK 20
million for Survey/ Feasibility studies.

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

4. Project Implementation System

Implementation of development project is carried out by a Project Director under the
continual direction of a Project Steering Committee specified in the DPP/ TPP for
Development Projects and Technical Assistance Projects respectively.
Composition and TOR of the Project Steering Committee
Composition of the Steering Committee depends on the nature, importance and size of
the Project. For large Investment Projects the Steering Committee is headed by the
Secretary of the concerned Ministry. For TA Projects an Additional Secretary or a Joint
Secretary heads the Steering Committee. In exceptional cases Secretary of the Ministry
heads the Steering Committee (SPEMP, for example).
The Steering Committee oversees the overall implementation of a project, reviews and
monitors the progress and resolves problems and issues arising during implementation of
the project. The Steering Committee usually meets once every quarter, but it can also
meet any time for resolving any pressing issue.
Normally, a Project Steering Committee has the following composition:
(1) Secretary of the concerned Ministry

Chairman

(2) Head of the Agency

Member

(3) Representative of Donor (for large investment projects)

Member

(4) Joint Secretary (Development)

Member

(5) Joint Chief (Planning)

Member

(6) Representative of IMED

Member

(7) Representative of Ministry of Finance

Member

(8) Representative of Planning Commission

Member

(9) Representative of ERD( For aided Projects)

Member

(10)

Member
Secretary

Project Director of the concerned Project

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

(b) Composition of the Project Steering Committee for Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) Project: Phase-2 executed by the Dept. of
Agricultural Extension (DAE)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture

Executive Chairman, BARC
Director General, DAE
Director, Plant Protection Wing, DAE
Director General, IMED
Joint Chief, MOA
Joint Chief (Crop Wing), Planning Commission
Additional Director (P&E) Wing, DAE
Project Director

Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Secretary

1.4 Composition and TOR of the Project Implementation Committee (PIC)

A Project Implementation Committee (PIC) is formed to monitor and supervise the
execution and implementation of a project. The Head of the concerned Executing
Agency is the Chairman of the PIC. The composition is as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Head of the Agency

Deputy Chief/ Secretary (Dev) of the Ministry
Representative of IMED
Representative of Planning Commission
Representative of ERD( For aided Projects)
Project Director of concerned Project

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

(c) The Committee meets as and when necessary

For example, composition of the Project Implementation Committee for
Construction of Khulna-Mongla Port Rail Line executed by Bangladesh
Railways stands as follows:
(1) Director General, Bangladesh Railways (BR)
(2) Addl. Director General/ M&CP, BR
(3) Addl. Director General/ I, BR
(4) Addl. Director General/ RS, BR
(5) Addl. Director General/ OP, BR
(6) General Manager/ West, BR
(7) Joint Chief, RRD, MOC
(8) Joint Secretary (Dev), MOC
(9) Joint Chief, Physical Infrastructure, PC
(10)
Chief, Engineer/ West, BR
(11)
Chief Planning Officer, BR
(12)
Project Director (ENC/P)

Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Secretary

Composition of the Project Implementation Committee for Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) Project: Phase-2 executed by DAE stands as the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Director General, DAE

Director, Field Service Wing, DAE
Director General, DAE
Director, Plant Protection Wing, DAE
Additional Director (P&E) Wing, DAE
One representative from MOA
Project Director

Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Secretary

Project Management and Project Director

The details of the project management setup for the project implementation, and
institutional arrangements for subsequent operation and maintenance of a project are
indicated clearly in the DPP and TPP for investment projects and technical assistance
projects respectively.
The role of the Project Directors is very important for the implementation of a project.
There is no general guideline for selection and appointment of a Project Director. In
fact the qualification and experience of a Project Director varies from project to
project and mentioned in the DPP/ TPP. In practice, this is not strictly followed. In
general, a senior officer of the concerned agency is appointed as a full time Project
Director for proper implementation of a project. Appointment of the Project Director
is the prerogative of the Line Ministry. For highly complex, big and aided projects in
some cases the development partners unofficially intervenes in the selection of Project
Director.

14

5. Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Implementation

Monitoring has two parts: Internal monitoring and external monitoring. Traditionally,
internal monitoring is the responsibility of the administrative line ministry which
holds monthly ADP Review Meeting to monitor the financial and physical progress of
projects included in the ADP. All concerned officials of the ministry and
representatives of the Finance Division (FD), Economic Relations Division (ERD),
Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) and Planning
Commission (PC) are represented in the ADP Review Committee (ADPRC).
Secretary of the concerned ministry generally chairs such review meeting. In some
cases or in some Ministries, the Minister himself holds such meetings. Apart from
financial and physical progress, different issues facing the project implementation and
time and cost overruns are discussed in the review meeting. The Planning Wing/Cell
performs as the secretariat of the ADPRC and prepares the working paper. In most
cases, the administration division is well represented in the ADP review meetings.
The external monitoring and evaluation of the public sector development projects
/programmes included in the ADP is the responsibility of the Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) of the Ministry of Planning. IMED
prepares monthly, quarterly and annual monitoring and evaluation reports on the basis
of data and information sent by concerned Division/Agency in standard formats
during the implementation of the projects, and submits these reports to the Executive
Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC), Line Ministries and others
concerned parties whenever necessary. Where possible, IMED seeks to explain the
constraints in implementation and reasons for time and cost overruns so that
corrective measures can be taken in time.
Final Annual Report of IMED is presented in the NEC meeting. In contrast, revenue
budget, which constitutes of about 70 percent of total budget, remains outside the
purview of watch and continues to be routine type. Review of physical
implementation progress is in rudimentary stage. In some cases, after the introduction
of MTBF, physical progress issues come up in review meetings.
Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) in the IMED has made significant
advance in introduction of procurement manual, guidelines, rules and regulations.
Procurement plan presentation formats are appended with DPP/RDPP/ TPP/RTPP.
There are various Rules and regulations for procurement planning. These issues are
being examined in a separate Diagnostic study.
DPP annual phasing of project cost has rare links with actual development budget
allocation. In most cases, actual provision is less than the amount shown in the DPP.
Consequently, project/ programme implementation falls behind target. Lack of
required resources, change of priority etc may be some of the reasons for insufficient
provision. DPP phasing of implementation of project may also be another factor
affecting implementation because in most the cases the DPP phasing of project costs
is not done on the basis of rigorous feasibility analysis.

15

Role of IMED for Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Implementation

IMED monitors more than 1200 projects under the ADP and evaluates around 200 projects
on an annual basis. Under the ADP implementation status IMED publishes monthly,
quarterly and annual progress reports for all LMs and also for the top 10 ministries with
largest allocations. The main reports emanating from the IMED are:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)

Monthly performance evaluation of projects of the Ministries/Divisions,

Quarterly performance evaluation reports of ADP included projects,
Annual review report on ADP implementation,
Annual project evaluation reports, and
Impact assessment reports conducted by the external bodies.

The basic thrust of IMED's M&E activities is identification of implementation problems

and their timely resolution to accelerate project progress and to reduce time and cost
overruns. All the reports prepared by IMED contain implementation problems and
suggestions for appropriate actions. These problems are discussed in ADP Review meetings
held at the Ministry, the NEC and the ECNEC, and appropriate measures and policies are
identified to resolve project problems in time.

Role of Respective Divisions/ Agencies

IMED is assisted by the concerned Divisions/ Agencies to produce these reports. Some
of the Divisions, like the Power Division has developed efficient ADP Project
Monitoring and Evaluation System. Power Division is currently monitoring more than
45 projects with 11 agencies and provides up-to-date project status (Physical &
Financial). Previously the system was managed manually with several ledgers.
Presently the project management system has been automated to keep records and to
generate up to date reporting. This software, designed and developed with the direction
and supervision of Joint Chief, Power Division, has the following major features:

Web based application using Unicode Bangla.

Authorized users can login and use this application through Internet.
Managing the information regarding projects, agencies and donor agencies.
Monitoring ADP/RADP allocation and procurement plan of the projects under
different agencies.
Tracking the fund allocation and release of ADP and RADP against a project.
Tracking financial & physical target & progress report of a project.
Generating the financial and physical progress report (including BAR Chart)
of a project.

Online Reporting of IMED Reports

Recently IMED has strengthened its website and developed a software to prepare and
publish its reports online15.
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

6. Result-Based Monitoring and Evaluation

Post project evaluation/ Result-based evaluation is different from the terminal project
implementation and evaluation report as discussed under section 4 above. Post project
evaluation basically implies an impact analysis of a project in terms of exact outputs 16
and outcomes17. The IMED monitoring report examines the financial and physical
compliance i.e. comparing actual project costs and acquired assets with the budgeted
project costs and assets procurement to determine time and cost overruns. But, we
need to compare actual outputs with targeted outputs to evaluate efficiency of a
project, and to compare actual outcomes with targeted outcomes to evaluate
effectiveness of a project.
Table-5: Evaluation System
Type of Evaluation
Compliance

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)

Conducting a readiness assessment;

Agreeing on outcomes to monitor;
Selecting indicators to monitor;
Establishing baseline data on indicators;
Planning for improvements- selecting result targets;
Monitoring for results;
Emphasizing the role of evaluation;
Reporting the findings;
Using the findings; and
Sustaining the M&E system within organization.

Strengthening Result Based Monitoring Project of IMED

This project has started in July 2007 and was expected to complete by June 2009. The
project was funded by an Asian Development Bank grant of US$ 800,000 and
Government of Bangladesh contribution of US$ 2,00,000. The main objective of the
"Strengthening Result Based Management Capability of IMED and FAPAD in the
Monitoring and Evaluation of the Projects" was to help improve the efficiency in
resources use by enhancing the project monitoring capacity of Implementation
Monitoring & Evaluation Division (IMED) and auditing capacity of Foreign Aided
Project Audit Directorate (FAPAD).
The project delivered the following benefits:
(i) Strategic plan for IMED and action plan for strengthening its functions,
staffing, organizational structure and reporting relations;
(ii) Capacity needs assessment and a capacity building training plan supporting
implementation of the strategic plan;
(iii)Targeted capacity building activities, including training on M&E, RBMS,
MIS, Performance Audit and other areas

18

(iv) Development of Web-based technology for data entry and establishment of

linkage for online and offline data transfer from LGED. WDB, PDB, REB,
RHD. BCIC, DOF, CGA Office, M/O. Finance, Programming Division &
GED;
(v) Further functional enhancement of database and expansion in the short and
long terms;
(vi) PC based tools for computerized audit management.
(vii) Gradually extend the system of different level of Implementation
including Line Ministries, Agencies and projects in the light of Malaysian
Model;
(viii) Continue training on PMIS, M&E even after completion of the project;
(ix) Engage consultants on small scale from GOB budget to facilitate regular
maintenance of the PMIS.

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.

7. Annual Development Programme (ADP)

Annual Development Programme (ADP) and Revised ADP (RADP) prepared by the
Programming Division (PD) of the Planning Commission (PC) are two important
documents for linking development planning with budgeting. ADP or RADP in
Bangladesh can be considered to be equivalent to the Public Investment Programs
(PIP) in other developing countries.
The Annual Development Programme (ADP) is the formal mechanism for getting the
development projects on board for implementation. The Programming Division (PD)
of the Planning Commission (PC) is the key agency responsible for preparation of
ADP and the Revised ADP (RADP). Determination of the sizes of the ADP and
sectoral allocations, formulation of ADP and revision of ADP are the main functions
of the Programming Division.
ADP preparation is a regular event and is an important task of the Programming
Division and the Sector Divisions of the Planning Commission. Macro-economic
conditions, availability of domestic and external resources, and utilization of the
RADP are reviewed while formulating ADP for the next year. All stakeholders

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

rationalization of projects is required.

Table-7.1 Life span and size of new Projects included in ADP for FY2011-12
(Taka in Crore)

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.

8.4 Annual Development Programme

(1) We need to prepare detailed Guidelines and Manual for preparation of ADP
and sectoral allocation of funds.
(2) Timing of ADP preparation by the PD needs to be synchronized with the
timing for the preparation of the total budget by the FD.
(3) We need to prepare a Medium Term Public Investment programme (PIP) as in
other developing countries. It would allow the Line Ministries/ Divisions as
well as donors to have a medium term view of the investment needs for the
sector/ sub-sector. It will also enable the planners and the budgeting experts to
integrate more effectively medium term planning with medium term
budgeting.
(4) ADP classification into sectors/ sub-sectors and the FD sector classifications
need to be aligned with each other for effective integration of sector-wise
development and non-development budgets and reclassification of sectoral
expenditure under capital and current expenditure.

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

Officials Documents and Reports Consulted:

1

Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh, Website

www.mof.gov.bd
1.1 Budget Circular-1 for the preparation of 2011-12 Budget, FD,
1.2 Budget Circular-2 for the preparation of 2011-12 Budget, FD,
1.3 Budget Speech of the Honorable Finance Minister for the Year 2010-11
1.4 Budget Speech of the Honorable Finance Minister for the Year 2011-12
1.5 Medium Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF) for 2010-11 to 2012-13,
Finance Division.
1.6 Concept Paper on Unified Budget and District Budget
1.7 Guidelines for Preparation, Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation of NonDevelopmental Budget Proposals, July 2010
1.8 Codes for Chart of Accounts
1.9 Classification Chart for Economic Codes, Financial System Management
Unit (FSMU), CGA.
1.10 Karmasuchi Revised 2010
1.11 Towards Revamping Power and Energy Sector: A Road Map, June
2010
1.12 Public Expenditure Management Manual 2006

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Bangladesh, Website

www.moa.gov.bd
2.1 Organogram (Organizational Chart)
2.2 Citizens Charter
2.3 Selected DPP

Ministry of Communications, Government of Bangladesh, Website

www.moc.gov.bd
3.1 Organogram
3.2 National Land Transport Policy
3.3 Management Manual of Ministry of Communications
Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh, Website
www.moedu.gov.bd
4.1 Organogram
4.2 Education Policy 2010
4.3 Strategic Plan, and Guidelines for Education
4.4 Education management and structure
4.5 Monthly Progress Report July 2010

27

Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Government of Bangladesh,

Website www.mopme.gov.bd
5.1 Organogram
5.2 Education for All (EFA)
5.3 National Plan of Action (APA II) (2003-20150
5.4 Non-Formal Education Policy

Planning Commission, Government of Bangladesh, Website

www.plancomm.gov.bd
6.1 Organogram
6.2 Citizens Charter
6.3 National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction II (FY 2009-2011)
(NSAPR-II)
6.4 MDG Needs Assessment and Costing 2009-2015
6.5 Project Preparation, Processing, Approval and Revision Procedures for
Public Sector, 2008
6.6 Survival and Resettlement Policy Framework
6.7 National Agriculture Policy 2004
6.8 Outline Perspective Plan of Bangladesh 2010-2012, Making Vision 2021
A Reality, pp.1-98.
6.9 Annual development Program (ADP) 2010-2011, June 2010
6.10 Revised Annual development Program (RADP), 2010-2011
6.11 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Progress Report 2009

Implementation Monitoring Evaluation Division, Government of

Bangladesh, Website www.imed.gov.bd
7.1 Strategic plan
7.2 Citizens Charter
7.3 IMED Formats for Monitoring and Evaluation
7.4 Reports- Progress Reports, Top Ten Ministries, Other Ministries
7.5 Strengthening result Based Monitoring Report

Energy and Mineral Resources Division, Government of Bangladesh,

Website www.emrd.gov.bd
8.1 Organogram
8.2 Vision and Mission
8.3 Functions and Functional Structures
8.4 Planning and Development Activities
Power Division, Government of Bangladesh, Website
www.powerdivision.gov.bd
9.1 Organogram
9.2 Upgraded 3-year Road Map (2008-2010)

10 Bangladesh Railways, Government of Bangladesh, Website

www.railway.gov.bd
10.1 Organogram
10.2 Citizens Charter
10.3 Annual Report (2010-11) of Bangladesh Railways.
10.4 Selected DPP of the Bangladesh Railways.
10.5 Roads and Railways Digital Bangladesh

28

11 Bangladesh Roads Website www.rhd.gov.bd

12 Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation www.badc.gov.bd
12.1 Citizens Charter
12.2 Vision and mission
12.3 Organogram
13 Petrobangla, Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Corporation,
www.petrobangla.org.bd
13.1 National Energy Policy
13.2 Draft Coal Policy
13.3 Bangladesh Gas Act 2010
13.4 Monthly Information Report (MIS) December 2010
13.5 Annual Report 2008
14 National Web Portal of Bangladesh, www.bangladesh.gov.bd
14.1 Government Vision 201
14.2 Citizens services
14.3 Ministries and Divisions

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

=100 but <150

PAMD with
support of Sector
Division of PC

=150 but <300

PAMD with
support of Sector
Division of PC

=300 and above

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)

PAMD is headed by an Adviser & supported by Joint Advisers, Deputy Advisers,

Senior Research Officers, Research Officers, Section Officer and other supporting
staff. EFC/PIB proposals pending for appraisal in PAMD and list of Appraisal Notes
issued are placed at the Website "EFC/PIB Proposals" of Planning

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